---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 83

                             Headlines


AFFINION GROUP: Response to Suits Stayed Pending Consolidation
AFFINION GROUP: No Writ Granted for Dismissed Suit v. Webloyalty
AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet for Dismissal of Conn. Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit v. Webloyalty for Review
AFFINION GROUP: Sued for "Unauthorized" Billing of Customers

AMERICAN PUBLIC: Hondros College Fights Suit by Former Students
AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Cole Merger
AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MoU to Settle Suit by Realistic Partners
AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over ARCT III Merger
AMERICAN REALTY: Opposes Bid to Amend Claims Over CapLease Merger

AMERICAN REALTY: No Hearing Yet on Motion to Junk "Poling" Suit
AMERICAN WATER: WVAWC Faces Suits Over Elk River Chemical Spill
APPLE INC: Lawyers Argue Over Steve Jobs in "No Poach" Suit
ATLAS ROOFING: Parker Waichman Files Shingles Class Action
AUTOCAR: Recalls 4,100 Trucks With Cummins Natural Gas Engine

BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Copher Suit Denied
BAY VIEW LAW: "Whaley" Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
BB&T CORP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Check-Cashing Fees
BOULDER BRANDS: N.Y. Court Stays Suit Over Fat Free Milk Labeling
BRIDGETON SANITARY: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $6.9-Mil.

CAREER EDUCATION: Final Approval of $27.5MM "Ross" Accord Sought
CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Set for Aug. 4 on Eight Test Cases
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Stayed in "Enea" Student Litigation
CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Student Litigation in Oregon Stayed
CAREER EDUCATION: To Settle Consolidated Student Suit in Calif.

CAREER EDUCATION: Suit by Admissions Representatives on Remand
CAREER EDUCATION: Final Approval of "Nimely" Suit Accord Sought
CE DESIGN: Trial Court Ruling in National Fire Suit Upheld
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
COVIDIEN PLC: Recalls Two Medical Devices for Brain Aneurysms

DANIELLOS PIZZERIA: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
DYNEGY INC: "Silsby" Defendants Move to Dismiss Remaining Claims
ENERGY TRANSFER: Sunoco Pays $950,000 Atty. Fee in Merger Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Denied Stay of Suit Over Southern Union Merger
ENERGY TRANSFER: Southern Union Shareholders Dismiss Litigation

ENTERGY CORP: Oral Arguments Held in Bid to Remand Miss. AG Suit
ENTERGY CORP: Appeal Pending in Power Price Suit Certification
ENTERGY CORP: Gulf States' Operation Spurs Environmental Suits
ENTERGY CORP: Louisiana, New Orleans Units' Operations Spur Suits
EURONET WORLDWIDE: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Former Employee

FREDDIE MAC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit in Ohio
FREDDIE MAC: Court Denies Rehearing of "Kuriakose" Dismissal
FREDDIE MAC: Certification Motion in Suit v. Former Execs Denied
FREDDIE MAC: Seeks to Junk Suit Over Preferred Shares Sale
FIRSTENERGY CORP: FG Sued Over Air Emissions in Coal-Fired Plant

GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Judge to Confirm Shield From Liability Suits
GENESEE & WYOMING: Final Hearing Held in RailAmerica Suit Accord
HERBALIFE LTD: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
HEWLETT PACKARD: "Karlbom" Suit Remanded to San Diego Court
IMMERSION CORP: Shareholders Appeal Dismissal of Cal. Lawsuit

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied
KKR FINANCIAL: Faces 13 Class Action Suits Over KKR & Co. Merger
KROGER CO: Recalls Private Selection Sweet Strawberry Sorbet
LG ELECTRONICS: Accord in Indirect Purchaser Actions Has Final OK
LINN ENERGY: Assad Trust Suit Stayed in Favor of "Hall" Case

LINN ENERGY: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Berry Petroleum Suit
LINN ENERGY: Tex. Court Transfers Securities Lawsuit to New York
LINN ENERGY: Motion to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
MEDICINES CO: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New Jersey

MEDIVATION INC: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit Under Appeal
METLIFE INC: Still Faces Securities Suit by Retirement Systems
METLIFE INC: Objects to Remand of Ala. Stock Suit to State Court
METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in TCA Litigation
METLIFE INC: Dismissal of Suit by Retired GM Employees Affirmed

METLIFE INC: MLIC Faces Indemnity Claim From Sun Life in Canada
METLIFE LIFE: Faces Litigations Over Alleged TCPA Violation
MONTREAL: Tenants File Class Action Against Social Housing Agency
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Deceptive Ad Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
NEW JERSEY: Witnesses Get Subpoena on Bridgegate Closure Probe

PETSMART: Recalls About 10,200 of 1.75 Gallon Glass Fish Bowls
PFIZER INC: Faces "Croom" Suit Alleging Lipitor-Related Injury
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Sued Over Involuntary Unpaid Pregnancy Leave
PNC BANK: Facilities Not Fully Accessible to Disabled, Suit Says
PUBLIC MOBILE: May Face Class Action Over Cell Contract Changes

STATE STREET: Judge Tosses GM Workers' ERISA Class Action
TARGET CORP: Tycko & Zavareei Files Class Action Over Wipes
THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: May Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
TIMBERCORP: Melbourne High Court Dismisses Investors Suit
TRANSOCEAN LTD: BP Bid for Review of Macondo Well Accord Opposed

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Ruling on Motion to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit Pending
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces 199 Suits Over Macondo Well Incident
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Has Made Calls w/o Prior Consent, Suit Says
US STOCK EXCHANGES: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.

* EU Eases Rules for Cartel Victims to Claim Compensation


                             *********


AFFINION GROUP: Response to Suits Stayed Pending Consolidation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
entered an order staying the date for all Defendants to respond
to securities suits filed against Affinion Group, Inc. until 21
days after the court rules on the motion to consolidate the
cases, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a
putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in
connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition
Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust
enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit.

On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On
March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit
affirmed the decision of the District Court denying arbitration.
While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.

Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc.,
Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.
The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against
the same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases
assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed
lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs. On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated
these three cases. The court also set an initial status
conference for May 17, 2012. At that status conference, the court
ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to
combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits. The
court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that
had been set previously. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially
the same legal claims. The consolidated amended complaint added
Priceline, Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as
Defendants and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped
Webloyalty and Rakuten as Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all
Defendants filed motions seeking to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint and to strike certain portions of the
complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on February 7,
2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April 5, 2013.
On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the
motions to dismiss. The Company does not know when the court will
rule on that motion. Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs'
law firms in these consolidated cases filed an additional action
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut. That case is identical in all respects to this case
except that it was filed by a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff
from the class action complaint previously filed against the
Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A.,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on November 10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff
filed a motion to consolidate that case into the existing set of
consolidated cases. The Company does not know when the court will
rule on that motion. On June 13, 2013, the Court entered an order
staying the date for all Defendants to respond to the complaint
until 21 days after the court rules on the motion to consolidate.


AFFINION GROUP: No Writ Granted for Dismissed Suit v. Webloyalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition for
writ of certiorari in relation to a previously dismissed suit
alleging among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act against
Webloyalty, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty and one of its clients in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California alleging, among
other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, fraud,
civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and
California Consumer Business Practice violations. This lawsuit
relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after
October 1, 2008. On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit. On April 12,
2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and dismissed all
claims against the defendants. On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a
notice appealing the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed its opening
appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2011, and
defendants filed their respective answering briefs on December
23, 2011. Plaintiff filed its reply brief on January 23, 2012. On
January 11, 2013, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the
plaintiff's appeal and, thereafter, took the matter under
advisement. On April 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit decided
Plaintiffs' appeal dismissing the case without prejudice.
Thereafter, on May 9, 2013, Plaintiff petitioned for rehearing of
the Ninth Circuit's decision, which petition the Court rejected
on May 20, 2013. The District Court followed the mandate of the
Ninth Circuit and finally dismissed the action on June 24, 2013.
On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Webloyalty filed
an opposition on October 21, 2013. On December 2, 2013, the
United States Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition for writ
of certiorari.


AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet for Dismissal of Conn. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's second
motion to dismiss a suit alleging, among other things, violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violations. This
lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and
after October 1, 2008. On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved
to dismiss the initial complaint, which plaintiff then amended on
November 19, 2010. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a
second motion to dismiss this lawsuit. The court has not yet
scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's second motion to
dismiss.


AFFINION GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit v. Webloyalty for Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
indicated that it would review submissions related to the
dismissal of a suit against Webloyalty that allege unlawful
business practices in violation of California Business and
Professional Code and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 7, 2012, another class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the foregoing
California and Connecticut actions. The action claims that
Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq.
and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with
enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged
plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained
through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from
plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact
information, as purportedly required under Restore Online
Shoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, scheduling a
hearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also
sought judicial notice of the enrollment page and related
enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition
on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission
on January 7, 2013. Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the Court
cancelled the previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and
indicated that it would rule based on the parties' written
submissions without the need for a hearing, although it has not
yet done so. On August 28, 2013, the Court sua sponte dismissed
plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by
September 30, 2013. The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on
September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had
and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy.
On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion on January
27, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the Court indicated that it would
review the submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion
without oral argument.


AFFINION GROUP: Sued for "Unauthorized" Billing of Customers
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group d/b/a Affinion Benefits Group LLC is facing a suit
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for enrolling and billing consumer for a package
program allegedly without their knowledge, according to Affinion
Group, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On February 7, 2014 a class action lawsuit was filed against
Affinion Group d/b/a Affinion Benefits Group LLC and one of its
clients in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief.  Claims are based
on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and billed for a
package program without plaintiff's proper consent and knowledge.
The Company has not yet responded to the lawsuit.


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Hondros College Fights Suit by Former Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit against Hondros College, Inc. by former
students who enrolled in the Associate Degree in Nursing (AND) or
the licensed practical nursing (LPN) filed a motion to dismiss
with prejudice the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, according
to American Public Education, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

From time to time, the company has been and may be involved in
various legal proceedings. The company currently has no material
legal proceedings pending. However, on or about November 18,
2013, a putative class action styled Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn,
on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class v. Hondros
College, Inc. and John G. Hondros, was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, case no. CV 13 817299.
National Education Seminars, Inc., which operates as Hondros
College, Nursing Programs, or HCON, was not named in the lawsuit,
but a member of HCON's board of directors, John Hondros, was
named in the lawsuit, and the allegations made in the complaint
relate to HCON's operations and not the operations of the entity
named in the lawsuit. The lawsuit asserts claims for fraud and
fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, for,
among other things, the alleged provision of false or misleading
information to the named plaintiffs and other putative class
members in 2011 and 2012 regarding the status of accreditation by
National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission of HCON's
Associate Degree in Nursing, or ADN, program offered at its
Independence, Ohio campus.  The plaintiffs allege that the
putative class consists of more than 60 former students who in
the summer or fall quarters of 2011 enrolled in the ADN or the
licensed practical nursing, or LPN, program at the Independence
campus with the intention of pursuing a degree in nursing, but
who withdrew from the ADN or LPN program. On February 11, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint which removed
Hondros College, Inc. as a defendant and added HCON as a
defendant.  On February 24, 2014, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint.


AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Cole Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., and Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the consolidated Baltimore Actions over the companies'
merger, according to ARCP's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

Stockholders of Cole have filed lawsuits and may file additional
lawsuits challenging the Cole Merger, which name and may name
ARCP as a defendant. To date, eleven such lawsuits have been
filed. Two putative class actions have been filed in in the U.S.
District Court of Arizona, captioned as: (i) Wunsch v. Cole Real
Estate Investment, Inc., et al.; and (ii) Sobon v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al. Eight other putative stockholder
class action lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned as: (i) Operman v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (ii) Branham v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (iii) Wilfong v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al.; (iv) Polage v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al.; (v) Flynn v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al.; (vi) Corwin v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al.; (vii) Green v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al.; and (viii) Morgan v. Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc., et al. (collectively, the "Baltimore
Actions"). All of these lawsuits name ARCP, Cole and the Cole
board of directors as defendants. All of the named plaintiffs
claim to be Cole stockholders and purport to represent all
holders of Cole's stock. Each complaint generally alleges that
the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to
plaintiff, the other public stockholders of Cole and to Cole, and
that certain entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches.
In addition, certain lawsuits claim that the individual
defendants breached their duty of candor to the company's
stockholders and the Branham, Polage and Flynn lawsuits assert
claims derivatively against the individual defendants for their
alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to Cole. The Polage
lawsuit also asserts derivative claims for waste of corporate
assets and unjust enrichment. The eight Baltimore Actions were
consolidated on December 12, 2013. The Wunsch and Sobon lawsuits,
which were consolidated by court order on January 17, 2014, also
allege that the joint proxy statement filed in relation to the
Cole Merger contains materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Among other remedies, the complaints seek money
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On January 10, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, ARCP, Cole and the other named
defendants in the Baltimore Actions entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Baltimore Actions to
settle the cases. The memorandum of understanding contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to ARCP's
and Cole's stockholders.


AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MoU to Settle Suit by Realistic Partners
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., and Cole Real Estate
Investments, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the case Realistic Partners v. Schorsch et al., according
to ARCP's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

One additional putative class action has been filed in the
Supreme Court of New York, captioned as: Realistic Partners v.
Schorsch et al. (the "Realistic Partners Action"). This lawsuit
names ARCP, the ARCP board of directors and Cole as defendants.
The named plaintiff claims to be an ARCP stockholder and purports
to represent all holders of ARCP's stock. The complaint generally
alleges that ARCP and the individual defendants breached a
fiduciary duty of candor allegedly owed to plaintiff and to the
other public stockholders of ARCP, and that Cole aided and
abetted those breaches. On January 17, 2014, solely to avoid the
costs, risks, and uncertainties inherent in litigation and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, ARCP, Cole and the
other named defendants in the Realistic Partners Action entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff in the
Realistic Partners Action to settle the case. The memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to ARCP's and Cole's stockholders.


AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over ARCT III Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the ARCT III Litigation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the lawsuit filed by Randell Quaal,
according to American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.'s Feb. 7,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since the announcement of the ARCT III Merger Agreement on
December 17, 2012, Randell Quaal filed a putative class action
lawsuit filed on January 30, 2013 against the Company, the OP,
ARCT III, ARCT III OP, the members of the board of directors of
ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the Company in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York. The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the board of ARCT III breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the
ARCT III Merger Agreement. In February 2013, the parties agreed
to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all
claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III
stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by
that memorandum of understanding, the class action and all claims
asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to court approval.
The proposed settlement terms required ARCT III to make certain
additional disclosures related to the ARCT III Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ARCT III with
the SEC on February 21, 2013. The memorandum of understanding
also added that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to ARCT III's stockholders.


AMERICAN REALTY: Opposes Bid to Amend Claims Over CapLease Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is opposing plaintiffs'
motion in a suit over the CapLease Merger to file a second
amended complaint, according to American Realty's Feb. 7, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since the announcement of the CapLease Merger Agreement on May
28, 2013, the following lawsuits have been filed:

On May 28, 2013, Jacquelyn Mizani filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York against
ARCP, ARC Operating Partnership, L.P., Safari Acquisition LLC,
CapLease, Inc. ("CapLease"), CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner,
LLC and the members of the CapLease, Inc. board of directors (the
"Mizani Action"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the merger agreement at issue was the product of breaches of
fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because the proposed
merger transaction (the "CapLease Transaction") purportedly does
not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease
shareholders, the CapLease Transaction allegedly was not the
result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement
allegedly contains coercive deal protection measures, and the
merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction purportedly were
approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain
defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease, ARCP,
ARC Operating Partnership, L.P. and Safari Acquisition LLC aided
and abetted the CapLease directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.

