CAR_Public/140429.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 84

                             Headlines


247 CAFE: Former Kitchen Workers Seek to Recover Overtime Premium
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES: Wants to Appeal "Vagle" Suit Remand Order
BANKERS LIFE: Discovery in "Parrottino" Suit Allowed In Part
BANKRATE INC: Colo. Court Dismisses "Speight" TCPA Litigation
BANKRATE INC: "Nicoski" Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification

BANKRATE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in N.Y.
BEBE STORES: Fails to Have Blind-Accessible POS Units, Suit Says
BNY MELLON: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Madoff Feeder Fund
BURGER KING: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Fax Ad Class Action
CABARCENO ENTERPRISES: Faces "Sainz" Collective Action in Florida

CABLE NEWS: Illegally Disclosed Users' Sensitive Info, Suit Says
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay & Other Relief
CARLYLE GROUP: May 19 Class Cert. Hearing in Suit v. Apollo
CARLYLE GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits Under Appeal
CENTURY LINK: Fights Suits Over Modifications to Retiree Benefits

CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement in Qwest Rights-of-Way Suit Approved
CHEMED CORP: Settlement in Labor Lawsuit v. VITAS Paid in 2013
CHEMED CORP: Settles Securities Litigation in Ohio for $6 Million
CLC RESORTS: Makes Unsolicited and Illegal Calls, Suit Claims
COMPASS HEALTH: Wants $1.1MM OT Class Action Settlement Approved

CORELOGIC INC: No Appeals Court Review in RESPA "Violation" Suit
CORELOGIC INC: Subsidiary Reaches Settlement in FCRA Litigation
CORPORATE ENHANCEMENT: Faces "McLaughlin" Class Suit in Tennessee
DIGITAL RISK: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
DILLARD'S PROPERTIES: Removed "Stayart" Suit to E.D. California

DIODES INC: Discovery Stayed in Tex. Suit Due to Dismissal Bid
EXELON GENERATION: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime Compensation
FACEBOOK INC: NASDAQ Appealed to 2nd Cir. From IPO MDL Order
FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in New York
GENERAL CABLE: "Livonia" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Kentucky

GENERAL MOTORS: May 29 Hearing Set for Defect-Related Cases
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Ruff" Action in N.J. Over Ignition Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Gray Ritter Files Consumer Class Action
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Judge Tosses Investors' Class Action
GOOGLE INC: "Rudgayzer" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to California

HESS CORP: Removed "Olson" Suit to North Dakota District Court
HGB PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $86MM Payable in Suit Over Domestic Plan
HUSTON CONTRACTING: Fails to Properly Pay Class, Suit Claims
JAMES PETERS: One of 50 Women in Hep C Suit Blocks Settlement

JERSEY CITY PARKING: Default Judgment Bid in "Ali" Suit Denied
KANSAS CITY: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Missouri
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Banks Balk at Bid to Dismiss Derivatives Suit
MAIDENFORM BRANDS: 2 Women Sue Over Weight Reduction Claims
MATTLEMAN WEINROTH: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement

MERCK & CO: La. Court Approves Settlement in Vioxx Litigation
MERCK & CO: Submission of Vioxx Claims in Missouri Closed in Oct
MERCK & CO: Settles Vioxx Suit in Indiana With Named Plaintiffs
MERCK & CO: Discovery in N.J. Vioxx Securities Suit Now Closed
MERCK & CO: Settles Fosamax ONJ Litigation for $27.7 Million

MERCK & CO: Wins Court OK for $215MM Accord in Vytorin/Zetia Suit
MERCK & CO: Pays $480MM Into "ENHANCE Litigation" Settlement Fund
MERCK & CO: Sued by Pa. Purchasers of M-M-R II Vaccine
MERCK & CO: Reinstated as Defendant in New Jersey AWP Litigation
MERCK & CO: 3rd Cir. Sends K-DUR Antitrust Suit to District Court

MERCK & CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Coupon Litigation
MERCK & CO: To Re-File Motion to Dismiss Sales Force Litigation
NATIONAL BROADBAND: Contractors Postpone Proposed Class Action
OVASCIENCE INC: Mass. Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
PACKAGING CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $17.6 Million

QANTAS: Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Class Action for $38-Mil.
RITZ TRANS: Dist. Ct. Adopts Mag. Judge's Report in "Cohn" Case
SEI INVESTMENTS: 5th Cir. Won't Review Stock Suit Transfer Order
SPEIGHT SEED: Court Certifies Class in "Hernandez-Martinez" Suit
TEAM HEALTH: Medical Personnel File Class Action Over Wages

TRANSUNION HOLDING: Distributions From Privacy Suit Deal Affirmed
TRANSUNION HOLDING: Objecting Counsel Seeks Interlocutory Appeal
TRANSUNION HOLDING: Seeks Approval for "Soutter" Suit Settlement
TRANSUNION HOLDING: Certification Sought in OFAC Alert Lawsuit
WPX ENERGY: Court Allows Method of Calculating Royalty Payments

WPX ENERGY: Sued by Royalty Interest Owners in N.Mex., Colo.
WPX ENERGY: Bares Updates in Suits Related to Natural Gas Biz


                             *********


247 CAFE: Former Kitchen Workers Seek to Recover Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alipio Cueva, Mario Cueva, Miguel Lopic, Segundo Sanaycela and
Carlos Cordova, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 247 Cafe Inc. d/b/a Brooklyn Public House
and Kevin Lunney, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-01053-
RJD-JO (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs, who are former
kitchen employees at the Defendants' Irish restaurant and bar
located in Brooklyn, New York.