On July 3, 2013, Fred Carach filed a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York
against ARCP, ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P., Safari
Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner,
LLC and the members of the CapLease, Inc. board of directors (the
"Carach Action"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the merger agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary
duty by the CapLease directors because the merger purportedly
does not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease
shareholders, the CapLease Transaction allegedly was not the
result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement
allegedly contains coercive deal protection measures, and the
merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction purportedly were
approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain
defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that with respect to
the Registration Statement and draft joint proxy statement issued
in connection with the proposed CapLease Transaction on July 2,
2013 that disclosures made therein were insufficient or otherwise
improper. The complaint also alleges that CapLease, ARCP, ARC
Properties Operating Partnership, L.P. and Safari Acquisition LLC
aided and abetted the CapLease directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On June 25, 2013, Dewey Tarver filed a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
against ARCP, ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P., Safari
Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner,
LLC and the members of the CapLease, Inc. board of directors (the
"Tarver Action"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the merger agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary
duty by the CapLease directors because the CapLease Transaction
purportedly does not provide for full and fair value for the
CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction allegedly was not
the result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement
allegedly contains coercive deal protection measures, and the
merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction purportedly were
approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain
defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease, ARCP,
ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P. and Safari Acquisition
LLC aided and abetted the CapLease directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

Counsel who filed each of these three cases reached an agreement
with each other as to who will serve as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel in the cases and where they will be
prosecuted. Thus, on August 9, 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action
filed a motion for stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the
court that they had agreed to join and participate in the
prosecution of the Mizani and Carach Actions in the New York
Court. The Defendants consented to the stay of the Tarver Action
in the Baltimore Court, and on September 5, 2013, Judge Pamela J.
White issued an order granting that stay. Consequently, there has
been no subsequent activity in the Baltimore Court in the Tarver
Action. Also on August 9, 2013, all counsel involved in the
Mizani and Carach Actions filed a joint stipulation in the New
York Court, reflecting agreement among all parties that the
Mizani and Carach Actions should be consolidated (jointly, "the
Consolidated Actions") and setting out a schedule for early
motion practice in response to the complaints filed (the
"Consolidation Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Consolidation
Stipulation, an amended complaint was also filed in the New York
court on August 9, 2013 and was designated as the operative
complaint in the Consolidated Actions ("Operative Complaint").
Pursuant to the Consolidation Stipulation, all Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the Operative Complaint
on September 23, 2013. Plaintiffs' response was due on or before
November 7, 2013. On November 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, which the
Defendants have opposed. A hearing was scheduled on these motions
for March 25, 2014. Pursuant to the Consolidation Stipulation,
certain discovery has been conducted in the Consolidated Actions.


AMERICAN REALTY: No Hearing Yet on Motion to Junk "Poling" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion to dismiss a suit filed by John Poling in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. has been requested, but no such hearing
is currently scheduled, 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 October 8, 2013, John Poling filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against ARCP, ARC
Operating Partnership, L.P., Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease,
CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the
CapLease, Inc. board of directors (the "Poling Action"). The
complaint alleges, that the merger agreement breaches the terms
of the CapLease' 8.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock and the terms of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock and is in violation of the Series B Articles
Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The
Complaint alleges theories of breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease,
Inc. board of directors. The complaint also alleges that ARCP,
ARC Operating Partnership, L.P. and Safari Acquisition LLC aided
and abetted CapLease and the CapLease directors' alleged breach
of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

On November 13, 2013, all counsel involved in the Poling Action
filed a joint stipulation, reflecting agreement among all parties
concerning a schedule for early motion practice in response to
the complaint filed (the "Scheduling Stipulation"). Pursuant to
the Scheduling Stipulation, all Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Operative Complaint on
December 20, 2013. Plaintiffs' counsel timely filed an opposition
to the motion to dismiss, and Defendants were to complete
briefing on the motion via a reply memorandum due to be around
February 21, 2014.


AMERICAN WATER: WVAWC Faces Suits Over Elk River Chemical Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia-American Water Company (WVAWC) faces lawsuits
over the West Virginia Elk River Chemical Spill, according to
American Water Works Company, Inc.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom
Industries, Inc. leaked two substances used for processing coal,
4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, and PPH, a mix of
polyglocol ethers, into the Elk River near the West Virginia-
American Water Company ("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in
Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak
of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection ("DEP"), (Freedom Industries first notified DEP on
January 21, 2014 that PPH was also leaked), WVAWC took immediate
steps to gather more information about MCHM, augment its
treatment process as a precaution, and begin consultations with
federal, state and local public health officials. As soon as
possible after it was determined that the augmented treatment
process would not fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was
reached in consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public
Health to issue a "Do Not Use" order to approximately 300,000
people in parts of nine West Virginia counties. The order
addressed the use of water for drinking, cooking, washing and
bathing, but did not affect continued use of water for sanitation
and fire protection. Over the next several days, WVAWC and an
interagency team of state and federal officials engaged in
extensive sampling and testing to determine if levels of MCHM
were below one part per million (1 ppm), a level that the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency indicated would be protective of
public health.

Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results of the
continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to
help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by excessive
demand, which could have caused additional water quality and
service issues. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC's customers
were subject to the Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance
suggesting that pregnant women avoid consuming the water until
the chemicals are at non-detectable levels remained in place.  In
addition, based on re-analysis of previously saved samples, PPH
was no longer detected at any sampling locations as of January
18, 2014.

On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing
throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of
MCHM are below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency
team established 10 ppb as the "non-detect" level of MCHM in the
water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities
of the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC is continuing sampling
and testing in an effort to pinpoint its flushing activities and
address odor issues.

According to the Company's regulatory filing, an aggregate of 50
lawsuits have been filed against WVAWC with respect to this
matter in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, and West Virginia Circuit Courts in
Kanawha, Boone, and Putman counties. Many of these lawsuits also
name Freedom Industries (which is now in bankruptcy), and a few
also name the Company or other Company affiliates. The plaintiffs
include local businesses, individuals and a Putnam County
municipality. The complaints generally seek class action status;
raise claims based on a variety of tort, statutory and contract
theories; and seek a combination of compensatory damages,
punitive damages, medical monitoring, and other equitable relief.
Frequently cited causes of action include negligence, nuisance,
trespass, strict liability, and violation of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

Additionally, investigations with respect to the matter have been
initiated by the Chemical Safety Board, the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, the West
Virginia Attorney General, and other governmental entities.


APPLE INC: Lawyers Argue Over Steve Jobs in "No Poach" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that more than
two years after his death, Steve Jobs still casts a long shadow
-- over Apple, consumer tech, and over the federal courthouse in
San Jose.  The attention lately hasn't been flattering.

"News flash: Steve Jobs bullied rivals and was kind of a dick,"
reads the headline on a blog post plaintiffs' attorneys plan to
use in a case over alleged no-poach pacts involving Apple and
other major tech companies.  Emails submitted to the court
describe "veiled threats" from an "irate" Jobs.

Accounts that Apple's late cofounder, chairman and CEO was
volatile and hard to work with are hardly revelations, but they
have become a battleground in a class action over recruitment
practices at Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe
Systems Inc.

In a brief submitted on April 17, plaintiffs' attorneys argued
those statements and others are key evidence in their case that
Mr. Jobs conspired with his peers at other major tech companies
not to hire each others' employees in order to keep down wages.

"[T]he force of Mr. Jobs' personality and reputation has been
squarely put at issue by [defense] witnesses and is interwoven
with the facts of the case," states the motion from colead
counsel at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and the Joseph
Saveri Law Firm.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh certified a class of more than
60,000 skilled workers in October, and the massive case is set
for trial in May.  Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. and Pixar
Animation Studios Inc. have already settled similar claims for a
combined $20 million.

Defense attorneys have accused their opponents of attempting a
"free-floating character assassination" against Mr. Jobs and
asked Judge Koh to exclude all evidence relating to Mr. Jobs'
character.

"Rule 404(a) bars plaintiffs' attempt to introduce evidence that
Mr. Jobs was allegedly 'mean' or 'a bully' and acted in
accordance with that character in reaching no-cold-call
agreements," defense attorneys wrote.

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

The evidence defense attorneys want to block includes the
colorfully headlined blog post, as well as quotes from
Walter Isaacson's 2011 biography of Mr. Jobs.

Plaintiffs' lawyers argue the blog post is relevant because it
describes Mr. Jobs' attempt to obtain a no-recruit agreement with
Palm, a smartphone manufacturer later acquired by Hewlett-Packard
Co.

"At worst, the motion signals an intention to interfere with the
presentation of admissible evidence, merely because such evidence
may also reflect poorly on Mr. Jobs," the attorneys wrote.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have already used the Isaacson biography to
show Jobs' involvement with antirecruitment agreements, quoting
the book in a February brief: "Mr. Jobs 'kept a tight rein on the
hiring process.' . . . He 'acted as if he were not subject to the
strictures around him,' and had a 'Nietzschean attitude that
ordinary rules didn't apply to him.'"

Plaintiffs' attorneys also intend to use admissions Mr. Jobs made
in the book as evidence at trial.  It's not the first time the
work would be used in court, they point out, as U.S. District
Judge Denise Cote in the Southern District of New York "cited,
quoted, and relied on" statements from the biography in a federal
case over alleged e-book price-fixing.

Mr. Jobs' 2011 death complicates matters because he can't
testify, said Zelle Hofmann partner Francis Scarpulla, an
antitrust expert not involved in the no-poach case.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have submitted pages of emails describing
Mr. Jobs' alleged intimidation, some of which Mr. Scarpulla said
might be questionable. For instance, emails from Google cofounder
Sergey Brin in 2005: "So I got a call from Steve Jobs today who
was very agitated," one states.  In another, "Basically, he said,
'if you hire a single one of these people that means war.'"
Scarpulla said emails describing Jobs' actions via third parties
could qualify as hearsay. "It's a very complicated issue," he
said.

Character evidence rarely comes up in antitrust litigation,
according to Judith Zahid -- jzahid@zelle.com -- another Zelle
Hofmann partner.  Defense lawyers also asked Judge Koh to exclude
other evidence, including references to Justice Department
investigations of the companies, the settlements with Intuit,
Lucasfilm and Pixar, and to the compensation and personal wealth
of tech executives.

"[U]nlike the individual class representatives, who have chosen
to place their salaries and compensation at issue through this
lawsuit, non-class-members' wealth and compensation are
irrelevant and inadmissible," defense lawyers stated in a joint
motion in limine.

Defense attorneys also want a ban on evidence concerning tech
employees who are not members of the class, including foreign
workers.

That would exclude 2006 emails between Jobs and Google executive
Alan Eustace detailing how Google bowed to Jobs' objections and
canceled plans for a Paris engineering center.  Google wanted to
hire four people who used to work at Apple in Paris, but had
since left the company or given notice.  A one-line response from
Jobs shut down the entire project: "We'd strongly prefer that you
not hire these guys."


ATLAS ROOFING: Parker Waichman Files Shingles Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers, along with co-counsel have filed a class
action lawsuit against Atlas Roofing Corporation d/b/a Meridian
Roofing Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Alexandria Division (Case 1:14-cv312).  The
lawsuit, which was filed on March 25, 2014, was filed on behalf
of Stratford Club Condominium Association who purchased the
shingles and all others similarly situated.  It is alleged that
Atlas Chalet Shingles are defective and prone to early failure.

According to the complaint, Atlas Chalet Shingles do not perform
as advertised.  The lawsuit states that the Chalet Shingles are
marketed as being durable, reliable and compliant with ASTM
standards appropriate for use in homes and other structures.
Furthermore, Atlas assured its customers that the products would
be defect-free for at least 30 years and would take corrective
action otherwise.  However, the Plaintiffs allege that the
shingles do not conform to Atlas' warranties and representations.

According to the complaint, the shingles allegedly contain a
defect that causes the following problems:

Blistering
Cracking
Early Granule Loss
Increased Moisture Absorption
Excessive Water Penetration
Reduced Life Expectancy

The defects in the shingles allegedly result in damage to the
building components of the structures on which they were
installed and damage property within those structures.  It is
alleged that Atlas continued to market and sell the shingles and
make false representations and warranties despite learning that
the shingles are defective.

Parker Waichman LLP continues to offer free lawsuit consultations
to consumers who have purchased Atlas Chalet Shingles as
described in the lawsuit.  For more information, please visit the
firm's Atlas Chalet Shingles Class Action Lawsuit page at
yourlawyer.com. Free case evaluations are also available by
calling 1(800) LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).


AUTOCAR: Recalls 4,100 Trucks With Cummins Natural Gas Engine
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Jaillet, writing for Overdrive, reports that another recall
related to the Cummins and Cummins-Westport natural gas engine
recalls was posted, as Autocar is recalling 4,100 trucks equipped
with the Cummins-Westport ISL G and the Cummins ISX12 G.

Cummins has also submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration a list of truck makers that have been affected by
the recall, and it includes all major North American truck
makers. Paccar and Daimler have already issued recalls for their
brands -- Peterbilt and Kenworth and Freightliner, Sterling and
Thomas Built, respectively.

More details on recalls from Navistar-International, Volvo and
Mack will be posted when notices are filed and published.

The Autocar recall affects year model 2008-2014 models ACX, WX
and WXLL built between July 30, 2007, and Feb. 10, 2014, and
equipped with the two engines are being recalled due to an
potentially malfunctioning intake manifold pressure sensor.

In cold weather, condensation formed in the intake manifold can
freeze and cause the sensor to not work properly, according to
the recall notices.  A malfunctioning sensor could cause exhaust
temperatures to elevate and cause flames to shoot from exhaust
stacks, increasing the risk of fire, the recall notices say.

More than 25,000 ISL G and ISX12 G engines have been recalled by
Cummins and Cummins-Westport.  The recall notices were first
issued in early March by Cummins, and then Kenworth, Peterbilt,
Freightliner and Sterling issued recall notices last month
detailing their connections with the recall.

More than 2,000 2014-2015 model Kenworth and Peterbilt model
trucks were recalled, along with 3,200 Freightliner, Sterling and
Thomas Built model trucks and buses.


BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Copher Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In JAMES D. COPHER, CYNTHIA COPHER, JAMES RICHARD, ROSAMMA
RICHARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, L.P., Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-13-353-M, (W.D.
Ok.), before the Court are plaintiffs' Brief for Resolution of
Joint Status Report, defendants' Brief in Support of Bifurcated
Discovery, and defendants' Brief Regarding Protective Order.

In an order entered April 18, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/qjUftbfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge
Vicki Miles-LaGrange denied defendants' request to bifurcate the
discovery process. Instead, the Court ordered the parties to
confer in good faith and submit a proposed scheduling order.

Judge Miles-LaGrange also found found paragraph 11 of plaintiffs'
proposed protective order, instead of defendants' proposed
paragraph 11, should be incorporated into the protective order.
However, to the extent the parties agree to modify paragraph 11
further, the Court ordered the parties to file a motion for
protective with an agreed upon final proposed protective order.

The Court ordered the parties to file their proposed scheduling
order and the motion for protective order on or before May 12,
2014.

The plaintiffs brought this class action suit against BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP and its successor Bank of America, N.A. on
behalf of similarly situated borrowers who have or had mortgages
serviced by defendants asserting breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and conversion claims. Specifically, plaintiffs
allege that defendants hold their residential mortgages on their
homes, which include a provision requiring plaintiffs to obtain
property insurance for the mortgaged properties. The mortgage
requires that any insurance policy obtained should provide for
allowing any insurance reimbursements for losses to be made
payable jointly to both defendants and plaintiffs, to be applied
to restore the property or, if repair is not economically
possible, applied to the outstanding mortgage in a prescribed
manner. Plaintiffs alleged that their home was damaged, their
insurance made payment, and that defendants simply deposited
these payments instead of applying them to restore the damaged
property or towards the balance of the outstanding mortgage as
required.

James D Copher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by William B Federman --
wbf@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood, Amy H Wellington --
ahw@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood & Patricia I Avery --
pavery@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP.

Cynthia Copher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by William B Federman, Federman
& Sherwood, Amy H Wellington, Federman & Sherwood & Patricia I
Avery, Wolf Popper LLP.

James Richard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by William B Federman, Federman
& Sherwood, Amy H Wellington, Federman & Sherwood & Patricia I
Avery, Wolf Popper LLP.

Rosamma Richard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by William B Federman, Federman
& Sherwood, Amy H Wellington, Federman & Sherwood & Patricia I
Avery, Wolf Popper LLP.

Bank of America NA, Defendant, represented by Benjamin D Spohn --
bspohn@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Brandee L Bruening --
brandee.bruening@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy, David S
Reidy -- dreidy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Joe E Edwards --
joe.edwards@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy, Marc A Lackner
-- mlackner@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Matthew J Brady --
mbrady@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Defendant, represented by Benjamin D
Spohn, Reed Smith LLP, Brandee L Bruening, Crowe & Dunlevy, David
S Reidy, Reed Smith LLP, Joe E Edwards, Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, Marc
A Lackner, Reed Smith LLP & Matthew J Brady, Reed Smith LLP.


BAY VIEW LAW: "Whaley" Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Whaley v. Bay View Law Group, PC,
et al., Case No. 2013-RCCV-415, was removed from the Superior
Court of Richmond County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Georgia (Augusta).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00050-JRH-BKE to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Cosper, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT, PC
          P.O. Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: (706) 722-4481
          Facsimile: (706) 722-9779
          E-mail: ccosper@hullbarrett.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard J. Capriola, Esq.
          WINTER, CAPRIOLA ZENNER, LLC
          One Securities Centre
          3490 Piedmont Rd., NE, Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 844-5700
          Facsimile: (404) 844-5701
          E-mail: rcapriola@wczlaw.net

               - and -

          William G. Leonard, Esq.
          TAYLOR, ENGLISH & DUMA, LLP
          1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 434-6868
          Facsimile: (770) 434-7376
          E-mail: bleonard@taylorenglish.com


BB&T CORP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Check-Cashing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida state
judge has dismissed a putative class action against BB&T Corp.
over nonclient check-cashing fees, finding that the bank is
allowed such charges through the federal National Bank Act
despite a prohibition in Florida state law.

Plaintiff Omar Braham was charged an $8 fee by a BB&T branch in
Orlando as a non-account-holder when he went to cash a $250 check
that a BB&T customer had given him, according to the suit.  He
claimed that, in charging him the fee, the bank failed to "pay or
settle the check according to its term," in violation of Florida
state law.

The plaintiff argued that a jury should make a factual
determination whether the $8 charge administered by BB&T was a
legitimate fee or if the bank did not pay the draft according to
its terms.

"When a draft is given to them and they give you less than the
face amount of the draft, I think what they are doing is
discounting the face value of the draft," plaintiffs counsel Tee
Persad -- attorneypersad@cplspa.com -- of CPLS PA argued,
according to the official transcript of the April 10 hearing.
"It's a factual distinction that's not appropriate for a motion
to dismiss."

But Judge Alice L. Blackwell was not convinced, dismissing all 10
counts of the case with prejudice.  She said she refused to be
pushed into making a factual determination on that point, saying
it was not a material difference.

"No matter what they called it, they called it a fee, and no
matter what you say it was, they were entitled to have recompense
for cashing the check under the state of the law," she said.

The judge instead sided with North Carolina-based BB&T, which
argued that the causes of action in all of the plaintiff's counts
fell under the federal National Bank Act, preempting the Florida
statutes.

The National Bank Act allows banks to "exercise . . . all such
incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business
of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes,
drafts, bills of exchange and other evidences of debt," and
federal code further specifies that a national bank may charge
deposit service charges, according to BB&T's motion to dismiss.

The National Bank Act further says that a state-chartered bank
can engage in this activity in another state regardless of its
laws, if the laws of the bank's home state allow the activity or
allow the same activities as a National Banking Association bank
-- which North Carolina law allows.

"Our statute is real clear, and we filed it with the court.  BB&T
can do anything a national association bank can do and Congress
has said we can do that in Florida through the NBA," BB&T counsel
David S. Hendrix of GrayRobinson PA told the court.

BB&T cited the Eleventh Circuit's 2011 ruling affirming dismissal
of the similar case Baptista et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA,
which was argued by the same attorneys as the plaintiffs in the
current case.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the
Baptista case in October 2011.

"The appeals that have been taken from Baptista . . . have now, I
believe, all failed. So it is clear law before this court that a
national association bank can charge a nonbank customer who is
cashing a check, or presenting a negotiable instrument, a check
cashing fee as they have argued this is," Mr. Hendrix said during
the hearing.

In dismissing the suit, Judge Blackwell rejected the plaintiffs'
arguments that the National Banking Act did not allow for such
broad application as the defendants claimed, and that BB&T's
activity was not permitted under fraud and unjust enrichment laws
in North Carolina.

BB&T is represented by David S. Hendrix --
david.hendrix@gray-robinson.com -- Alissa M. Ellison --
alissa.ellison@gray-robinson.com -- and Christian M. Leger --
christian.leger@gray-robinson.com -- of GrayRobinson PA.

The plaintiffs are represented by Samuel A. Walker --
swalker@cplspa.com -- Tee Persad and Alberto Lugo-Janer --
alugo-janer@cplspa.com -- of CPLS PA.

The case is Ward et al. v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., case
number 2012-CA-0116680, in the Circuit Court for the Ninth
Judicial Circuit of Florida.


BOULDER BRANDS: N.Y. Court Stays Suit Over Fat Free Milk Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
stayed all activities in the case relating to the labeling of
Smart Balance Fat Free Milk by Boulder Brands, Inc. pending a
decision on class certification of a similar case in California,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 21, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the labeling of Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that the label and marketing was misleading because,
although the labels says "Fat Free Milk" the product contains 1g
of fat from the Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products.
After the Company's motion to dismiss was partially granted by
the court, it answered the remaining allegations of the
complaint, denying the substantive allegations. The Company
intends on vigorously defending itself against these allegations.

On July 28, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R)
Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and
deceptive (the "California Case"). The plaintiffs have moved to
file a second amended complaint and to substitute a new class
plaintiff. The Company is opposing both motions. A substantially
similar class action lawsuit related to the labeling and
marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was
filed on August 9, 2012 in the Southern District of New York. In
light of its similarity to the California Case, the Southern
District of New York stayed all activity in the case pending a
decision in the California Case on class certification.


BRIDGETON SANITARY: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $6.9-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greta Weiderman, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports
that the Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill agreed on April 17 to pay a
settlement of $6.9 million in a class-action lawsuit brought
against it by residents who live nearby.

The plaintiffs' attorneys will receive 25 percent of the payment,
and the balance will be shared among more than 400 residences
near the site.  The settlement is subject to final approval by
the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri at a
hearing currently scheduled on Aug. 1.

If enough residents decide to opt out of or object to the
settlement, it might not be approved, said plaintiffs' attorney
Ted Gianaris -- tgianaris@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Browder
Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC.  The class-action suit, filed
in March 2013, alleged that smells released from an underground
fire at the landfill caused a nuisance and reduced the use and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs' homes.

If the settlement is approved, residences will receive their
share as follows, minus attorneys fees and costs:

     -- $35,000 for each address in the Spanish Village/
        Foerster Lane neighborhood

     -- $20,500 for each address in the Terrisan Mobile Home
        Park

     -- $5,250 for each address in the Gallatin Condominiums
        and Apartments

"This settlement provides the landfill's neighbors a fair amount
of money within a reasonable time frame," Mr. Gianaris said in a
statement.

Russ Knocke, director of public affairs at Bridgeton Landfill,
said in a statement that the landfill has invested more than $100
million in site improvements to address the problem.  "We are the
first to acknowledge that the odors have been a source of
considerable public concern and frustration," he said.  "We share
that frustration and hope that the resolution of this suit will
bring peace of mind to our community."


CAREER EDUCATION: Final Approval of $27.5MM "Ross" Accord Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing for a $27.5 million settlement reached
in Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. was set
for April 16, 2014, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming
the Company and various individuals as defendants and claiming
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 "Exchange Act") by making material
misstatements in and omitting material information from the
Company's public disclosures concerning its campuses' job
placement rates and its compliance with accreditation standards.
The complaint further claimed that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their
positions as control persons of the Company. Plaintiff asks for
unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as
ancillary relief. On March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC
Asset Management NV, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement
Systems, and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, as
lead plaintiffs in the action. On May 3, 2012, lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims
alleged in the initial complaint, and naming the Company and two
former executive officers as defendants. Lead plaintiffs seek
damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 19, 2009 and November 21, 2011 (the
"Class"). On October 30, 2012, the Court ruled on defendants'
motion to dismiss, granting it as to one of the former executive
officer defendants and denying it as to the other defendants. On
January 28, 2013, defendants filed answers to the consolidated
amended complaint. Defendants have denied and continue to deny
each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by plaintiffs
in the action and all charges of wrongdoing or liability against
them.

On June 12, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the litigation,
subject to Court approval and settlement of the shareholder
derivative actions and subsequent related claims. Pursuant to the
terms of the agreement, the Class will receive a total of $27.5
million in consideration of the proposed settlement and for the
benefit of Class members participating in the settlement. The
Company's directors' and officers' liability insurers have paid
$22.5 million of the settlement amount, subject to final Court
approval, $10.0 million of which is to be funded pursuant to the
terms of the Proposed Derivative Settlement, as to which the
Company recorded a receivable in the second quarter of 2013. The
Company paid the remaining $5.0 million for the benefit of the
Class. However, the Company is seeking recovery of that amount
from one of its insurers, Axis Insurance Company, but has not
recorded a receivable for this additional amount as it is not
deemed probable as of December 31, 2013. Axis Insurance Company
is seeking a declaration of no coverage. In exchange for the
$27.5 million cash consideration, among other things, upon final
Court approval, the lead plaintiffs will dismiss the litigation
with prejudice and the parties will release all claims.

On November 6, 2013, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement reached by the parties and providing
that any Class member requests for exclusion from the settlement
be mailed by March 22, 2014.  A final approval hearing was set
for April 16, 2014.

On December 11, 2013, Axis Insurance Company filed a declaratory
judgment action (Axis Insurance Company v. Career Education
Company, et al.) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery
Division, naming the Company and various individuals as
defendants in connection with coverage for the recently settled
securities class action and Derivative Litigation. Axis seeks a
declaration of no coverage. The Company and most of the
individual defendants accepted service of the suit on January 10,
2014, and had until March 11, 2014 to respond to the complaint.


CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Set for Aug. 4 on Eight Test Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation disclosed in its Feb. 27, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, that four actions are pending in
the San Francisco County Superior Court and generally allege:
fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, breach of contract and violation of the repealed
California Education Code.  These actions are: Abarca v.
California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2011;
115 plaintiffs); Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy,
Inc., et al (filed June 15, 2011; 31 plaintiffs); Aprieto, et al.
v. California Culinary Academy (filed August 12, 2011; five
plaintiffs); Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy
(filed January 18, 2013; two plaintiffs).  Plaintiffs contend
that California Culinary Academy ("CCA") made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions
process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the
school's reputation, the value of the education, the
competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students'
employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of
statistics published by CCA. The plaintiffs in these actions seek
damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

All of the plaintiffs in these four actions either opted out of
or did not fit the class definition in a previously settled class
action captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy
and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California
Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. None of these
four actions are being prosecuted as a class action. All of these
cases have been deemed related and have been transferred to the
same judge who handled the Amador case.

Currently there are 80 remaining plaintiffs who have not settled
or dismissed their claims. CCA has filed answers to the
complaints filed by the remaining 80 individual plaintiffs. The
parties have agreed to participate in a mediation session in
early April 2014. The Court has set a trial date on eight test
cases for August 4, 2014. The test cases will be tried to the
Court and not to a jury.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in
the future, the outcome of the Abarca, Andrade, Aprieto and
Coleman legal proceedings with respect to the remaining
plaintiffs is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to the company at present, the company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these
actions because these matters are in their early stages and
involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, the
company has not recognized any future liability associated with
these actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Stayed in "Enea" Student Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is stayed in Enea, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation,
and Sallie Mae, Inc. pending a ruling on motions to dismiss and
to strike class action allegations, according to Career
Education's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court
State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June
27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented
the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that
admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the
school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other
food service providers, represented that the culinary schools
were well-regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who
employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the
school provided graduates with career placement services for
life. The plaintiffs or putative class members here co-signed the
loans for students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class
members. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties,
and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. The motions are fully briefed
and the Court had set a hearing date for March 14, 2014.
Discovery is stayed pending a ruling on those motions.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Student Litigation in Oregon Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
All trial court proceedings in the suit Surrett, et al. v.
Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation
have been stayed pending an appeal, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah
County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable
relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money
damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that
Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently
moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's
UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February
5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class
certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan
Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out
period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of
approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds,
interest and certain fees paid in connection with their
enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. WCI filed an
appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court
of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the
trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. Thus,
all proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.


CAREER EDUCATION: To Settle Consolidated Student Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit originally filed as Vasquez, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education
Corporation accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the
consolidated action, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons
who purchased educational services from California School of
Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the
limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action
(including, without limitation, the period following the filing
of the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the
constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it.
Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based
on alleged violations of California's former Private
Postsecondary and Vocational Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the
Reform Act"). Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court on March 6, 2012.

Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related
"multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of
approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School
of Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of
Culinary Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts;
Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga,
et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al.,
v. California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California
School of Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases
are essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class
action case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution
of tuition monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief. All of these cases have been deemed related to the
Vasquez class action and therefore are pending before the same
judge who is presiding over the Vasquez case.

On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez
action consolidating all eight of the separate actions. The
complaint was thereafter amended to add additional Plaintiffs. As
a result of these amendments, there were at one time
approximately 1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled
between 2003 and 2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in
2009 and 2010).

On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the
motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine
arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration
Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of
which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs' claims were settled
prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for
all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the
resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary
dismissal of certain claims, there are approximately 1,047
remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

On January 24, 2014, defendants accepted a mediator's proposal to
settle the consolidated action, subject to the execution of a
formal agreement memorializing the terms of the proposal and the
terms of the settlement agreements to be entered into with each
individual plaintiff. Pursuant to this settlement arrangement,
defendants will pay a maximum of $17.5 million in the aggregate
to fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys' fees and
administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain
excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible
for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff will be
determined by a third party. If any plaintiff decides not to
accept the settlement, then the amount allocated to that
plaintiff will be returned to defendants. Defendants have the
right not to proceed with the settlement if a specified number of
plaintiffs do not accept the settlement. Defendants' liability
pursuant to the settlement is estimated to be $15.5 million to
$17.5 million; however, defendants do not have a reasonable basis
to estimate where in that range the liability is likely to be.
Accordingly, for the quarter ended December 31, 2013, the Company
recorded a reserve of $15.5 million based on its assessment that
the settlement is probable.


CAREER EDUCATION: Suit by Admissions Representatives on Remand
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation is on
remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole
question of whether CEC's termination of the Admissions
Representative Supplemental Compensation Plan violated the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions
representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-
count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment arising from the company's decision to terminate its
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC")
Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions
representatives who also were affected by termination of the
plan. On October 6, 2011, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this
action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012,
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial
court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral
argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on
plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for
further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On
September 13, 2013, the company filed a petition for rehearing to
seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract
claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme
Court, but the petition was denied.

The case now is on remand to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. The parties were scheduled to appear for a status
hearing on April 9, 2014.


CAREER EDUCATION: Final Approval of "Nimely" Suit Accord Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval is being sought for the settlement reached in
Nimely, et al. v. Randstad General Partners, Randstad USA,
Randstad Inhouse Services L.P., and Career Education Corporation,
according to CEC's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On December 30, 2012, April R. Nimely, a former hourly, non-
exempt call center employee based in Illinois filed a putative
class and collective action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
various entities of the staffing firm Randstad, which the Company
used to supplement its own staff at some of its call centers. The
complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act ("IWPCA") arising from the alleged failure to pay
wages for work performed before and after shifts and during
breaks. The putative collective class was defined as "[a]ll
persons who worked for [d]efendants as telephone dedicated
employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in
full, on an hourly basis throughout the United States at any time
between December 30, 2009 and the present who did not receive the
full amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them."

On February 27, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the
complaint and motion to dismiss the IWPCA count of the complaint.
On June 14, 2013, plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to
settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On November 29, 2013,
the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement and setting March 25, 2014 for the final approval
hearing.