247 Cafe Inc., doing business as Brooklyn Public House, is a New
York corporation with a principal place of business in Brooklyn,
New York.  Kevin Lunney is the owner, operator and general
manager of 247 Cafe.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew T. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Nicholas Marco Reiter, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          1270 Avenue of the Americas, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 307-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 307-5598
          E-mail: mtmclaughlin@venable.com
                  nmreiter@venable.com


ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES: Wants to Appeal "Vagle" Suit Remand Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the class action lawsuit styled Jennifer Vagle,
et al. v. Archstone Communities LLC, et al., asked the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to
appeal from an order entered on February 5, 2014, by the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
The order remanded the case to a state court.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Vagle and George Ponce filed a putative class
action in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of themselves and
other former tenants, who resided in apartment communities
allegedly owned or operated by Defendants Archstone Communities
LLC, ASN Warner Center, LLC, and Archstone Long Beach LP.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully charged the
tenants, at the end of the tenants' tenancy, for apartment
cleaning, painting, and carpet cleaning or replacement regardless
of the unit's actual condition.

Long Beach removed the case to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act and the Plaintiffs moved to remand the case
to state court.  On February 5, the District Court granted  The
Plaintiffs' remand motion.

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Aaron Thomas Winn, Esq.
          Christopher J. Healey, Esq.
          Jaikaran Singh, Esq.
          MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
          600 W. Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3391
          Telephone: (619) 699-2579
          Facsimile: (619) 744-3682
          E-mail: awinn@mckennalong.com
                  chealey@mckennalong.com
                  isingh@mckennalong.com

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Kitty Szeto, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: rrparris@rexparris.com
                  awheeler@rexparris.com
                  jbickford@rexparris.com
                  kszeto@rexparris.com

The appellate case is Jennifer Vagle, et al. v. Archstone
Communities LLC, et al., Case No. 14-80026, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The District Court case
is Jennifer Vagle, et al. v. Archstone Communities LLC, et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-9044-RGK (AJWx), in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The original state
court case is Jennifer Vagle, et al. v. Archstone Communities
LLC, et al., Case No. BC480931, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles.


BANKERS LIFE: Discovery in "Parrottino" Suit Allowed In Part
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub granted in part and denied in
part a motion to compel discovery filed by the plaintiff in
KATHLEEN PARROTTINO, on behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY CO.,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-13084, (E.D. Mich.).

Judge Majzoub's April 17, 2014 Opinion and Order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/e8lozYfrom Leagle.com, also
provides that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions is
granted in part and denied in part.  With regards another
separate Motion to Compel Discovery filed by the Plaintiff, the
Court denied the request, specifically:

     a. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery with regard to
        her Second Set of Requests for Production; and

     b. Plaintiff's request for sanctions under Federal Rule
        of Civil Procedure 37.

Kathleen Parrottino, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver,
Lisa M. Gray, Oliver Law Group, PC & Christina A. Kovacs, Oliver
Law Group PC.

Banker's Life and Casualty Co., Defendant, represented by Charles
C. DeWitt, Jr. -- cdewitt@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PLC,
David K. Haase -- dhaase@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Emily K. Tyler -- etyler@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson &
Stephanie S. Kelly -- skelly@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


BANKRATE INC: Colo. Court Dismisses "Speight" TCPA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
dismissed the case Stephanie Speight v. Bankrate, Inc. after a
settlement, 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 October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit styled Stephanie
Speight v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) and seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and
attorney fees. The plaintiff alleged that the Company contacted
her and the members of the class she sought to represent on their
cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On
January 16, 2014, the plaintiff and a proposed plaintiff, Julio
Acosta, who filed a motion for leave to be added as a plaintiff,
entered into a settlement agreement with the Company on an
individual basis, at no cost to the Company. On January 17, 2014,
the court dismissed the case with prejudice.


BANKRATE INC: "Nicoski" Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in Steven Nicoski v. Bankrate, Inc. has filed a
motion for class certification with the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, 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 October 8, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit styled Steven
Nicoski v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
alleging violations of the TCPA and seeking statutory damages,
injunctive relief and attorney fees. The plaintiff alleges that
the Company contacted him and the members of the class he seeks
to represent on their cellular telephones without their prior
express consent. The plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification in December 2013 and the parties have now fully
briefed the motion.


BANKRATE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the suit Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System v. Bankrate, Inc., 13-CV-7183, 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 October 10, 2013, a purported class action suit was brought in
federal court in the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain officers and directors of the Company, entities
associated with Apax Partners, and the underwriters in the
Company's 2011 initial public offering and December 2011 stock
offering.  The suit, captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
v. Bankrate, Inc., 13-CV-7183, alleges, among other things, that
the Company's public disclosures regarding its insurance leads
business, were materially misleading, and seeks relief under the
federal securities laws, including damages.  On January 21, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which asserted claims
against the Company, certain officers of the Company, and
entities associated with Apax Partners, and dropped the claims
asserted against the underwriters and certain Company directors.
On February 11, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed
a motion to dismiss.


BEBE STORES: Fails to Have Blind-Accessible POS Units, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bebe Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-20603-JAL (S.D.
Fla., February 18, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for
failing to design, construct, and own or operate Point of Sale
Devices that are fully accessible to, and independently usable
by, blind people like the Plaintiff.

Bebe Stores, Inc., is a corporation incorporated in California
and headquartered in Brisbane, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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


BNY MELLON: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Madoff Feeder Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, reports that a New York state
judge dismissed a class action against BNY Mellon on April 15,
saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove the investment bank
showed gross negligence in ignoring key warning signs in Bernard
Madoff's notorious $65 billion Ponzi scheme that caused investors
massive losses.