CE DESIGN: Trial Court Ruling in National Fire Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
In NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, VALLEY FORGE
INSURANCE COMPANY, AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellants,
v. CE DESIGN, LTD., AND PALDO SIGN AND DISPLAY COMPANY,
Appellees, NO. 05-13-00720-CV, the Court of Appeals of Texas,
Fifth District, Dallas, issued an opinion on April 18, 2014,
affirming a trial court order in the case. A copy of the opinion
is available at http://is.gd/7yN2BLfrom Leagle.com.

Appellants National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford (National
Fire), Valley Forge Insurance Company (Valley Forge), and
Continental Casualty Company (Continental Casualty) filed a
declaratory judgment action in Texas against appellees CE Design,
Ltd. and Paldo Sign and Display Company. Appellees filed special
appearances contesting the trial court's jurisdiction. The trial
court signed an order granting the special appearances and
dismissing appellees from the declaratory judgment action for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Appellants then filed an
interlocutory appeal.

Appellees are representatives of a nationwide class of plaintiffs
in a class action lawsuit filed in Illinois federal court, CE
Design Ltd. et al. v. King Supply Company, LLC d/b/a
Architectural Metals, No. 09 C 2057, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. In that class action, it
is alleged that King Supply Company, LLC, d/b/a King
Architectural Metals, (King) violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.A. Section 227 (West
Supp. 2013), and committed common law conversion, by sending
mass, unsolicited facsimile advertisements to appellees and other
recipients without prior express invitation or permission.

The Texas Appeals Court held that Appellees CE Design, Ltd., and
Paldo Sign and Display Company will recover their costs of the
appeal from appellants National Fire Insurance Company of
Hartford, Valley Forge Insurance Company, and Continental
Casualty Company.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 18 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of ChinaCast Education Corporation between April 18,
2009 and April 19, 2012, inclusive.

To join the ChinaCast class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Jonathan Horne, Esq., or Phillip
Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
jhorne@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The defendants in the lawsuit are Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA
Ltd. ("DTTC"), ChinaCast's former auditor, and Deloitte & Touche,
LLP ("DT").  The complaint alleges that DTTC's audit reports
concerning ChinaCast falsely stated that DTTC had followed
applicable audit standards, and that DT controlled DTTC.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 17, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Jonathan Horne, Esq., or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The
Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
jhorne@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


COVIDIEN PLC: Recalls Two Medical Devices for Brain Aneurysms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Walker and Erin McCarthy, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that Covidien PLC recalled two medical devices
used to treat people with brain aneurysms, citing the potential
for the devices to cause stroke or death.

The company said there is a risk that a Teflon coating applied to
the delivery wires in certain lots of the products could fall
off, or delaminate, and block the flow of blood through the
arteries. Covidien added that it isn't aware of any patient
injuries or deaths caused by the problem.

Covidien discovered the issue after it was informed of a
manufacturing-process change by a supplier that makes and applies
the Teflon material to Covidien's delivery wires, said
Peter Lucht, a Covidien spokesman.  Covidien can't manufacture
more of the products until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
clears the supplier's manufacturing-process change, he said.

Covidien has inventory not affected by the manufacturing change
that it can use to replace the recalled products, but "continued
availability will depend on the length of the regulatory review
process," Mr. Lucht said.  Covidien said it expected the recall
to have a "slight negative effect on sales and earnings" in the
second half of this year.

The recall affects about 650 products from certain lots of the
company's Pipeline embolization device and Alligator retrieval
device.

The Pipeline device is used to increase blood flow in patients
with large aneurysms -- bulges in the arteries leading to the
brain that can be fatal if they rupture.  The Alligator device is
used to retrieve other equipment doctors use to treat aneurysms.

Teflon is a commonly used coating material in medical devices and
consumer products such as nonstick cooking pans.  Last year,
Medtronic Inc. recalled nearly 15,000 delivery wires used with
some of its heart devices because of the potential for the Teflon
coating to detach.

The devices are part of Covidien's neurovascular product unit,
which had sales of $110 million in the most recently reported
quarter.  Though the unit is relatively small, representing about
4% of Covidien's total sales, it is one of the company's higher
growth and higher profit margin businesses, according to
investment bank Leerink Partners.  Covidien makes operating-room
gear, generic drugs and other medical supplies.

The recall affects 32 Pipeline devices, and 621 Alligator devices
sold in North America, Australia, Europe and Latin America.


DANIELLOS PIZZERIA: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eulogio Xalteno, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Daniello's Pizzeria, Inc., Jaswinder S. Ghotra, and
Gurmukh Singh, Case No. 1:14-cv-00965-SHS (S.D.N.Y., February 18,
2014) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid
minimum wages, (2) unpaid overtime compensation, (3) liquidated
damages, (4) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (5)
attorneys' fees and costs.

Daniello's Pizzeria, Inc., is a New York domestic business
corporation with a principal place of business in New York City.
The Individual Defendants are owners, shareholders, directors,
supervisors, proprietors, and managing agents of Daniello's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYNEGY INC: "Silsby" Defendants Move to Dismiss Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the suit Charles Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et
al., Case No. 12CIV2307 filed a substantive motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's remaining claims, according to Dynegy Inc.'s Feb. 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In connection with the prepetition restructuring and corporate
reorganization of the DH Debtor Entities and their non-debtor
affiliates in 2011 (the "2011 Prepetition Restructuring"), and
specifically the Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC (DMG) Transfer, a
putative class action stockholder lawsuit captioned Charles
Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 12CIV2307 (the
"Securities Litigation"), was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit challenged
certain disclosures made in connection with the DMG Transfer. As
a result of the filing of the voluntary petition for bankruptcy
by Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit was stayed as against Dynegy Inc.
and as a result of the confirmation of the Plan, the claims
against Dynegy Inc. in the Securities Litigation are permanently
enjoined.

On August 24, 2012, the lead plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan
asserting, among other things, that lead plaintiff should be
permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions
(the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative
class members. The company opposed that relief. On October 1,
2012, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that lead plaintiff did not have
standing to object to the Plan and did not have authority to opt-
out of the Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any other party-in-
interest. Accordingly, the Securities Litigation may only proceed
against the non-debtor defendants with respect to members of the
putative class who individually opted out of the Non-Debtor
Releases. The lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October
10, 2012. On June 4, 2013, the District Court dismissed the
appeal. On July 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and
filed a brief on November 4, 2013. On July 19, 2013, the
defendants filed a substantive motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
remaining claims.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Sunoco Pays $950,000 Atty. Fee in Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco, Inc. paid $950,000 as agreed to compensate plaintiffs'
attorneys in the settled state court actions over its merger with
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., according to ETP's Feb. 27, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Following the announcement of the Sunoco Merger on April 30,
2012, eight putative class action and derivative complaints were
filed in connection with the Sunoco Merger in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  Each complaint names
as defendants the members of Sunoco's board of directors and
alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating
and executing, through an unfair and conflicted process, a merger
agreement that provides inadequate consideration and that
contains impermissible terms designed to deter alternative bids.
Each complaint also names as defendants Sunoco, Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P (ETP), Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. (ETP GP),
Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C (ETP LLC), and Sam Acquisition
Corporation, alleging that they aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties by Sunoco's directors; some of the complaints
also name ETE as a defendant on those aiding and abetting claims.
In September 2012, all of these lawsuits were settled with no
payment obligation on the part of any of the defendants following
the filing of Current Reports on Form 8-K that included
additional disclosures that were incorporated by reference into
the proxy statement related to the Sunoco Merger.

Subsequent to the settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs'
attorneys sought compensation from Sunoco for attorneys' fees
related to their efforts in obtaining these additional
disclosures. In January 2013, Sunoco entered into agreements to
compensate the plaintiffs' attorneys in the state court actions
in the aggregate amount of not more than $950,000 and to
compensate the plaintiffs' attorneys in the federal court action
in the amount of not more than $250,000. The payment of $950,000
was made in July 2013.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Denied Stay of Suit Over Southern Union Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas denied
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s motion to stay the proceeding In
re: Southern Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in favor of
cases pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, according to
ETP's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas naming as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as
Southern Union and ETE. The lawsuits were styled Jaroslawicz v.
Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the
333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas and Magda
v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37134, in the
11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The
lawsuits were consolidated into an action styled In re: Southern
Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that
the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended petitions allege that the
Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process,
that Southern Union's directors entered into the Merger to
benefit themselves personally, including through consulting and
noncompete agreements, and that defendants have failed to
disclose all material information related to the Merger to
Southern Union stockholders. The amended petitions seek
injunctive relief, including an injunction of the Merger, and an
award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to
other relief. On October 21, 2011, the court denied ETE's October
13, 2011, motion to stay the Texas proceeding in favor of cases
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Southern Union Shareholders Dismiss Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in In re Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 6615-CS pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery
dismissed without prejudice its lawsuit against all defendants,
according to Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union
and ETE. Three of the lawsuits also named Merger Sub as a
defendant. These lawsuits are styled: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, et al. v. Southern Union Company, et
al., C.A. No. 6615-CS; KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union
Company, et al., C.A. No. 6622-CS; LBBW Asset Management
Investment GmbH v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-
CS; and Memo v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS.
These cases were consolidated with the following style: In re
Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. The consolidated complaint
asserts similar claims and allegations as the Texas state-court
consolidated action. On July 25, 2012, the Delaware plaintiffs
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without
prejudice. In the notice, plaintiffs stated their claims were
being dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation and indicated
their intent to join the Texas case.

On September 18, 2013, the plaintiff dismissed without prejudice
its lawsuit against all defendants.


ENTERGY CORP: Oral Arguments Held in Bid to Remand Miss. AG Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi held oral
argument on a motion to remand a suit by the Mississippi Attorney
General against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Entergy Services, and Entergy Power back to state court,
according to Entergy Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court
in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy
Mississippi, Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among
other things, violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and
breach of good faith and fair dealing, and requesting an
accounting and restitution.  The complaint is wide ranging and
relates to tariffs and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi
purchases power not generated in Mississippi to meet electricity
demand.  Entergy believes the complaint is unfounded.  In
December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the
attorney general's lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson,
Mississippi.  The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand
the matter to state court.  In August 2012 the District Court
issued an opinion denying the Attorney General's motion for
remand, finding that the District Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed
a counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public
Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act.  In May 2009 the
defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the attorney
general's complaint.  In September 2012 the District Court heard
oral argument on Entergy's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The District Court's ruling on the motion for judgment on the
pleadings is pending.

In January 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in
which it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole
plaintiff to enforce state laws were not subject to the federal
law that allowed federal courts to hear those cases as "mass
action" lawsuits. One day later the Attorney General renewed its
motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court, citing the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision. The defendant Entergy companies
have responded to that motion and the District Court held oral
argument on the motion to remand in February 2014. Entergy also
has asserted federal question jurisdiction as a basis for the
district court having jurisdiction and also has pending the
motion for judgment on the pleadings.


ENTERGY CORP: Appeal Pending in Power Price Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal against an order certifying a class of Texas retail
customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. is pending and proceedings
in district court are stayed until the appeal is resolved,
according to Entergy Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a
purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from
January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy
Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf
States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a
co-conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its
interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price
gouging accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly
situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the
defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-
system suppliers.  In particular, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of
generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive
resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were
charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for
power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.
The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating
damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in
present value, under various scenarios as of the date of the
report.  The Entergy defendants have tendered expert reports
challenging the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of
the plaintiffs' expert reports.

The case is pending in state district court, and in March 2012
the court found that the case met the requirements to be
maintained as a class action under Texas law.  On April 30, 2012,
the court entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants
have appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals - First
District and oral argument was held in May 2013. The appeal is
pending and proceedings in district court are stayed until the
appeal is resolved.


ENTERGY CORP: Gulf States' Operation Spurs Environmental Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several class actions and other suits have been filed in state
and federal courts seeking relief from Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
and others for damages caused by the disposal of hazardous waste
and for asbestos-related disease allegedly resulting from
exposure on Entergy Gulf States, Inc.'s premises, according to
Entergy Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana is currently involved in the second
phase of the remedial investigation of the Lake Charles Service
Center site, located in Lake Charles, Louisiana.  A manufactured
gas plant (MGP) is believed to have operated at this site from
approximately 1916 to 1931.  Coal tar, a by-product of the
distillation process employed at MGPs, was apparently routed to a
portion of the property for disposal.  The same area has also
been used as a landfill.  In 1999, Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
signed a second administrative consent order with the EPA to
perform a removal action at the site.  In 2002 approximately
7,400 tons of contaminated soil and debris were excavated and
disposed of from an area within the service center.  In 2003 a
cap was constructed over the remedial area to prevent the
migration of contamination to the surface.  In August 2005 an
administrative order was issued by the EPA requiring that a 10-
year groundwater study be conducted at this site.  The
groundwater monitoring study commenced in January 2006 and is
continuing.  In 2010 the EPA conducted a Five Year Review (FYR)
of the 10-year groundwater monitoring program at Lake Charles.
Negotiations are on-going regarding whether additional actions
will be necessary at the site.  If additional actions are
necessary, site expenditures will increase commensurate with the
additional chosen site remedies. Entergy does not have sufficient
information at this time to estimate additional site costs, if
any. Entergy also has made a payment to the EPA of $275,000 for
past agency oversight costs. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and
Entergy Texas each believe that its remaining responsibility for
this site will not materially exceed the existing clean-up
provisions of $0.3 million for Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and
$0.2 million for Entergy Texas.


ENTERGY CORP: Louisiana, New Orleans Units' Operations Spur Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Several class action and other suits have been filed in state and
federal courts seeking relief from Entergy Louisiana, LLC and
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. and others for damages caused by the
disposal of hazardous waste and for asbestos-related disease
allegedly resulting from exposure on Entergy Louisiana's and
Entergy New Orleans's premises, according to Entergy
Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

During 1993, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) issued new rules for solid waste regulation, including
regulation of wastewater impoundments.  Entergy Louisiana
determined that some of its power plant wastewater impoundments
were affected by these regulations and required remediation,
repair, or closure.  Entergy Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy
New Orleans were also affected.  In 2013, Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana, Entergy Louisiana, and Entergy New Orleans eliminated
their provisions for the liability associated with ongoing
wastewater remediation and repairs and closures.  Elimination of
the provisions occurred because several wastewater impoundments
were satisfactorily closed in place and removed from the
Louisiana Solid Waste Program and all necessary approvals have
been received from the LDEQ.


EURONET WORLDWIDE: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Former Employee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Euronet Worldwide, Inc. reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit
filed by a former employee alleging wage and hour violations,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

During 2012, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit
filed by a former employee alleging wage and hour violations
relating to meal and rest period requirements. The Company has
reached an agreement to settle this lawsuit for an immaterial
amount and, together with the plaintiffs in the case, is
following court procedures to finalize the settlement. The
Company expects such procedures to be completed within the next
twelve months.


FREDDIE MAC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS")
vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al. filed new motions to dismiss the
complaint, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's
Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac
stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. Federal
Housing Finance Agency later intervened as Conservator. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making false and misleading statements concerning the
company's business, risk management, and the procedures the
company put into place to protect the company from problems in
the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees. The plaintiff amended its complaint on
several occasions. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
and third amended complaints, which the Court denied. On April
13, 2013, the judge who had presided over the case since 2008
recused himself, and the case was reassigned to a new judge. On
August 23, 2013, the new judge granted defendants' motion to
vacate the previous judge's orders denying defendants' motions to
dismiss. Defendants filed new motions to dismiss the complaint on
October 8, 2013.


FREDDIE MAC: Court Denies Rehearing of "Kuriakose" Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied a petition by plaintiffs in Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac,
Syron, Piszel and Cook for panel rehearing of an order dismissing
the case, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's
Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Another putative class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie
Mac and certain former officers on August 15, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws. The case is purportedly
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock
from November 21, 2007 through September 7, 2008. Federal Housing
Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as Conservator. The
plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially
inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and sought
unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs
twice amended their complaint, and sought leave to amend a third
time. On September 24, 2012, the Court granted with prejudice
defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint in its entirety, denied plaintiffs' motion to file a
third amended complaint, and directed that the case be closed.
Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants on September 27,
2012. On October 26, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. By order dated
November 5, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decisions granting
defendants' motions to dismiss and denying plaintiffs' motion to
file a third amended complaint. On November 19, 2013, plaintiffs
filed a petition for panel rehearing, which was denied.