New York Supreme Court Judge Marcy Friedman granted BNY Mellon's
motion to toss the case, saying lead plaintiffs Entwistle &
Cappucci LLP, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Bernstein
Liebhard LLP -- all of which represented Madoff investors known
as the Rye Funds -- had not accused the bank of any extraordinary
negligence or misconduct, which would be required in order to
pursue damages.

"It does not allege that defendants breached, let alone
recklessly disregarded, any contractual duty. . . . The law also
does not impose any additional tort duty, or duty independent of
contract, to exercise reasonable care," the decision said.

The action had also alleged that BNY Mellon breached its
fiduciary duty by failing to verify its investments with Madoff,
and by entering into a conflict of interest by servicing the
master account for Madoff's funds and administering the Rye Funds
simultaneously -- both of which Friedman ruled were not viable
claims.

"In sum, the amended complaint does not allege that BNY Mellon
had any role in the Rye Funds' investment decisions, any duty to
independently value the funds' assets or independently calculate
the funds' [net asset value] and any responsibility for
monitoring sub-custodians," she said.

It also unsuccessfully claimed that the bank had "superior
knowledge" about suspicious elements of Madoff's fund, which it
failed to disclose to Rye Funds investors.

In fighting the case, BNY Mellon had argued that it provided only
"back office" functions, like mailing account statements and
calculating net asset value based on information submitted by
third parties, and Madoff himself was the custodian of the actual
investments.

Vincent R. Cappucci, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the
firms were in the process of examining the decision and would
weigh an appeal or other legal measures.

The three firms each represented a class of Rye Funds investors
that sued both BNY Mellon, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Co. and a MassMutual subsidiary, Tremont Group Holdings Inc.,
accusing them of contributing to the loss of approximately $3
billion in accounts the investors held with Madoff's investment
company before his scheme collapsed in December 2008.  Those
actions were eventually consolidated, and MassMutual and Tremont
agreed to a $100 million settlement to resolve the suit in 2011,
which included assignments of third-party claims against BNY
Mellon and others to the state court.

The plaintiffs are represented by Vincent R. Cappucci --
vcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- of Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

BNY Mellon is represented by Jeffrey A. Rosenthal --
jrosenthal@cgsh.com -- of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

The case is Plaintiffs' State and Securities Law Settlement Class
Counsel Entwistle & Cappucci LLP et al. v. The Bank of New York
Mellon et al., case number 653415/2011, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York.


BURGER KING: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Fax Ad Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a Maryland federal
judge on April 16 denied Burger King Worldwide Inc.'s bid to
evade a real estate company's proposed class action accusing the
fast food giant of sending unsolicited faxes in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm rejected Burger King's motion
to dismiss the proposed class action for failure to state a
claim, saying that plaintiff Jay Clogg Realty Group Inc. had
sufficiently alleged that it received unsolicited fax
advertisements that were transmitted by Burger King even if it
didn't expressly allege that it received the faxes on a
traditional, ink-and-paper fax machine.

"Evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint is a 'context-specific
task that requires the reviewing court to draw' not only 'on its
judicial experience,' but also on 'common sense,' and the natural
conclusion reasonably inferred from plaintiff's allegations is
that it received the facsimile advertisements on a fax machine,"
the judge said.

Judge Grimm also rejected Burger King's attempt to strike the
class allegations by arguing that TCPA actions inherently are not
appropriate for class actions, holding that there is nothing in
the TCPA that precludes class action relief, according to the
opinion.

"The law in this district allows TCPA claims to be pursued as
class actions," the judge said.  "Against this weight of
authority, defendant unwisely asks me to chart a different
course, relying on the legislative history of the TCPA to
foreclose the availability of class relief, undeterred by the
fact that this is precisely the sort of argument that the Supreme
Court rejected in Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs LLC."

The judge shot down Burger King's argument that the legislative
history of the TCPA demonstrates that private actions seeking
statutory damages were intended to be brought as individual
lawsuits, saying Burger King was effectively arguing that even if
it has committed legion TCPA violations, the only remedy
available to the recipients is to file an unaggregated and
conceivably unlimited series of individual actions despite the
obvious existence of common issues of fact and law.

"It is apparent that allowing consumers to bring a class action
under the TCPA is a uniquely effective way to protect a
population already besieged by unwanted and aggressive
solicitations from persons or companies hawking their products,"
the judge said.  "In fact, if the goal of the TCPA is to remove a
'scourge' from our society, it is unlikely that 'individual suits
would deter large commercial entities as effectively as
aggregated class actions and that individuals would be as
motivated -- or even more motivated -- to sue in the absence of
the class action vehicle.'"

However, Judge Grimm indicated that the current complaint, which
seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities who
received unsolicited faxes from Burger King over a four-year
span, doesn't pass muster for class certification since there are
no facts in the record that Burger King's advertising campaign
lasted four years.

Jay Clogg launched suit in March 2013 alleging it received
several fax advertisements from Burger King advertising the fast
food chain's delivery service in December 2012 and in January
2013.  The advertisements did not include an opt-out notice as
required by the TCPA, according to court documents.  Jay Clogg
claimed that even though it is based in Rockville, Md., it
received advertisements and coupons for discounts in Houston and
New York City.

Jay Clogg is represented by Stephen H. Ring, Edward A. Broderick
of Broderick Law PC and Matthew P. McCue of The Law Office of
Matthew P. McCue.

Burger King is represented by Daniel S. Blynn --
dblynn@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

The case is Jay Clogg Realty Group Inc. v. Burger King Corp.,
number 8:13-cv-00662, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.