FREDDIE MAC: Certification Motion in Suit v. Former Execs Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied a renewed request for class certification in a securities
lawsuit filed against three former executives of Freddie Mac,
according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's Feb. 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 16, 2011, the SEC announced that it had charged three
former executives of Freddie Mac with securities laws violations.
These executives are former Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer Richard F. Syron, former Executive Vice
President and Chief Business Officer Patricia L. Cook, and former
Executive Vice President for the single-family guarantee business
Donald J. Bisenius.

On September 23, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
securities lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York styled Mark vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. On January
29, 2009, another plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the same Court styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al. The cases,
which were subsequently consolidated by the Court, concern the
company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of
8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock.

In the consolidated complaint, plaintiffs alleged that three
former Freddie Mac officers (including Syron and former Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Anthony S. Piszel),
certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's auditor violated federal
securities laws by making material false and misleading
statements in connection with the company's November 2007 public
offering. The complaint further alleged that certain defendants
and others made additional false statements following the
offering. After a series of motions and amendments to the
complaint, only Syron and Piszel remain as defendants.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification, which motion was
ultimately denied by the Court. On May 31, 2012, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal on an interlocutory basis the denial of class
certification. In August 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to file
another motion for class certification, which request the Court
denied on September 25, 2012.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the underwriting agreement in this case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.


FREDDIE MAC: Seeks to Junk Suit Over Preferred Shares Sale
----------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss were filed in In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action
Litigations, according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In July and September 2013, four lawsuits were filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
concerning the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement.
It is possible that similar lawsuits will be filed in the future.
The lawsuits are as follows:

     (i) A putative class action lawsuit filed on July 29, 2013
styled Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA;

    (ii) A putative class action lawsuit filed on July 30, 2013
styled American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
FHFA;

   (iii) A putative class action and shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed on September 18, 2013 styled Marneu Holdings, Co.
vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and

    (iv) A lawsuit filed on September 20, 2013 styled Arrowood
Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA and Treasury.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued
by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of
time. Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit allege that they are
holders of junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae. (For purposes of this discussion, junior preferred
stock refers to the various series of preferred stock of Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae other than the senior preferred stock issued
to Treasury.)

In the lawsuits, plaintiffs allege that the amendment to the
Purchase Agreement in August 2012 (which implemented the net
worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock)
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such
contracts. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and
expert fees. Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit also request
that, if injunctive relief is not granted, the Arrowood
plaintiffs be awarded damages against the defendants in an amount
to be determined including, but not limited to, the aggregate par
value of their junior preferred stock, the total of which they
state is $42,297,500.

Plaintiffs in the Marneu and Arrowood lawsuits also make certain
claims against, and seek certain remedies from, Treasury and
FHFA.

The Court consolidated three of the cases (Cacciapelle, American
European Insurance Company and Marneu) together in a new case
styled In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2013. The consolidated
amended complaint makes essentially the same allegations against
Freddie Mac as the original complaints described. FHFA, joined by
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint and the other related cases (including Arrowood) on
January 17, 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same
day.

The company received a letter dated October 16, 2013 addressed to
the Chief Executive Officer, the Board of Directors and the then
Acting Director of FHFA, purportedly on behalf of holders of
common stock and junior preferred stock of Freddie Mac. The
company received a similar letter dated January 6, 2014, and two
more dated January 7, 2014, each on behalf of a plaintiff in the
consolidated lawsuits. The letters demand that Freddie Mac
commence legal action against the U.S. government to recover all
losses sustained by Freddie Mac as a result of the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement. The letters also demand that
Freddie Mac take action to terminate the August 2012 amendment to
the Purchase Agreement. On January 15, 2014, FHFA (as
Conservator) informed the purported shareholders named in the
October 16, 2013 letter that the Conservator does not intend to
authorize Freddie Mac or its directors or officers on behalf of
Freddie Mac to take the actions that such shareholders demand.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: FG Sued Over Air Emissions in Coal-Fired Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Generation, LLC faces lawsuits in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages
based on air emissions from its coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant,
according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's Feb. 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO2 and NOx
emissions regulations under the Clean Air Act. FirstEnergy
complies with SO2 and NOx reduction requirements under the CAA
and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, utilizing combustion
controls and post-combustion controls, generating more
electricity from lower or non-emitting plants and/or using
emission allowances.

In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs
were filed against FirstEnergy Generation, LLC in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking
damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce
Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the
Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a "safe,
responsible, prudent and proper manner." One complaint was filed
on behalf of 21 individuals and the other is a class action
complaint seeking certification as a class with the eight named
plaintiffs as the class representatives.


GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Judge to Confirm Shield From Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Spangler, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that
General Motors is asking a bankruptcy judge in New York to
confirm its shield from liability lawsuits tied to crashes or
defects occurring before its bankruptcy.

A federal judge in San Francisco has scheduled arguments for
April 25 in a class-action case from a group owners of cars that
are part of GM's vehicle recall.  But on April 11, GM asked the
judge to delay any ruling until it can get a bankruptcy judge in
New York to reaffirm the liability protection granted to it in
2009.

The liability shield could void the class-action lawsuit.

Five years ago, GM went through a bankruptcy reorganization that
U.S. taxpayers financed.  President Barack Obama's auto task
force, which orchestrated the process, offered the emerging
company immunity from product liability claims arising before it
exited bankruptcy.

Such claims were left with the old GM, which mainly consisted of
shuttered factories, some of which have been sold.  GM's critics
have argued the present company should bear responsibility for a
defect linked to 13 deaths and 32 crashes in North America.

It was not immediately clear how the court request -- which GM
said would be filed soon in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York --
would affect any plans to compensate families affected by the
defective Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and similar cars.  Two
weeks ago, GM CEO Mary Barra announced that compensation expert
Kenneth Feinberg had been hired to advise the company.

GM officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment
from the Free Press.  GM made its plans public in a motion
submitted on April 11 in a proposed class action filed in U.S.
District Court in San Francisco.  The company asked for a delay
in the case until both a bankruptcy judge rules on its request
and, separately, a federal panel decides -- most likely after a
May 29 hearing in Chicago -- whether to consolidate at least 19
cases across the U.S. linked to the recall.

The company said it would seek an order in bankruptcy court
against "plaintiffs in all related actions to cease and desist
from further prosecuting against 'New GM,' or otherwise pursuing
any and all claims barred by the provisions" of the July 2009
bankruptcy reorganization and sale.  In the filing, GM lawyers
said the "New GM" assumed the so-called "glove box warranty" to
repair "Old GM" products, but that was all.  That warranty was
limited to a period of three years or 36,000 miles, whichever
came first.

The model years affected are largely 2003 through 2010, though it
also includes 2011 Chevrolet HHRs.

In the San Francisco case, a group of owners of the recalled cars
from nine states are arguing that GM knew about the faulty
ignition switch and should financially compensate buyers for the
reduced value of their cars.  Adam Levitt, a director at Grant &
Eisenhofer in Chicago who represents the plaintiffs, was not
available on April 15 to comment.

Since the recall began, it has been known that GM had bankruptcy
protection, but legal experts have said that shield could be
pierced if top officials knew about the liability and kept it
from the bankruptcy court in 2009.  While there are indications
GM knew it had a problem with defective switches going back to
preproduction of the Ion in 2001, the company has said it only
learned late last year that the switches could inadvertently be
jostled out of position, potentially disabling the air bags in
the event of a crash.

Also on April 15, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., kept up the
pressure on GM, demanding that Barra provide "clear and accurate
information" on when repair parts will be available to all
dealers.

Mr. Blumenthal said an informal survey of 34 GM dealers in his
state indicated that of the 14 dealers responding, 11 said they
still haven't received replacement parts even though they were
supposed to be widely available last week.

"I call on GM to state how many dealerships have received
replacement parts necessary for these repairs, and how soon the
remaining parts will be delivered," he said in a letter to
Ms. Barra.  "This information is vital to your customers' safety
-- indeed, their lives -- in driving your cars."

"Parts are being delivered to dealers and vehicles are being
repaired.  As we have said before, GM is fully committed to
getting replacement parts to dealers as quickly as possible,"
GM spokesman Greg Martin said in response to Mr. Blumenthal's
letter.

After speaking at a conference in New York late on April 15,
Ms. Barra declined to respond directly to Blumenthal's response,
but did say, "We are communicating with NHTSA (the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and that is our
regulator."

Mr. Blumenthal has repeatedly called for GM to establish a
victims' fund to compensate people injured or who lost relatives
in crashes involving the recalled vehicles.  He and others have
asked GM to tell drivers to park all the vehicles until they are
repaired.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Final Hearing Held in RailAmerica Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on final approval of the settlement reached in a suit
in connection with Genesee & Wyoming Inc.'s acquisition of
RailAmerica was set for May 15, 2013.  The company's Feb. 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, did not indicate
whether the settlement was approved on a final basis.

In connection with G&W's acquisition of RailAmerica, five
putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in 2012,
three in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Delaware
Court) and two in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial
Circuit for Duval County, Florida, Civil Division (Florida
Circuit Court), against RailAmerica, the RailAmerica directors
and G&W.

The two lawsuits filed in the Florida Circuit Court alleged,
among other things, that the RailAmerica directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their decision to sell
RailAmerica to G&W via an allegedly flawed process and failed to
obtain the best financial and other terms and that RailAmerica
and G&W aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The
complaints requested, among other relief, an order to enjoin
consummation of the merger and attorneys' fees. On July 31, 2012,
plaintiffs in the Florida actions filed a motion to consolidate
the two Florida actions, appoint plaintiffs Langan and Sambuco as
lead plaintiffs and appoint lead counsel in the proposed
consolidated action. Plaintiffs in the Florida actions also filed
an emergency motion for expedited proceedings on August 7, 2012
and an amended complaint on August 8, 2012, which included
allegations that the information statement filed by RailAmerica
on August 3, 2012, omitted material information about the
proposed merger. On August 17, 2012, the parties in the Florida
actions submitted a stipulation for expedited proceedings, which
the Florida Circuit Court ordered on August 20, 2012.

The three lawsuits filed in Delaware Court named the same
defendants, alleged substantially similar claims, and sought
similar relief as the Florida actions. The parties to the
Delaware actions submitted orders of dismissal in November 2012,
which the Delaware Court has granted.

On December 7, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other parties to the
Florida actions executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release to settle all related claims.

The settlement is not material and is subject to, among other
things, final approval by the Florida Circuit Court. On January
28, 2013, the Florida Circuit Court gave preliminary approval of
the settlement and scheduled the final approval hearing.


HERBALIFE LTD: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Herbalife
Ltd., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of a class comprising all purchasers of Herbalife securities
between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014, inclusive.

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

Herbalife is a network marketing company that sells weight
management, nutritional supplement and personal care products
through a global network of independent-distributor "Members,"
most of whom are discount customers that purchase Herbalife
products at wholesale prices and resell the products to other
consumers or distributors.  The Complaint alleges that throughout
the Class Period (a) defendants issued false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose that the Company's operations
were based on a pyramid scheme whereby its distributors generate
revenue by recruiting other distributors rather than selling
Herbalife's diet and nutritional products to the general public,
and (b) the Company engaged in deceptive trade practices and
unduly pressured its Members to purchase more products to resell
as one of its distributors.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move
the Court no later than June 13, 2014, to serve as lead
plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or
contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at
(212) 682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com

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


HEWLETT PACKARD: "Karlbom" Suit Remanded to San Diego Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes remanded to San Diego County
Superior Court the case captioned MICHAEL KARLBOM and DONALD
PRATKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. EDS, AN HP COMPANY; HEWLETT PACKARD
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Entity; ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13CV2996-WQH-DHB, (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Michael Karlbom and Donald Pratko filed the Motion for
Remand saying a remand is appropriate because the Defendants'
removal of the case was untimely; there is no minimal diversity
as of the time of the removal; and this is a local case or
controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act as over two-
thirds of proposed class members are residents of the State of
California and the claims only involve state labor law
violations.

Judge Hayes granted the request finding, among other things, that
the Notice of Removal was not timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446(b)(3).  The case is remanded the action to San Diego
County Superior Court, where it was originally filed and assigned
case number 37-2009-00085300-CU-OE-CTL.

A copy of Judge Hayes's April 17, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/JAXvzEfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Karlbom, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Michael Karlbom, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Donald Pratko, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill, Cohelan
Khoury & Singer & Michael D Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

EDS, an HP Company, Defendant, represented by David Dow --
ddow@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Lara K Strauss --
lstrauss@littler.com -- Litter Mendelson & Martin T. Wymer --
mwymer@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Hewlett-Packard Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Lara K Strauss, Litter Mendelson & Martin T.
Wymer, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Electronic Data Systems, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Entity, Defendant, represented by Lara K Strauss, Litter
Mendelson & Martin T. Wymer, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Electric Data Systems Corporation, a Texas Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lara K Strauss, Litter Mendelson &
Martin T. Wymer, Baker & Hostetler LLP.


IMMERSION CORP: Shareholders Appeal Dismissal of Cal. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard oral argument on an appeal against the dismissal
of In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation and took the
matter under submission, according to the company's Feb. 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the company and certain current and former
Immersion directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of the
company's current and former directors and officers. Over the
following five weeks, four additional class action complaints
were filed. (One of these four actions was later voluntarily
dismissed.) The securities class action complaints name the
company and certain current and former Immersion directors and
officers as defendants and allege violations of federal
securities laws based on the company's issuance of allegedly
misleading financial statements. The various complaints assert
claims covering the period from May 2007 through July 2009 and
seek compensatory damages allegedly sustained by the purported
class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by
the court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.
On the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. Following the company's restatement of
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss the
action on June 15, 2010 and that motion was granted with leave to
amend on March 11, 2011. Lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 29, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on July 1, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the
motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19,
2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants. On January 13,
2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2012, plaintiff filed his
opening appeals brief. On July 13, 2012, the company filed the
company's response brief. On September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed
his reply. The Court heard oral argument on February 12, 2014 and
took the matter under submission.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated cases captioned DENIS MULLIGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX
LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants.  HAVERHILL RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, NOS. C-13-1037 EMC, C-13-1566 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).  A
copy of the April 18, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/Ls2jrJfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs filed this securities class action alleging that
Impax Laboratories and its CEO (Larry Hsu) and CFO (Arthur Koch)
made false and misleading material statements. These statements
pertained to Impax's response to various Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) notices and warnings regarding problems in
the manufacturing and quality control processes at Impax's
manufacturing facility.  Defendants moved to dismiss on a number
of grounds, including: (1) that the alleged misstatements are
protected under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's
(PSLRA) safe harbor provision for forward looking statements, (2)
that they constitute "mere puffery," and (3) that there are
insufficient allegations suggesting that the statements were
false when made.  The Defendants further argued that the
Plaintiffs' allegations fail to give rise to a "strong inference"
of scienter as required.

Judge Chen concluded for purposes of the motion to dismiss that
the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a strong inference of
scienter.

Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, (Lead Plaintiff),
Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lometti --
clometti@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, Daniel S. Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC, Joshua Michael Kolsky --
jkolsky@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers and Toll, P.L.L.C., Solomon B. Cera -- scera@gbcslaw.com
-- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP & Thomas C. Bright --
tbright@gbcslaw.com -- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP.

Haverhill Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all
Others Simiarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
T. Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio.

Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcy
Christina Priedeman -- marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham Watkins
LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs -- patrick.gibbs@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP & Peter Allen Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins.

Larry Hsu, Defendant, represented by Marcy Christina Priedeman,
Latham Watkins LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP &
Peter Allen Wald, Latham & Watkins.

Arthur A. Koch, Defendant, represented by Marcy Christina
Priedeman, Latham Watkins LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham &
Watkins LLP & Peter Allen Wald, Latham & Watkins.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Blair Allen Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann.



KKR FINANCIAL: Faces 13 Class Action Suits Over KKR & Co. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thirteen class action lawsuits are currently pending that
challenge the merger between KKR Financial Holdings LLC (KFN) and
KKR & Co. L.P., according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Seven of the merger lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware and were consolidated under the caption
In re KKR Financial Holdings LLC Shareholder Litigation, Consol.
C.A. No. 9210-CS, on January 31, 2014. Five of the merger
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Francisco, and a stipulation executed by the parties to
consolidate those California actions under the caption In re KKR
Financial Holdings LLC Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CGC-
13-536281, has been presented to, but not yet approved by, the
court. One merger lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California under the caption
Bushey v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC et al., Civ. A. No. 3:14-cv-
00495, on January 31, 2014.

Each lawsuit names as defendants some or all of KFN, KKR & Co.,
the individual members of KFN's board of directors, and the other
parties to the merger agreement. The merger lawsuits allege that
members of the KFN board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties owed to KFN common shareholders in connection with
agreeing to the merger, and that KFN, KKR & Co., and the other
parties to the merger agreement aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. Certain of the merger lawsuits also
allege that KKR & Co. controlled KFN by means of the Management
Agreement and therefore breached fiduciary duties it owed to KFN
common shareholders by causing KFN to approve the merger
agreement. In addition, certain of the merger lawsuits allege
that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus filed on January
15, 2014 contained certain statements which were materially
false, incomplete, and/or misleading.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek an injunction against
the proposed merger, rescission, an accounting by defendants,
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company believes the
suits to be without merit.


KROGER CO: Recalls Private Selection Sweet Strawberry Sorbet
------------------------------------------------------------
ClickOnDetroit.com reports that The Kroger Co. is recalling
"Private Selection Sweet Strawberry Sorbet" that was sold at the
company's Kroger and Jay C stores in 13 states, because the
product may contain milk not listed on the label.

People who are allergic to milk could have a severe reaction if
they consume this product.  For consumers who are not allergic to
milk, there is no safety issue with the product.

Two Kroger customers have reported a possible allergic reaction
in connection with this product.

Out of an abundance of caution, Kroger issued the recall, which
was sold in 16 fluid ounce packages with a code date of Aug 11,
2015 and UPC 11110 52108, due to a potential presence of a milk
allergen.

Included in this recall are Kroger and Jay C stores in the
following states only: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia (along the Ohio border).

What Kroger is doing

Kroger has removed potentially affected item from store shelves
and initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts
customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products
through register receipt tape messages and phone calls.

What customers should do

Customers are asked to carefully check their freezers for the
recalled product. Any opened or unopened products included in
this recall should not be consumed by persons allergic to milk,
and should be returned to their local store for a full refund.

Customers who have questions about this recall may contact Kroger
toll-free at 800-KROGERS (800-576-4377). For more information,
please visit www.kroger.com/recall


LG ELECTRONICS: Accord in Indirect Purchaser Actions Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MASTER
FILE NO. CV-07-5944-SC, MDL NO. 1917, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge
Samuel Conti issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement with LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.;
and LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.  A copy of the April
18, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/TneSUH from
Leagle.com.   The document relates to all Indirect Purchaser
Actions.

The Court certified the settlement class is defined as:

NATIONWIDE CLASS:

     * All persons and or entities who or which indirectly
purchased in the United States for their own use and not for
resale, CRT Products2 manufactured and/or sold by the Defendants,
or any subsidiary, affiliate, or co-conspirator thereof, at any
time during the period from at least March 1, 1995 through at
least November 25, 2007. Specifically excluded from this Class
are claims on behalf of Illinois persons (as defined by 740 ILCS
10/4) for purposes of claims under 740 Ill. Comp. Stat Sec.
10/7(2), Oregon natural persons (as defined by ORS 646.705 (2))
for purposes of claims under ORS Sec. 646.775(1), and Washington
persons (as defined by RCW 19.86.080) for purposes of claims
under RCW 19.86.080 (1). Also specifically excluded from this
Class are the Defendants; the officers, directors or employees of
any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a
controlling interest; and, any affiliate, legal representative,
heir or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded are named co-
conspirators, any federal, state or local government entities,
any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members
of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror
assigned to this action.

INDIRECT PURCHASER STATE CLASSES:

     * All persons and or entities in Arizona, California,
District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin who or which indirectly purchased for their own use
and not for resale, CRT Products manufactured and/or sold by the
Defendants, or any subsidiary, affiliate, or co-conspirator
thereof, at any time during the period from at least March 1,
1995 through at least November 25, 2007.

     * All persons and entities in Hawaii who or which indirectly
purchased for their own use and not for resale CRT Products
manufactured and/or sold by the Defendants or any parents,
affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors or successors in interest
or co-conspirators thereof, at any time from June 25, 2002
through at least November 25, 2007.

     * All persons and entities in Nebraska who or which
indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale CRT
Products manufactured and/or sold by the Defendants or any
parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors or successors in
interest or co-conspirators thereof, at any time from July 20,
2002 through at least November 25, 2007.

     * All persons and entities in Nevada who or which indirectly
purchased for their own use and not for resale CRT Products
manufactured and/or sold by the Defendants or any parents,
affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors or successors in interest
or co-conspirator thereof at any time from February 4, 1999
through at least November 25, 2007.

The objection to the Settlement from Jill K. Cannata was
overruled on the grounds that the objector is not a member of any
Indirect Purchaser State Class and therefore lacks standing to
challenge the Settlement. The filing by Donald Silvestri did not
object to the approval of the Settlement but relates to the
awarding of attorney's fees and expenses, which request is not
currently before the Court.

"The Settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate and
reasonable to the Class.  Accordingly, the Court hereby grants
final approval of the Settlement," ruled Judge Conti.

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

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

Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R.
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Joseph W.
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Niki B. Okcu, AT&T
Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer
Richardson & Renick LLP, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Adam C.
Belsky, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum,
P.L.L.P., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum,
PLLP, Monique Alonso, Gross & Belsky LLP, Sarah Crowley, Gross
Belsky Alonso LLP & Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.

Jeffrey Figone, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law
Offices of Brian Barry, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph
M. Patane, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott,
LLP, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP & Veronica
Besmer, Besmer Law Firm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giovanni Constabile, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart
Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

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

Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and
Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., (Chunghwa PT) is a Taiwanese
company, Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP & Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), (HEDUS) is a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James
Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant,
represented by Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus
Deringer US LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik &
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

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

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

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

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

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

LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L
Wald, William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary
Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich,
Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles
and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin,
Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP & Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter
LLP.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil,
Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,
Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F.
Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B.
Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston & Strawn LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent
Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC & Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP.

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

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

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

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

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

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC.

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC.

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

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

State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio
Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office.

Douglas A. Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Company,
Inc. and related entities, and as Receiver for Petters Company,
LLC and related entities, Miscellaneous, represented by James M.
Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Jessica Lynn Meyer,
Lindquist & Vennum, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

John R. Stoebner, as Chatper 7 Trustee for PBE Consumer
Electronics, LLC and related entities, Miscellaneous, represented
by James M. Lockhart, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Jessica Lynn
Meyer, Lindquist & Vennum, Kelly Laudon, Lindquist Vennum, PLLP,
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

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

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


LINN ENERGY: Assad Trust Suit Stayed in Favor of "Hall" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado
stayed and administratively closed the Nancy P. Assad Trust
action in favor of the Hall action that is pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, according to LINN Energy, LLC's Feb.
27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 21, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in
the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado,
No. 13-CV-31365. The action names as defendants Berry, the
members of its board of directors, Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of Berry ("HoldCo"), Bacchus Merger Sub,
Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo ("Bacchus Merger
Sub"), LinnCo, LINN Energy and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of LinnCo ("LinnCo Merger Sub").
On April 5, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which alleges
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales
process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to
disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty. The amended complaint seeks a declaration that
the transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order
directing the individual defendants to comply with their
fiduciary duties, an injunction against consummation of the
transactions, or, in the event they are completed, rescission of
the transactions, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses, and other relief. On
May 21, 2013, the Colorado District Court stayed and
administratively closed the Nancy P. Assad Trust action in favor
of the Hall action that is pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.


LINN ENERGY: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Berry Petroleum Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINN Energy, LLC is in the process of seeking court approval of
the settlement reached in the suit David Hall v. Berry Petroleum
Co., et al. filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No.
8476-VCG, according to LINN's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 12, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 8476-VCG. The complaint
names as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors,
HoldCo, Bacchus Merger Sub, LinnCo, LINN Energy and LinnCo Merger
Sub. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions by engaging in an unfair sales process that resulted
in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to disclose all material
information regarding the transactions, and that the entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. In
December 2013, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding
to settle the case.  They are in the process of seeking court
approval of the settlement.  The Company said it is unable to
estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any, at
this time.


LINN ENERGY: Tex. Court Transfers Securities Lawsuit to New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
entered an order transferring the Texas Federal Securities
Actions against LINN Energy, LLC to the Southern District of New
York so that they could be consolidated with the New York Federal
Actions, according to LINN's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 9, 2013, Anthony Booth, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B.
Rottino (the "Booth Action"). On July 18, 2013, the Catherine A.
Fisher Trust, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the
same defendants (the "Fisher Action"). On July 17, 2013, Don
Gentry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy,
LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A.
Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn,
Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various
underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering (the "Gentry
Action") (the Booth Action, Fisher Action, and Gentry Action
together, the "Texas Federal Actions"). The Texas Federal Actions
each assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on
allegations that LINN Energy made false or misleading statements
relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's energy production.
The Gentry Action asserts additional claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements
relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration
statement for LinnCo's initial public offering. On September 23,
2013, the Southern District of Texas entered an order
transferring the Texas Federal Actions to the Southern District
of New York so that they could be consolidated with the New York
Federal Actions.


LINN ENERGY: Motion to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of LINN Energy, LLC to dismiss the combined Texas
Federal Actions and the New York Federal Actions against LINN
Energy, LLC is currently pending before the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 10, 2013, David Adrian Luciano, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis,
Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D.
Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy,
Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo's
initial public offering (the "Luciano Action"). The Luciano
Action asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to LINN
Energy's hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's energy production
in the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo's initial
public offering. On July 12, 2013, Frank Donio, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja
Rockov, and David B. Rottino (the "Donio Action"). The Donio
Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on allegations that LINN Energy made false or
misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash
flow available for distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's
energy production. Several additional class action cases
substantially similar to the Luciano Action and the Donio Action
were subsequently filed in the Southern District of New York and
assigned to the same judge (the Luciano Action, Donio Action, and
all similar subsequently filed New York federal class actions
together, the "New York Federal Actions"). The Texas Federal
Actions and the New York Federal Actions have now been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Combined Actions"). In November 2013,
LINN Energy filed a motion to dismiss the Combined Actions. The
motion is currently pending before the Southern District of New
York. There has not been any discovery conducted in the Combined
Actions. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a
possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest, in an opinion & order dated
April 18, 2014, a copy of which is is available at
http://is.gd/YNImk6from Leagle.com, dismissed the case styled IN
RE LULULEMON SECURITIES LITIGATION, NO. 13 CIV. 4596 (KBF), (S.D.
N.Y.).

This putative securities class action was commenced July 2, 2013.
A Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) was filed on January 15,
2014, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by lululemon athletica inc.,
lululemon founder and director Dennis J. Wilson, and former chief
executive officer Christine McCormick Day.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the CAC in its entirety pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that
it fails to adequately allege the key elements of a cause of
action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5: falsity, scienter, and
loss causation.

Judge Forrest granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss, and
dismissed the CAC in its entirety.

Louisiana Sheriffs Pension & Relief Fund, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Hannah Elizabeth Ross --
hannah@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Katherine Mccracken Sinderson -- katherine@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Laura Helen Posner --
laura.posner@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP.

Houssam Alkhoury, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld
-- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Lululemon Athletica Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph S.
Allerhand -- joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges
LLP & Caroline Jane Hickey -- caroline.hickeyzalka@weil.com --
New York Legal Assistance Group.

Dennis J. Wilson, Defendant, represented by Audra Jan Soloway --
asoloway@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, Michele S. Hirshman -- mhirshman@paulweiss.com --
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Brette Morgan
Tannenbaum
-- btannenbaum@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, Michael T Gass -- mgass@choate.com -- Choate Hall &
Stewart LLP & Stuart Marc Glass -- sglass@choate.com -- Choate
Hall & Stewart.

Christine McCormick Day, Defendant, represented by Joseph S.
Allerhand, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP & Caroline Jane Hickey, New
York Legal Assistance Group.


MEDICINES CO: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 18 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against The Medicines Company and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, and docketed under 2:33-av-00001,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Medicines securities between
February 20, 2013 and February 12, 2014 both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Medicines securities
during the Class Period, you have until April 22, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

The Medicines Company is a global pharmaceutical company focused
on providing medical solutions for critical care patients in
acute and intensive care hospitals worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cangrelor,
Medicines drug candidate designed to prevent blood clots during
heart artery-clearing angioplasty and stenting procedures, did
not show superiority to clopidogrel, a competing drug already
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"); (2)
The Company's CHAMPION clinical trials which compared the
efficacy of Cangrelor to clopidogrel were unethically and
inappropriately administered including by delaying administration
of clopidogrel and lowering its dosage; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, Medicines' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 10, 2014, the FDA released briefing documents ahead
of a review by its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee ("CRDAF"), which was scheduled to review the New Drug
Application ("NDA") for Cangrelor on February 12, 2014.  In the
briefing document, Thomas A. Marciniak, M.D., the FDA's Medical
Team Leader for the review, found that Cangrelor did not show
superiority to clopidogrel, and that the clinical trials
sponsored by Medicines were unethically and inappropriately
administered, including by delaying administration of clopidogrel
and the lowering of the dosage of clopidrogel in the CHAMPION
trial.  According to
Dr. Marciniak, "the CHAMPION trials were conducted unethically.
We can refuse approval of Cangrelor based on that fact alone."

On this news, Medicines securities declined $1.80, or over 5%, on
heavy volume, to close at $32.42 on February 10, 2014.

On February 12, 2014, the Company issued a press release
announcing that NASDAQ has halted trading of the company's stock
because an FDA advisory panel was meeting to discuss the new drug
application (NDA) for Cangrelor.  Later, on February 12, 2014,
the FDA advisory panel voted 7-2 that Medicines' Cangrelor
shouldn't be approved to prevent blood clots during heart
procedures.

On this news, when trading resumed on February 13, 2014,
Medicines securities declined $3.82, or over 11.5% from the
previous close, on very heavy volume, to close at $29.28 on
February 13, 2014.

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


MEDIVATION INC: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had not
rendered a decision on an appeal challenging the dismissal of
amended securities complaints filed against Medivation, Inc.,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In March 2010, the first of several putative securities class
action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company
and certain of the company's officers. The lawsuits are largely
identical and allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. The actions were consolidated in September 2010
and, in April 2011, the court entered an order appointing Catoosa
Fund, L.P. and its attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
In March 2012, after the court dismissed with prejudice the lead
plaintiff's first and second amended complaints, the court
entered judgment in favor of defendants. Lead plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in April 2012. The appeal is fully briefed, and was
argued before the Court of Appeals on January 17, 2014.


METLIFE INC: Still Faces Securities Suit by Retirement Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
The suit City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v.
MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012)
continues, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers
of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933 as well as
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,
materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife,
Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance
benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated
to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Objects to Remand of Ala. Stock Suit to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v.
MetLife, Inc., et al. have objected to a recommendation of a
magistrate judge granting a motion to remand the suit to state
court, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013

The suit in N.D. Alabama was filed in state court on July 5, 2012
and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of
the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc.
to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for
millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been
paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants
removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to
remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge
recommended granting the motion to remand to state court and the
defendants have objected to that recommendation. The defendants
intend to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in TCA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Total Control Accounts Litigation are appealing
the grant of summary judgment to Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (MLIC) to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, according to MetLife Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013

MLIC is a defendant in a consolidated lawsuit related to its use
of retained asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts
("TCA"), as a settlement option for death benefits.

Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
Sfiled in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal
court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011)
These putative class action lawsuits, which have been
consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC's
use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the
court granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.