CABARCENO ENTERPRISES: Faces "Sainz" Collective Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milda Libertad Sainz and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Cabarceno Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Sedano's
Supermarket, # 18, Case No. 1:14-cv-20608-JLK (S.D. Fla.,
February 18, 2014) is brought as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cabarceno Enterprises Inc., doing business as Sedano's
Supermarket, #18, is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Surama Suarez, Esq.
          ANGONES, MCCLURE & GARCIA, P.A.
          Courthouse Tower, 8th Floor
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 371-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 371-3948
          E-mail: ssuarez@amglaw.net


CABLE NEWS: Illegally Disclosed Users' Sensitive Info, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Perry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cable News Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
CNN Interactive Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-01194 (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2014) is brought to put an
end to the Defendants' alleged unlawful practice of disclosing
their users' sensitive information, and to obtain redress for
that conduct.

Atlanta, Georgia-based Cable News Network, Inc. is one of the
largest producers of television news programming in the world.
Perhaps best known for its eponymously named television channel,
the Cable News Network also offers content to consumers via other
media, including on mobile devices through its proprietary mobile
software application, the "CNN App."  CNN Interactive Group, Inc.
is Cable News Network's subsidiary responsible for the
development and distribution of the CNN App.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          Courtney C. Booth, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  nlarry@edelson.com
                  cbooth@edelson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Clinton Earl Cameron, Esq.
          Danielle Nicole Twait, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, #3000
          Chicago, IL 60603-5111
          Telephone: (312) 759-1920
          Facsimile: (312) 759-1939
          E-mail: clinton.cameron@troutmansanders.com
                  danielle.twait@troutmansanders.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay & Other Relief
------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Popoca, and Similarly Situated Individuals v. Cal-Maine
Foods, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Adolphus Baker,
Individually, One Balance, Inc. d/b/a Balance Staffing, a Florida
Corporation, Eric Feinstein, Individually, Professional
Management Services Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Debra
Hubbard, Individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-00412-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla.,
February 18, 2014) is brought for overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., produces and distributes shell eggs, and
maintains various egg farms throughout the United States of
America, including Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bertha L. Burruezo, Esq.
          BURRUEZO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1420A Lake Baldwin Ln.
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 587-6552
          Facsimile: (407) 754-2905
          E-mail: bertha@burruezolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Russell Landy, Esq.
          DAMIAN & VALORI, LLP
          1000 Brickell Ave., Suite 1020
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 371-3960
          Facsimile: (305) 371-3965
          E-mail: rlandy@dvllp.com


CARLYLE GROUP: May 19 Class Cert. Hearing in Suit v. Apollo
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit Police and Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC have jointly
submitted a proposed case management order that calls for a jury
trial commencing in November 2014, according to The Carlyle Group
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 September 2006 and March 2009, the Partnership received
requests for certain documents and other information from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") in
connection with the DOJ's investigation of global alternative
asset firms to determine whether they have engaged in conduct
prohibited by U.S. antitrust laws. The Partnership fully
cooperated with the DOJ's investigation.

On February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging
"club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC). The complaint alleges,
among other things, that certain global alternative asset firms,
including the Partnership, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act
by forming multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose of bidding
collectively in company buyout transactions in certain going
private transactions, which the plaintiffs allege constitutes a
"conspiracy in restraint of trade." Count One of the complaint
alleges an overarching conspiracy relating to certain large
buyout transactions. Count Two of the complaint alleges a
conspiracy with regard to the buyout of Healthcare Corporation of
America. The plaintiffs seek damages as provided for in Section 4
of the Clayton Act and an injunction against such conduct in
restraint of trade in the future. The defendants moved for
summary judgment on both counts.

On March 13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ruled that plaintiffs could proceed on Count One
solely on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to refrain from
"jumping" announced proprietary (i.e., non-auction) deals. The
Court stated that it would entertain further summary judgment
motions by individual defendants as to their participation in the
more narrowly defined alleged conspiracy. The Court also denied
summary judgment as to Count Two.

On April 16, 2013, Carlyle filed a consolidated motion, renewing
its motion for summary judgment on Count One, and moving for
reconsideration on Count Two. On April 22, 2013, Carlyle joined a
motion seeking reconsideration on Count Two filed on behalf of
all Count Two defendants. On June 20, 2013, the Court denied the
motion for reconsideration on Count Two filed by the Count Two
defendants. On July 18, 2013, the Court denied Carlyle's
individual summary judgment motion regarding its participation in
the conspiracy alleged in Count One. The U. S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts has set a schedule for class
certification proceedings, which calls for a hearing on class
certification sometime after May 19, 2014. The parties have
jointly submitted a proposed case management order that calls for
a jury trial commencing in November 2014.


CARLYLE GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the District of Columbia and New York
shareholder lawsuits against The Carlyle Group L.P. is under
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 June 21, 2011, August 24, 2011 and September 1, 2011,
respectively, three putative shareholder class actions were filed
against Carlyle, certain of its affiliates and former directors
of Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited (CCC) alleging that the
fund offering materials and various public disclosures were
materially misleading or omitted material information. Two of the
shareholder class actions (Phelps v. Stomber, et al. and Glaubach
v. Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited, et al.) were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Phelps
v. Stomber, et al. was also filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County and was subsequently removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
two original D.C. cases were consolidated into one case under the
caption of Phelps v. Stomber and the Phelps named plaintiffs were
designated "lead plaintiffs" by the Court. The New York case was
transferred to the D.C. federal court and the plaintiffs
requested that it be consolidated with the other two D.C.
actions. The plaintiffs were seeking compensatory damages
sustained as a result of the alleged misrepresentations, costs
and expenses, as well as reasonable attorney's fees. On August
13, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia dismissed both the D.C. and New York shareholder class
actions. The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint
and/or for amendment of the Court's decision, but the trial court
denied that motion on June 4, 2013. The plaintiffs' previously
filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit was then automatically reinstated and oral
arguments on this appeal were held on February 19, 2014.