METLIFE INC: Dismissal of Suit by Retired GM Employees Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of the action Merrill Haviland, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to
federal court on July 22, 2011), according to MetLife Inc.'s Feb.
27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013

This lawsuit was filed by 45 retired General Motors ("GM")
employees against MLIC and the amended complaint includes claims
for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent
insurance acts, unfair trade practices, and ERISA claims based
upon GM's 2009 reduction of the employees' life insurance
coverage under GM's ERISA-governed plan. The complaint includes a
count seeking class action status. MLIC is the insurer of GM's
group life insurance plan and administers claims under the plan.
According to the complaint, MLIC had previously provided
plaintiffs with a "written guarantee" that their life insurance
benefits under the GM plan would not be reduced for the rest of
their lives. On June 26, 2012, the district court granted MLIC's
motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the action on September 12, 2013.


METLIFE INC: MLIC Faces Indemnity Claim From Sun Life in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company faces an indemnity claim from
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada for a purported class action
Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co., according to
MetLife Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains
liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual
life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been
transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court
require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to
indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's
Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998. In January
2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of
its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life
had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion
for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently
agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim
through arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010),
alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended
class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life, again
without naming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life
notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
(Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales
practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by
MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is
obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in
these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.


METLIFE LIFE: Faces Litigations Over Alleged TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. faces lawsuits alleging violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Florida and
California, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The lawsuits are C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et
al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013) and Cadenasso v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013).

Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including
MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative,
alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements
to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). In the C-Mart case, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class of approximately
36,000 persons in Missouri who, during the period of August 7,
2012 through September 6, 2012, were allegedly sent an
unsolicited fax in violation of the TCPA. Trial is set for April
2014. In the Cadenasso case, plaintiff seeks certification of a
nationwide class of persons (except for Missouri residents) who
were allegedly sent millions of unsolicited faxes in violation of
the TCPA. In both cases, plaintiffs seek an award of statutory
damages under the TCPA in the amount of $500 for each violation
and to have such damages trebled.


MONTREAL: Tenants File Class Action Against Social Housing Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Tenneriello, writing for CJAD News, reports that more than
2000 people, who are mostly senior citizens, are accusing
Montreal's social housing agency (SHDM) of illegally increasing
their rent and they are trying to sue.

The city-backed agency's job is to provide affordable housing to
people in need.  In 2011, 40 tenants had to take the agency to
Quebec's rental board because of inconsistent rent hikes that in
some cases reached 200 dollars per month.  The board found the
housing office was using an illegal formula to calculate its rent
increases and revoked it.  But, not all the tenants in the
agency's 16 apartment buildings benefitted from that adjustment.

"Expenses like taxes were erroneously included, some revenues
were not included and there was information not made available to
tenants," Helene Guay, the lawyer who has deposited a motion to
file a class-action lawsuit against the SHDM said.

"The attitude of the landlord is really not acceptable; they've
been working like this for years without informing their tenants
of the right numbers and without raising the rent appropriately."

They're asking for $2100 in compensation for each tenant.

The motion was deposited on April 16th.  The date to present the
class-action lawsuit before a judge is still to be determined.


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Deceptive Ad Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge granted preliminary approval to a class action
settlement in a lawsuit accusing Motorola Mobility Inc. of
falsely marketing a watch designed to track personal fitness as
being sweat-proof and rain-resistant and refusing to honor
warranties for the product when it malfunctioned.

Consumers who certify that they purchased any version or model of
the Motoactv GPS sports watch between Jan. 1, 2011, and the
settlement's preliminary approval date will receive a $35 coupon
to be used on Motorola's website.  Class counsel is set to
receive $355,000 in attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

Both lead plaintiffs -- Stacie Kobylanski and Timothy Conner --
will each receive incentive payments of $2,000 as compensation
for their efforts to represent the class.

Notice of the settlement and the rights of class members to opt
in or out of the agreement is to be issued by May 2, and a
hearing to determine whether final approval should be given is
set for July 30.

"We are pleased that Judge [Terrence] McVerry has preliminarily
approved the settlement, which we believe represents an excellent
result for class members," Benjamin J. Sweet, an attorney for
plaintiffs, told Law360 on April 17.

Named plaintiff Stacie Kobylanski said in the August 2013
complaint that she bought the Motoactv GPS sports watch in
July 2012 based on Motorola's claims that it was a sweat-proof
and rain-resistant device to be used as a wearable fitness
performance tracker, but the product malfunctioned weeks after it
came into contact with sweat.

When Ms. Kobylanski returned the watch to Motorola the following
month, the company said the product suffered water damage from
sweat and refused to honor its warranty, the complaint alleged.

The suit said Ms. Kobylanski paid a premium for the Motoactv
watch over comparable fitness performance tracking products
because of the product's claims.  Ms. Kobylanski wore the watch
during an exercise session as directed, but the watch stopped
working after it got sweaty, according to the complaint.

Buried in the back of the product's user manual is a warning
against using the watch in the precise manner in which it's
advertised, the suit alleged.  According to the complaint, the
manual warns consumers to avoid exposing the Motoactv watch to
"water, rain, extreme humidity, sweat or other moisture."

The suit cited numerous Motorola commercials and advertisements
that show images of sweaty athletes wearing the Motoactv watch,
including one commercial that explicitly states that the product
is "sweat-proof."

At least 10 other consumer complaints were cited in the suit.
Ms. Kobylanski alleged that Motorola refused to disclose or
correct the problem expressed by consumers despite receiving a
significant number of complaints.

Plaintiffs are represented by Benjamin J. Sweet and Edwin J.
Kilpela Jr. of Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC and R. Bruce
Carlson, Gary F. Lynch, Stephanie K. Goldin and Jamisen A. Etzel
of Carlson Lynch Ltd.

Motorola is represented by Mark L. Durbin of Barnes & Thornburg
LLP and Christopher T. Lee -- clee@dmclaw.com -- of Dickie
McCamey & Chilcote PC.

The case is Kobylanski v. Motorola Mobility Inc., case number
2:13-cv-01181, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.


NEW JERSEY: Witnesses Get Subpoena on Bridgegate Closure Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
four witnesses were subpoenaed on April 22 by the New Jersey
Legislature committee investigating last fall's closure of local
access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee.

Ordered to appear for hearings were Gov. Chris Christie's
spokesperson Michael Drewniak; Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey executive director Patrick Foye; Port Authority
commissioner William Schuber; and Christina Renna, a former
liaison with the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs, which is an arm of the governor's office.

The four were subpoenaed to testify, not to produce documents.
Schuber and Renna are to appear on May 6, Messrs. Foye and
Drewniak on May 13.

Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, and Assemblyman John Wisniewski,
D-Middlesex, cochairs of the N.J. Legislative Select Committee on
Investigation, did not specify the areas of inquiry to be
covered, saying only that "the committee is moving to a key stage
of its investigation into how this abuse of government power and
threat to public safety occurred."

Mr. Drewniak was involved in several e-mail exchanges after the
closures and met with David Wildstein, the former director of
interstate capital projects at the Port Authority, who allegedly
orchestrated the closures with Gov. Christie's former deputy
chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, the day before Mr. Wildstein
resigned.

Gov. Christie fired Kelly after learning of her role and removed
Bill Stepien, his campaign manager, from his role as leader of
the state Republicans after learning that he may have had some
knowledge of the affair.

Mr. Foye, appointed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, ordered the
lanes re-opened on Sept. 13 and later sent an e-mail to senior
Port Authority staff that the closures were "ill-advised" and
possibly illegal.  He later said he believed Port Authority
chairman David Samson, a Christie appointee, did not have the
"moral authority" to lead the agency.

It is not clear why Schuber, a former state assemblyman and
Bergen County executive, was called to testify, although he was
one of several commissioners who criticized Mr. Foye for his
statement about Samson, who has since retired.

Ms. Renna, who resigned from the administration after the
closures, may be questioned about statements she made when she
was interviewed by lawyers at New York's Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
the New York firm Gov. Christie retained to conduct an internal
investigation of his administration's possible role in the lane
closures.

The firm expanded its inquiry after Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer
alleged that the OLIA used federal Hurricane Sandy aid to help
mayors in towns who supported Christie's legislative agenda or
who supported him in his re-election bid last year.  Ms. Renna
told Gibson Dunn lawyers that the OLIA had been told to ignore
requests for assistance from some mayors.

The lane closures and subsequent related events also are being
investigated by U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman and a federal grand
jury.


PETSMART: Recalls About 10,200 of 1.75 Gallon Glass Fish Bowls
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that PetSmart is recalling about
10,200 of its 1.75 gallon glass fish bowls because of a
laceration hazard.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission said
on April 17 that it has received 10 reports of the fish bowl
breaking during normal use.  Five of the reports were of cuts to
fingers and a knee. Four of the cuts required stitches. One
required surgery for a lacerated tendon in a consumer's finger.

The agency said that the fish bowls can crack, shatter or break
during normal handling.  The bowls, shaped like brandy snifters,
were sold under the Great Choice or Top Fin brands.  The SKU
number is 5140161 and the UPC code is 737257187092.  The SKU and
UPC codes are printed on a white sticker on the bottom of the
bowl.

The fish bowls were sold for about $20 exclusively at PetSmart
stores nationwide from February to September last year.

Consumers should immediately stop using the fish bowl and return
it to a PetSmart store for a full refund.

PetSmart can be reached toll-free at (888) 839-9638 from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MDT Monday through Friday.  Consumers can also
go to www.petsmart.com and click on "About PetSmart" at the
bottom of the page, then click on "Product Notices & Recalls" for
more information.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Croom" Suit Alleging Lipitor-Related Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet A. Croom, 414 Lawrence Street, Sandusky, Ohio 44870; and
Moses Croom, 414 Lawrence Street, Sandusky, Ohio 44870 v. Pfizer
Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No.
3:14-cv-00351-JJH (N.D. Ohio, February 18, 2014) is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Knabe, Esq.
          BROWN & SZALLER
          14222 Madison Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 228-7200
          Facsimile: (216) 228-7207
          E-mail: knabe@lawandhelp.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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie A. Callsen, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS - CLEVELAND
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-2286
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: jcallsen@tuckerellis.com


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Sued Over Involuntary Unpaid Pregnancy Leave
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Robertson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that a San Jose employee is the named plaintiff in a class action
against Pier 1 Imports Inc. that alleges the retailer denied
reasonable accommodation for her pregnancy and put her on
involuntary unpaid pregnancy leave.

Pier 1 has about 100 stores in California, including six in the
Sacramento region.  A typical store has at least 15 to 20
employees, court documents allege.

The lawsuit, filed on April 16 in Santa Clara County Superior
Court by the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, seeks new
policies that conform to California law; wages, benefits and
other compensation denied the plaintiff and others in a similar
situation, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
court costs.

"As a company policy, Pier 1 does not comment on specific legal
matters," Pier 1 spokeswoman Jennifer Engstrand said.

Kimberly Erin Caselman, the named plaintiff, worked as a sales
associate for Pier 1 in San Jose when she got pregnant.  In
November 2013, her doctor told her she should not lift more than
15 pounds or climb ladders during her pregnancy.  Pier 1 placed
her on an eight-week light-duty assignment.

Unfortunately, the assignment expired in January 2014, almost six
months before her July due date.

When Ms. Caselman asked for an extension so she could continue to
work, Pier 1 allegedly put her on concurrent medical leave and
California Pregnancy Disability Leave for four months. Under Pier
1 policy, she is required to return to work in May or provide a
doctor's note about why she can't.

Ms. Caselman never asked for a leave of absence -- she repeatedly
told Pier 1 that she wanted to continue working, court documents
allege.  But Pier 1's light-duty policy puts women with
pregnancy-related conditions on light duty for a maximum of eight
weeks and then automatically places them on unpaid pregnancy
leave if they continue to need accommodation.


PNC BANK: Facilities Not Fully Accessible to Disabled, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PNC Bank, National Association, Case No.
2:14-cv-00223-CRE (W.D. Pa., February 18, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant's facilities are not fully accessible to, and
independently usable by individuals, who use wheelchairs like the
Plaintiff.

Mr. Zipf has familial spastic paraparesis, which has caused him
to be paralyzed and dependent upon a motorized wheelchair for
mobility.

PNC Bank is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
          Carlos R. Diaz, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher K. Ramsey, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          301 Grant Street
          One Oxford Centre, Suite 3200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401
          Telephone: (412) 560-3300
          E-mail: cramsey@morganlewis.com


PUBLIC MOBILE: May Face Class Action Over Cell Contract Changes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shuyee Lee, writing for CJAD News, reports that Public Mobile
could be facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly changing
conditions in the middle of their clients' cell phone contracts.

Consumer lobby group Union des Consommateurs is asking the courts
to authorize the class action lawsuit alleging Public Mobile is
modifying contracts in breach of consumer protection laws.

Spokesman Philippe Viel says their phones have been ringing off
the hook with complaints from Public Mobile clients.  "Being
cheated, being stuck with their phones," Mr. Viel told CJAD 800
News.

Mr. Viel says people have been complaining to them that the cell
phone service provider is telling them they have to buy new more
expensive phones to be able to access to the new network provided
by Telus.  They're also being told their plans are being changed
or replaced even if their phones still work or if they got
guaranteed rates or discounts for plans running as long as 20
months.

"They will be stuck with this old agreement, they will be stuck
with their phones.  And even if Telus provides new phones with
some kind of a rebate or smaller prices, clients should not buy
new phones to access a network," Mr. Viel said.

Mr. Viel said clients are telling them they feel cheated and
trapped especially when they signed up with the company because
it was cheaper than others.

"For them, it was a good economic choice to go with Public Mobile
so now they will have to spend more money to have the same kind
of services that they choose to receive with Public Mobile," Mr.
Viel said.

The lawsuit is asking Public Mobile to respect the current
contracts and give clients new phones at no charge, or otherwise
compensate them for losses.


STATE STREET: Judge Tosses GM Workers' ERISA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, Ben James and Abigail Rubenstein, writing for
Law360, report that a Michigan federal judge threw out an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit brought by General
Motors Corp. workers who alleged State Street Bank & Trust Co.
continued to offer GM stock after it became imprudent, saying the
plaintiffs didn't meet their burden to show that the actions were
unreasonable.

The decision comes just more than a year after U.S. District
Judge Denise Page Hood certified a class in the suit alleging
breach of fiduciary duty against State Street for failure to
prudently manage stock in two retirement plans.  Plaintiffs
Raymond M. Pfeil and Michael Kammer filed the instant suit under
ERISA on behalf of themselves and participants in and
beneficiaries of GM's two main 401(k) plans.

Now, Judge Hood has entered judgment against plaintiffs and in
favor of State Street, saying a fiduciary's decision in an
employee stock ownership plan case is presumed to be reasonable
and that plaintiffs failed to overcome that presumption.

"Although plaintiffs make light of State Street's 'procedural
process' in reviewing the status of GM stock, the evidence
submitted, including the number of meetings the independent
fiduciary committee held during the class period shows that State
Street was prudent and deliberate in its decision-making," Judge
Hood wrote in the 39-page order filed on April 11.  "Analysts
during the class period were mixed as to whether to buy, hold or
sell the GM stock."

The decision is the most recent development in the suit, coming
after the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear State Street's
challenge to a Sixth Circuit ruling that revived the suit, which
was filed in June 2009 and subsequently tossed by a district
court.

The class certified in January 2013 covers people who were
participants in or beneficiaries of GM retirement plans, the
General Motors Savings-Stock Purchase Program for Salaried
Employees and the General Motors Personal Savings Plan for Hourly
Rate Employees, from July 15, 2008, through April 24, 2009, and
whose accounts included investments in GM.

The plaintiffs said State Street determined that GM stock was a
bad investment at the end of March 2009, and divested the stock
the next month.  However, the stock had become an imprudent
investment as early as July 15, 2008, when GM's CEO announced
that the company needed to implement a significant restructuring
plan, they alleged.

The district court in September 2010 dismissed the suit for
failure to state a claim, finding that although the plaintiffs
had sufficiently pled a breach of the company's fiduciary duty,
they had not proven that the company's breach caused losses to
the plans, as participants had a menu of investment options
available and could have reallocated their assets at all times.

But on appeal, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed
the lower court's findings, ruling that State Street had a duty
under ERISA to maintain only prudent investment options.

Geoffrey M. Johnson -- gjohnson@scott-scott.com -- of Scott +
Scott LLP, counsel to the plaintiffs, told Law360 on April 17
that they "respectfully disagree with the court's ruling and have
filed a notice of appeal."

Plaintiffs are represented by David Scott --
david.scott@scott-scott.com -- Thomas Laughlin --
tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Deborah Clark-Weintraub --
dweintraub@scott-scott.com -- Geoffrey M. Johnson and Stephen
Teti -- steti@scott-scott.com -- of Scott + Scott LLP.

State Street is represented by James D. Vandewyngearde --
vandewyj@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton LLP and Wilber H.
Boies and Nancy G. Ross of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

The case is Raymond M. Pfeil et al. v. State Street Bank and
Trust Co., case number 2:09-cv-12229, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division.


TARGET CORP: Tycko & Zavareei Files Class Action Over Wipes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Spangenberg Shibley &
Liber LLP have filed a class action lawsuit against Target
Corporation alleging that the retail giant misled consumers by
marketing its up & up(R) brand pre-moistened fabric wipes as
"flushable" and safe for sewer and septic systems, even though
that was not true.   In particular, the plaintiff contends that
the representations on the packaging of the up & up(R) wipes and
on Target's website that the wipes are "flushable," "break apart
after flushing," and are "sewer and septic safe" are false and
misleading.  Indeed, the lawsuit alleges that precisely the
opposite is true:  that the wipes do not disperse after flushing
and instead result in clogged sewer lines and septic systems,
causing sewage backups and even flooding.

The lawsuit also alleges that so-called "flushable" wipes like
Target's are a public health hazard because they are clogging
pumps at municipal waste-treatment facilities.  Cities across the
country have allegedly been forced to expend hundreds of
thousands, and in some cases millions, of taxpayer dollars in
labor and equipment costs to try to deal with the problem.  State
and local wastewater management officials in Ohio and many other
states have purportedly urged wipes sellers to remove the
flushability claims from their packaging and started public
relations campaigns warning consumers that the wipes are not
toilet safe.  According to the complaint, the wipes industry has
so far resisted removing these claims and sales for flushable
wipes are on the rise.

The lead plaintiff purchased up & up(R) brand flushable wipes
from a Target store located in Boardman, Ohio.  According to the
lawsuit, the plaintiff used the wipes primarily for potty
training his daughter and disposed of the wipes by flushing them
down his toilet as directed by the up & up(R) wipes packaging.
As alleged in the complaint, on or around summer 2013, the
plaintiff started noticing problems with the plumbing in his
house, such as the tub not draining and toilet not flushing
properly.  In November 2013, the plaintiff hired a plumber to
diagnose the problem.  The plumber discovered that the up & up(R)
flushable wipes the plaintiff had disposed of via his toilet had
not dispersed and had instead caked together in the plumbing and
septic system, causing the problems previously observed.  The
plumber flushed the pipes and septic system and charged the
plaintiff approximately $210 for labor and service.  The plumber
also informed the plaintiff that the septic system could be
permanently damaged due to the wipes and that then it may cost as
much as $20,000 to acquire a replacement system.

The civil action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Youngstown Division on behalf of all
consumers in Ohio that purchased Target-brand up & up(R)
flushable wipes.  Through their investigation, attorneys for the
putative class have uncovered numerous reports of similar
incidents across the country.

The lawsuit is captioned Meta v. Target Corporation, and a copy
of the complaint can be found here , at the website of Tycko &
Zavareei LLP.  Consumers with similar issues, or other people
with information about brands of wipes that claim to be
flushable, are encouraged to contact attorney Lorenzo Cellini at
Tycko & Zavareei LLP.


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: May Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada granted Theratechnologies Inc.'s
request to take an appeal from a court decision scrapping their
motion to dismiss a securities suit, according to the Company's
Feb. 7, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Nov. 30, 2013.

On February 24, 2012, the company announced that the Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, issued a judgment
authorizing the institution of a class action and an action based
on the secondary market liability provisions of the Securities
Act (Quebec) against the company, a director and a former
executive officer on behalf of persons who were shareholders of
the Corporation at May 21, 2010 and who sold their common shares
on May 25 or 26, 2010. On March 20, 2012, the company filed a
motion to the Court of Appeal of Quebec, District of Montreal, to
appeal this judgment.

Second Motion to Authorize a Class Action Filed. On May 27, 2013,
the company announced that 121851 Canada Inc. (the same
petitioner who filed a motion in July 2010) had filed a second
motion of authorization to institute a class action against the
Company, a director and a former executive officer. The second
motion is based on the same facts and seeks the same conclusion
as the first motion, except that damages are sought under the
Civil Code of Quebec instead of the Securities Act (Quebec). The
parties have agreed to stay this motion for the time being.

On February 24, 2012, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized
121851 Canada Inc. to institute a class action against the
Company, a director and a former executive officer and on March
20, 2012, the company filed a motion seeking permission to appeal
this judgement with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. The hearing
took place on January 24, 2013 and the company's motion was
dismissed by the Court on July 17, 2013. An application for leave
to appeal the decision issued by the Court of Appeal was filed in
November 2013 with the Supreme Court of Canada.  That application
was approved by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 20, 2014.

In May 2013, the same plaintiff instituted a second class action
based on the same facts and seeking the same conclusion as the
first motion except that damages are sought under the Civil Code
of Quebec instead of the Securities Act (Quebec). The parties
have agreed to stay this motion until a final decision is issued
under the first motion.


TIMBERCORP: Melbourne High Court Dismisses Investors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Gladstone Observer reports that the High Court, sitting in
Melbourne on April 11, refused to grant investors leave to appeal
an earlier Victorian Court of Appeal decision, effectively ending
the class action.

Timbercorp had owned 1179ha of avocado, mango and citrus farming
operations in the Bundaberg region -- predominantly in Childers.
About 14,500 investors nationwide had borrowed a total of $477.8
million from Timbercorp Finance to invest into Timbercorp before
the managed investment scheme collapsed and was placed in
liquation in 2009.

Slater & Gordon professional litigation lawyer James Naughton
said the High Court's decision was not the end of the road for
Timbercorp Finance investors, but warned their options were
increasingly limited.  He advised borrowers to carefully consider
their options after the decision and seek legal advice.

"One option may be for investors to consider whether they can
recover losses against their financial planner or accountant in
circumstances where the advice provided to them to invest in an
agribusiness scheme was inappropriate, especially in
circumstances where the risks of investing their scheme was not
adequately disclosed," Mr. Naughton said.

"The strength of these claims depends on the advice provided. It
is important to get an objective view on those matters before
considering litigation.

"For people who borrowed to invest in Timbercorp, the debts
remain outstanding and interest continues to accrue on the
loans."

Timbercorp was aggressively marketed, especially to people who
may have had a tax liability problem in any particular tax year.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: BP Bid for Review of Macondo Well Accord Opposed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's Steering Committee moved to dismiss BP plc's
petition for rehearing en banc of a decision granting final
approval to a settlement related to the Macondo well incident,
according to Transocean Ltd.'s Feb. 7, 2014, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Nov. 30, 2013.

Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court").
In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee (the
"PSC") announced that they had agreed to a partial settlement
related primarily to private party environmental and economic
loss claims as well as response effort related claims (the
"BP/PSC Settlement").  On December 21, 2012, the MDL Court
granted final approval of the economic and property damage class
settlement between BP and the PSC.  Various parties who objected
to the BP/PSC Settlement filed appeals in the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals challenging the MDL Court's final approval of the
BP/PSC Settlement.  BP filed appeals in the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals challenging the manner in which the BP/PSC Settlement
has been interpreted by the MDL Court with respect to business
economic loss claims ("BEL Claims").  In these appeals, BP argues
that, if the MDL Court's interpretation of the settlement with
respect to BEL Claims is not overturned, the entire BP/PSC
Settlement is invalid and should not have been approved.

On October 2, 2013, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an opinion questioning the manner in which the settlement
has been interpreted with respect to BEL Claims.  On December 2,
2013, that panel ordered a temporary halt to certain of the BEL
Claims, pending further proceedings in the MDL Court.  On January
10, 2014, another panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the MDL Court's final approval of the BP/PSC Settlement.
Thereafter, BP and certain plaintiffs who objected to the
settlement filed petitions seeking en banc review by the entire
Fifth Circuit of the legal validity of the BP/PSC Settlement.
The PSC moved to dismiss BP's petition for rehearing for lack of
jurisdiction.  On February 6, 2014, responses were filed to the
petitions for rehearing en banc and for the motion to dismiss.

In December 2012, in response to the BP/PSC Settlement, the
company filed three motions seeking partial summary judgment on
various claims, including punitive damages claims.  If
successful, these motions would eliminate or reduce the company's
exposure to punitive damages.  The MDL Court has not yet ruled on
these motions.

The first phase of the trial began on February 25, 2013 and
testimony concluded on April 17, 2013.  This phase addressed
fault issues, including negligence, gross negligence, or other
bases of liability of the various defendants with respect to the
cause of the blowout and the initiation of the oil spill, as well
as limitation of liability issues.  In June and July 2013, the
parties filed post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.

The second phase of the trial began on September 30, 2013, and
taking of testimony concluded on October 17, 2013.  This phase
addressed conduct related to stopping the release of hydrocarbons
after April 22, 2010 and quantification of the amount of oil
discharged.  On December 20, 2013, the parties filed post-trial
briefs and proposed findings, and on January 24, 2014, the
parties filed reply briefs.  The MDL Court has not yet ruled on
the issues tried in the first or second phases of the trial.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Ruling on Motion to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a securities suit against Transocean Ltd. in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York remains
under submission, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Nov. 30, 2013.

A federal securities proposed class action is pending in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the company
and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of
the company's acquired companies as defendants.  In the action, a
former shareholder of the acquired company alleges that the joint
proxy statement related to the company's shareholder meeting in
connection with the company's merger with the acquired company
violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff claims that the
acquired company's shareholders received inadequate consideration
for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and seeks
compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf
of itself and the proposed class members.  In addition, the
company is obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the
individual defendants, which may be covered by the company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to a
deductible.

On October 4, 2012, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the action.  On June 27, 2013, the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled in the unrelated action on an issue that could
be relevant to the disposition of this case in a manner that the
company believes supports the company's position that the
plaintiff's existing claims alleged in the action are time-
barred.  On August 30, 2013, the company filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the claims are time-barred, citing the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling.  Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on September 20,
2013, and the company filed a reply to that opposition on
September 24, 2013.  Oral argument has not been scheduled, and
the motion remains under submission.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces 199 Suits Over Macondo Well Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries were named, along
with other unaffiliated defendants, in 199 putative class-action
complaints that were pending in the federal and state courts over
the environmental pollution arising out of the Macondo well
incident, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2014, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Nov. 30, 2013.

As of December 31, 2013, the company and certain of the company's
subsidiaries were named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in 949 pending individual complaints as well as 199
putative class-action complaints that were pending in the federal
and state courts in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama,
Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and
possibly other courts.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, potential
economic losses as a result of environmental pollution arising
out of the Macondo well incident and are based primarily on the
OPA and state OPA analogues.  The plaintiffs are generally
seeking awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as injunctive relief.  No classes have been
certified at this time.  Most of these actions have either been
transferred to or are the subject of motions to transfer to the
MDL.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Has Made Calls w/o Prior Consent, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Humphrey, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
01157 (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2014) seeks to redress the
Defendant's alleged pattern and practice of making calls using an
artificial or pre-recorded voice without express consent of the
called party.

United Healthcare Services Inc. is a Minnesota corporation based
in Minnetonka, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark T. Lavery, Esq.
          HYSLIP & TAYLOR LLC LPA
          917 W. 18th St., Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60608
          Telephone: (312) 380-6110
          E-mail: Mark@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason Patrick Stiehl, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: jstiehl@seyfarth.com


US STOCK EXCHANGES: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 18 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of public investors who purchased
and/or sold shares of stock in the United States between April
18, 2009 and the present on a registered public stock exchange or
a United States-based alternate trading venue and were injured as
a result of the misconduct.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 18.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme and
wrongful course of business whereby the Exchange Defendants,
together with a defendant class of the brokerage firms entrusted
to fairly and honestly transact the purchase and sale of
securities on behalf of their clients and a defendant class of
sophisticated high frequency trading firms engaged in conduct
that was designed to and did manipulate the U.S. securities
markets and the trading of equities on those markets, diverting
billions of dollars annually from buyers and sellers of
securities to the defendants, in violation of Secs. 6, 10(b) and
20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that contrary to the duties imposed upon
them by law, SEC rules and their own regulations, the defendants
participated in a scheme and wrongful course of business whereby
certain market participants were provided with material, non-
public information so that those market participants could use
the informational advantage obtained to manipulate the U.S.
securities market to the detriment of public investors.
Notwithstanding their legal obligations and duties to provide for
orderly and honest trading and to match the bids and orders
placed on behalf of investors at the best available price, the
Exchange Defendants and those defendants that controlled
alternate trading venues demanded and received substantial
kickback payments in exchange for providing the HFT Defendants
access to material trading data via preferred access to exchange
floors and/or through proprietary trading products.  Likewise, in
exchange for kickback payments, the Brokerage Firm Defendants
provided access to their customers' bids and offers, and directed
their customers' trades to stock exchanges and alternate trading
venues that the Brokerage Firm Defendants knew had been rigged
and were subject to informational asymmetries as a result of
defendants' scheme and wrongful course of business.  Defendants'
predatory practices included the Brokerage Firm Defendants
selling "special access" to material data, including orders made
by the investing public so that the HFT Defendants could then
trade against them using the informational asymmetries and other
market manipulation. Defendants' misconduct rigged the market and
manipulated the prices at which shares were traded during the
Class Period, causing substantial damage to public investors as a
result thereof.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all public
investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United
States during the Class Period on a registered public stock
exchange or a United States-based alternate trading venue.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

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


* EU Eases Rules for Cartel Victims to Claim Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
EurActiv.com reports that european lawmakers on April 17 eased
the way for cartel victims to claim compensation from companies
under new rules that also shield price-fixing whistleblowers from
being the main target of million-euro lawsuits.

The green light from the European Parliament came nine years
after the European Commission broached the idea, seeing it as an
additional tool, on top of fines, to deter companies from
breaking antitrust laws.

According to the Commission, only one in four cartels and
antitrust infringements faced damages claims in the last seven
years.  Its 2010 estimate put the cost of unrecovered damages of
infringements at over EUR20 billion.  The rules, drafted by the
EU competition authority, need the blessing of the 28 European
Union countries before they can come into force.

At least 16 EU countries currently allow cartel victims to sue
for compensation but procedural obstacles, the high cost of
litigation and the difficulty of getting evidence of price-fixing
mean few victims actually take action.  The new EU wide rules set
common standards and minimum requirements across the bloc.
European Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia welcomed the
lawmakers' vote.

"The Directive will help to make the right to full compensation a
reality in the EU, by removing the practical obstacles that
victims face today," Mr. Almunia said in a statement.

"When the Directive is adopted and implemented, obtaining redress
will become easier for them, especially after a competition
authority has found and sanctioned an infringement."

The new rules are fairly lenient towards whistleblowers, said
Bernd Meyring, a partner at law firm Linklaters.

"The fact that whistleblowers have often been the first victims
of damage claims is counterbalanced by a limitation of their
liability to their own customers.  This should further strengthen
the incentives to apply for immunity," he said.

Whistleblowers have been crucial in helping the Commission
uncover price-fixing in areas ranging from financial market
benchmarks to TV monitor tubes and vitamins, resulting in fines
of more than EUR22 billion in the last 14 years.

Under the new rules, cartel victims will be barred from getting
access to documents with evidence of wrongdoing provided by
whistleblowers.  The rules also contain safeguards against
abusive litigation, massive payouts and law firms and third-party
funders hunting for potential claims and claimants, to avoid
creating a US-style litigation culture.


                             *********

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  * * *