CENTURY LINK: Fights Suits Over Modifications to Retiree Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Embarq Corporation and other defendants continue to vigorously
contest any remaining claims in William Douglas Fulghum, et al.
v. Embarq Corporation, et al.; and seek to have the claims in the
Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. CenturyLink/Embarq
dismissed, according to Centurylink, 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 William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative
class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain
modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life
insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits,
generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which,
at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce
estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than
$300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit
plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan
administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional
defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit
plans. The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs'
claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. CenturyLink/Embarq
is not named a defendant in the lawsuit. In Abbott, approximately
1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in
the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the
class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court
has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely. On February 14,
2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs'
claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum court granted
plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Embarq and the other defendants will defend the appeal, continue
to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to
have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds.


CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement in Qwest Rights-of-Way Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in lawsuits filed against Qwest Communications
International Inc. relating to the installation of fiber optic
cable in certain rights-of-way have received final approval of
settlements in 30 states, according to Centurylink, Inc.'s Feb.
27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts
located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most
part, the complaints challenge the company's right to install the
company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The
complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an
easement that did not include the right to permit the company to
install the company's cable in the right-of-way without the
plaintiffs' consent. Most of the currently pending actions
purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the
named plaintiffs' respective states, although one action pending
before the Illinois Court of Appeals purports to be brought on
behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. In general, the
complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide
settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties
proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-
state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of
such settlements in 30 states (Alabama, California, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Virginia and Wisconsin) and have not yet received either
preliminary or final approval in one state where an action is
pending (Texas) and three states where actions were at one time,
but are not currently, pending (Arizona, Massachusetts, and New
Mexico).


CHEMED CORP: Settlement in Labor Lawsuit v. VITAS Paid in 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
A $10.3 million settlement reached in a labor suit against VITAS
Healthcare Corporation of California was paid in 2013, according
to Chemed Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

VITAS is party to a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County in September 2006 by
Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White, Bernadette
Santos, et al. v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California,
BC359356.  This case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure
to provide meal and rest periods to a purported class of
California admissions nurses, chaplains and sales
representatives.  The case seeks payment of penalties, interest
and Plaintiffs' attorney fees.  In December 2009, the trial court
denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In July 2011,
the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of class certification on
the travel time, meal and rest period claims, and reversed the
trial court's denial on the off-the-clock and sales
representation exemption claims.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal of
this decision.  In September 2012, in response to an order of
reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reiterated its previous
rulings.  In March 2013, the Court granted summary judgment
dismissing the sales representatives' claims as they are exempt
employees.  In October 2013 the company reached agreement to
settle the case for $10.3 million plus applicable payroll taxes
($6.5 million aftertax).  As such, $10.5 million is recorded as
other operating expense in the year ended December 31, 2013
Statement of Income.  This settlement was paid in 2013.


CHEMED CORP: Settles Securities Litigation in Ohio for $6 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A $6.0 million settlement was reached in In re Chemed Corp.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-28 (S.D. Ohio),
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 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against
the Company, Kevin McNamara, David Williams, and Timothy O'Toole,
In re Chemed Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-
cv-28 (S.D. Ohio).  On June 18, 2012, an amended complaint was
filed alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and
violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Messrs. McNamara, Williams, and O'Toole.  The suit's
allegations concern the VITAS hospice segment of the Company's
business.  Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from
Defendants' alleged failure to disclose an alleged fraudulent
scheme at VITAS to enroll ineligible hospice patients and to
fraudulently obtain payments from the federal government.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 17, 2012, which were pending when the parties reached an
agreement to settle the action.  On June 7, 2013, following the
filing of U.S. v. VITAS, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint.  Defendants opposed this motion.
On September 16, 2013 Plaintiffs, executed a Settlement Term
Sheet with Defendants, reaching an agreement in principle to
settle this case subject to court approval.  On February 6, 2014,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Chemed
Capital Stock between February 15, 2010 and May 2, 2013,
inclusive, executed a stipulation of settlement with Defendants,
agreeing to settle this case in full and with prejudice, and to
provide Defendants with full releases of all claims that are or
could have been asserted by Plaintiffs in exchange for payment of
$6.0 million by the company's insurer into a settlement fund for
the benefit of the putative settlement class.  The Settlement has
been recorded as an accrual and offsetting prepaid in the
accompanying Balance Sheet. This Settlement is subject to Court
approval.


CLC RESORTS: Makes Unsolicited and Illegal Calls, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CLC Resorts and Developments, Inc., a
Florida corporation, Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc. (d/b/a Grand
Crowne Resorts), a Missouri corporation, and Passport Holidays,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 6:14-cv-00281-
GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2014) seeks to stop the
Defendants' alleged practice of making unsolicited calls to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by their conduct.

CLC Resorts and Developments, Inc. is a Florida corporation with
its principal place of business located in Kissimmee, Florida.
Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc., doing business as Grand Crowne
Resorts, is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of
business located in Branson, Missouri.  Passport Holidays, LLC is
a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of
business located in Daytona Beach, Florida.  The Defendants work
together to market and sell timeshares to a variety of resorts
and vacation properties throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
          201 South Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jerry Ray Linscott, Esq.
          Julie Singer Brady, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801-3432
          Telephone: (407) 649-4000
          Facsimile: (407) 841-0168
          E-mail: jlinscott@bakerlaw.com
                  jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Michael Swann, Esq.
          SNYDERBURN, RISHOI & SWANN, LLP
          2250 Lucien Way, Suite 140
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 647-2005
          Facsimile: (407) 647-1522
          E-mail: mswann@srslaw.net


COMPASS HEALTH: Wants $1.1MM OT Class Action Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that plaintiffs in a
class action accusing Compass Health Inc. of underpaying workers
for overtime have asked a California federal judge to grant final
approval of a $1.1 million settlement, saying no putative class
members objected to the deal, according to an April 14 filing.

The plaintiffs applauded the proposed deal, which requires
Compass to pay a net settlement amount of up to $700,500 to all
members of the settlement class -- approximately 2,500 current
and former hourly nonexempt employees in California who worked
for Compass Health from March 29, 2009, until Jan. 6 of this
year.

The workers claim the health care provider miscalculated the
regular rate of pay because it didn't properly include the value
of annual safety bonuses.  They also alleged meal and rest period
violations, as well as derivative penalty claims.

Compass argued that it didn't need to include the value of safety
bonuses in the regular rate of pay because the bonuses were
discretionary and that, even if they were included, no additional
overtime wages were due because the additional amounts owed were
de minimis.

The memorandum said that based on the number of valid claims
filed, the average settlement payment is estimated at about $425,
and the highest payment is roughly $1,050, which is "an excellent
result for the settlement class, particularly when compared to
other, similar wage and hour class action settlements involving
similar-wage workers."

Compass is one of the Central Coast's biggest health care
providers, operating nine skilled nursing facilities in San Luis
Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, Calif., according to court
papers.

The class action was filed by Marlys Jean Tacker, who worked for
the defendant as an hourly nonexempt residential aide from
roughly September 2009 to January 2013, and Jenny Gonzalez, who
was employed as an hourly nonexempt certified nursing assistant
from approximately March 1999 to February 2013.

In addition to unpaid overtime wages, premium pay for meal and
rest period violations, related penalty claims and restitution,
plaintiffs sought statutory waiting time and wage statement
penalties and civil penalties under California labor laws.

Compass countered that its nonexempt employees had entered into
valid and enforceable meal period waivers and that it didn't have
to reimburse employees for nursing scrubs.  The defendant further
alleged that the workers couldn't show that the alleged failure
to timely pay all final wages was willful.

The plaintiffs said in their motion seeking final approval of the
settlement that the $1.1 million figure is about 37 percent of
their reasonably forecasted recovery but includes all the alleged
overtime damages, as well as additional compensation for disputed
meal and rest break claims and related penalty claims.

The parties finalized their long-form settlement agreement in
November, and a California federal jury granted preliminary
approval of the deal in January, court filings said.

Plaintiffs' counsel seeks $330,000 in attorneys' fees, as well as
$20,000 for reimbursement costs and incentive payments of $5,000
to each plaintiff for helping with the suit, according to a
Monday filing.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hernaldo J. Baltodano and Erica
Flores Baltodano of Baltodano & Baltodano LLP and Paul K. Haines
-- phaines@bollaw.com -- and Fletcher W. Schmidt --
fschmidt@bollaw.com -- of Boren Osher & Luftman LLP.

Compass Health is represented by Stephen E. Ronk and Dina S.
Glucksman of Gordon & Rees LLP.

The case is Marlys Jean Tacker et al. v. Compass Health Inc. et
al., case number 2:13-cv-02261, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.


CORELOGIC INC: No Appeals Court Review in RESPA "Violation" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order in a suit alleging violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act by Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu)
and eAppraiseIT, LLC, according to CoreLogic, 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 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between
WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to
artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value
loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9,
2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against
eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order.

CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (CVS), as the successor to
eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against this claim vigorously;
however, it may not be successful. At this time the company
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the
potential range of damages, if any.


CORELOGIC INC: Subsidiary Reaches Settlement in FCRA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A formal settlement agreement was reached in a suit filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against CoreLogic, Inc. subsidiary Teletrack, Inc. over
alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, according to
CoreLogic'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 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the company's subsidiary Teletrack, Inc.
("Teletrack"). The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been
furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a
permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., and seeks
to recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit. On
September 20, 2011, Teletrack filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. That
motion was denied on March 7, 2012. Teletrack denied the
allegations and has been defending against this claim vigorously.
On March 27, 2013, the parties reached a settlement in principle
that would dismiss all claims. On May 8, 2013, a formal
settlement agreement was concluded and on May 17, 2013 all claims
were dismissed, with the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs'
claims being with prejudice.


CORPORATE ENHANCEMENT: Faces "McLaughlin" Class Suit in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., a Tennessee
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Corporate Enhancement Group, Inc.
d/b/a American Business Card and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00059-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn., February 18, 2014) is brought under
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Michael Hamilton, Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, LLP (NASHVILLE)
          2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 300
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 242-0199
          Facsimile: (615) 256-5922
          E-mail: mhamilton@provostumphrey.com


DIGITAL RISK: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samfritz Del Valle, on his own behalf and others similarly
situated v. Digital Risk, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and Digital Risk Mortgage Services, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 6:14-cv-00282-GAP-GJK (M.D.
Fla., February 18, 2014) is brought to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies
headquartered in Maitland, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
          1515 S Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathryn Airth Terry, Esq.
          DIGITAL RISK
          2301 Maitland Center Pkwy., Suite 165
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 418-2300
          Facsimile: (407) 418-2327
          E-mail: katie.terry@digitalrisk.com


DILLARD'S PROPERTIES: Removed "Stayart" Suit to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Stayart v. Dillard's
Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 39-02013-00304605, was removed
from the San Joaquin County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00495-MCE-AC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Douglas Deason, Esq.
          DEASON & ARCHBOLD
          3300 Irvine Ave., #245
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 794-9560
          Facsimile: (949) 794-9517
          E-mail: David@yourlaborlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gilbert Patrick Brosky, Esq.
          John Bruce Lewis, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          PNC Center
          1900 E. 9th Street, Suite 3200
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-7547
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: gbrosky@bakerlaw.com
                  jlewis@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
                  sshadi@bakerlaw.com


DIODES INC: Discovery Stayed in Tex. Suit Due to Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
All discovery and other proceedings in Local 731 I.B. of
T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00247 are stayed pending a ruling on any
motion to dismiss the case, according to Diodes' Feb. 27, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The company is also currently a party to a putative securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and
Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-
cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013), against the Company,
Dr. Lu and Richard D. White. In this action, plaintiff
purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the
Company's Common Stock between February 9, 2011 and June 9, 2011,
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
misleading public statements during the class period regarding
the labor market in China and its impact on the Company's
business and prospects. On June 14, 2013, the Court entered an
order appointing Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers
Pension Trust Fund as lead plaintiff and approved lead
plaintiff's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead
plaintiff's counsel and the Ward & Smith Law Firm as lead
plaintiff's liaison counsel. On August 1, 2013, lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint reiterating the same claims for relief
against the same defendants as asserted in the original
complaint. On September 16, 2013, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. Lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on October 31, 2013.
Defendants filed their reply in further support of their motion
to dismiss on December 3, 2013. Lead plaintiff filed its sur-
reply in further opposition of defendant's motion to dismiss on
December 13, 2013. The motion is now fully submitted. No hearing
date has been set for this motion. Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, all discovery and other
proceedings are stayed pending a ruling on any motion to dismiss.
The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.


EXELON GENERATION: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Akey, Brian Allen, Jared Barnett, Brian Bay, Michael
Bernadi, James Bortoli, Joseph Campbell, Andres Campos, James
Chiappetta, Michael Connell, Andrew Davis, Michael Dejewski,
Zorin Dobson, David Dondlinger, Brendan Donovan, Daniel Durbin,
Dennis Edwards, Joshua Ericks, Nery Fajardo, Nathaniel
Falkenstein, Derek Ferguson, Guy Galster, John Gibney, Joseph
Gilmartin, Michael Girka, Kenneth Gray, Jr., Steven Gulik, Jr.,
Zachary Hall, Leeland Hare, David Hatz, Arthur Holtz, Sean
Jensen, Andrew Johnson, Christopher Kaluzny, Brian Kim, Aaron
Kuzava, Larry Lacoursiere, Andrew Lamm, Bruce Lampe, Nicholas
Libby, Rebecca Martin, Carl McIntyre, Joshua McKean, Sean
McKibben, John McSorley, Michelle Medrow-Kielski, Alan Meekma,
Robert Meyer, Mike Mulka, Jason A. Guisinger, David Mullins,
Scott Nagel, Michael Nicoll, Santos Nodal, Shirlee Novak, Philip
Palutsis, Justin Paul, Jimmy Pigg, Andrew Pisha, Daniel
Potochnic, Angelo Powell, Charles Reader, William Riggs, Ronald
Sieling, Gary Skrogstad, Jason Skrzypiec, Michael Snider, Dennis
Specha, Michael Stevens, Joseph Trucano, Blair Vakili, Scott Van
Ham, Ronald Vanderhyden, Jr., David Volden, Carla Wilds, Paul
Zimmerman and John Zura, On Behalf of Themselves And All Others
Similarly Situated v. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-01179 (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2014) is brought as a
result of the Defendant's alleged denial to pay overtime
compensation to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason A. Guisinger, Esq.
          KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD.
          20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1660
          Chicago, IL 60606-2903
          Telephone: (312) 984-6400
          E-mail: jaguisinger@ktjlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: NASDAQ Appealed to 2nd Cir. From IPO MDL Order
------------------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Robert
Greifeld, and Anna M. Ewing filed an appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from an order entered by
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
December 16, 2013, granting in part and denying in part their
motion to dismiss the multidistrict litigation known as In Re
Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation.

The litigation arises from Facebook's initial public offering.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          Jordan Abraham Cortez, Esq.
          Vincent Roger Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP (NYC)
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                  jcortez@entwistle-law.com
                  vcappucci@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP(NJ)
          30 Columbia Turnpike
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (212) 894-7207
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Victor E. Stewart, Esq.
          Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
                  victornj@ix.netcom.com
                  fisquith@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas G. Thompson, Esq.
          Michael Glenn McLellan, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN
          1050 30th, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
          E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
          E-mail: jake@zamansky.com

               - and -

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD ABRAMS & PARADIS, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
          E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com
                  aabbey@abbeyspanier.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          Suite 450, 100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
          E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

               - and -

          Jack Gerald Fruchter, Esq.
          ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22 Cassatt Avenue, First Floor
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677
          Facsimile: (610) 408-8062
          E-mail: rw@weiserlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Darryl M. Bloodworth, Esq.
          DEAN, MEAD, EGERTON, BLOODWORTH, CAPOUANO & BOZARTH, PA
          800 N Magnolia Ave., Suite 1500
          PO Box 2346
          Orlando, FL 32802-2346
          Telephone: (407) 841-1200
          Facsimile: (407) 423-1831
          E-mail: dbloodworth@deanmead.com

               - and -

          Margaret Osborne Padilla, Esq.
          Paul Lantieri, III, Esq.
          Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq.
          William A. Slaughter, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 864-8529
          Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
          E-mail: padillam@ballardspahr.com
                  lantierip@ballardspahr.com
                  kastenberg@ballardspahr.com
                  slaughter@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Griffin, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          1401 McKinney, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-4212
          Facsimile: (713) 752-4221
          E-mail: rgriffin@jw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NYC)
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4836
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: aclubok@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Brant Warren Bishop, Esq.
          Susan Elisabeth Engel, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (WASHINGTON)
          655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5067
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: bbishop@kirkland.com
                  seengel@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          James Francis Basile, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
          E-mail: edeeley@kirkland.com
                  jbasile@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Bernstein, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          1875 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 303-1108
          Facsimile: (202) 303-2000
          E-mail: rbernstein@willkie.com

               - and -

          Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
          Todd G. Cosenza, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP (NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 728-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com
                  tcosenza@willkie.com

               - and -

          Susan W. Waesco, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
          1201 North Market Street
          P.O. Box 1347
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 498-6677
          Facsimile: (302) 425-3088
          E-mail: swaesco@mnat.com

               - and -

          Andrew Ditchfield, Esq.
          Charles S. Duggan, Esq.
          James P. Rouhandeh, Esq.
          Neal Alan Potischman, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P.
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-3009
          Facsimile: (212) 701-6009
          E-mail: andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com
                  charles.duggan@dpw.com
                  james.rouhandeh@dpw.com
                  Neal.Potischman@dpw.com

The appellate case is In Re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 14-457, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The MDL case is In Re
Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL NO.
12-2389, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Bruce H. Paul, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Fairway Group Holdings Corp., Herbert Ruetsch, Edward
Arditte, Linda M. Siluk, Charles W. Santoro, Howard Glickberg,
William Selden, Michael Barr, Stephen Key, Farid Suleman, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated, Jefferies LLC, William Blair & Company,
L.L.C., BB&T Capital Markets, a Division of BB&T Securities, LLC,
Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Wolfe Trahan
Securities and Morgan Joseph Triartisan LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01015-LAK (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2014) is a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Fairway
pursuant and traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with Fairway's April 17, 2013 initial public stock
offering, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933.

Fairway Group Holdings Corp. operates a chain of retail grocery
stores in the New York, Connecticut, New Jersey tri-state area.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporated; Jefferies LLC; William Blair & Company,
L.L.C.; BB&T Capital Markets; Guggenheim Securities, LLC;
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.; Wolfe Trahan Securities; and Morgan
Joseph Tri Artisan LLC are financial services companies that
acted as underwriters and joint managers of Fairway's IPO,
helping to draft and disseminate the offering documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Robert Frutkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          100 Perm Square East, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
          E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com
                  rpf@bernardmgross.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Q. Smith, Esq.
          Susan F. DiCicco, Esq.
          Matthew Minerva, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP (NYC)
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 705-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 752-5378
          E-mail: JQ.Smith@bingham.com
                  Susan.DiCicco@bingham.com
                  matthew.minerva@bingham.com


GENERAL CABLE: "Livonia" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned City of Livonia Employees'
Retirement System v. General Cable Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-08634, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky.  The Kentucky District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00024-WOB-CJS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Marc Sonnenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PHILADELPHIA)
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com

               - and -

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


GENERAL MOTORS: May 29 Hearing Set for Defect-Related Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that General Motors Co.'s move in U.S. bankruptcy court to bar
lawsuits seeking economic damages tied to its recalls has put the
brakes on consumer class actions across the country -- at least
for the next month.

GM has recalled 2.6 million cars to fix ignition-switch defects
that, by shutting off engines and preventing air bags from
deploying in accidents, have been linked to 13 deaths.  More than
50 class actions allege that GM failed to tell its customers
about the defect, which it learned of about a decade ago.  The
plaintiffs seek to recover for the lost value of cars they owned
or leased.  Such claims account for most of the lawsuits yet
filed.

On April 21, GM filed a motion that could potentially toss out
those class actions on the ground the automaker is immune under
the terms of its 2009 bankruptcy from claims for economic
damages. The motion, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, does not seek to bar cases over
injuries, physical damages or deaths from accidents.

"General Motors has taken responsibility for its actions and will
keep doing so," the company said in a written statement on
April 22.

Two groups of plaintiffs attorneys are fighting back.  One group,
led by New York's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz and
joined by bankruptcy counsel at New York's Golenbock Eiseman
Assor Bell & Peskoe, filed a complaint on April 21, seeking a
declaratory judgment that GM is not immune from economic damages.
The group alleges that by failing to disclose the defect, GM
violated its consumers' due-process rights and committed fraud on
the court.
Another group, led by Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach,
Calif., filed an objection on April 22, raising similar
arguments. This group was joined by bankruptcy counsel at
Boston's Brown Rudnick.

"We didn't get due process," Mark Robinson said.  "We should have
been notified about the defect and the problems, and also been
notified about our right to file claims in the bankruptcy court."
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber has scheduled a conference
for May 2.

Meanwhile, in motions filed in several of the class actions this
month, GM has sought to stay the litigation, citing the
bankruptcy proceedings and a pending effort before the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to coordinate defect-
related lawsuits. Federal judges have granted stays in at least
half a dozen class actions.

Plaintiffs lawyers have sought to transfer the cases to U.S.
District Judge James Selna of the Central District of California,
who oversaw the litigation over Toyota Motor Corp.'s sudden-
acceleration defects.  Responses to that request, including GM's,
were due by April 25.

The panel has scheduled the cases for its May 29 hearing in
Chicago.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Ruff" Action in N.J. Over Ignition Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal court putative class action alleges General Motors
Corp. fraudulently concealed a defect in ignition switches of 2.6
million Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn vehicles, a problem that
has caused at least 13 deaths.

The complaint, in Ruff v. General Motors, filed on April 14 in
Trenton, N.J., claims company engineers first learned in 2001
that switches in some vehicles can accidentally move to the "acc"
or "off" position, causing engine shutdown and resultant loss of
power steering and antilock brakes and airbag deactivation.

The actual number of fatalities may be as high as 303, the
plaintiffs claim, citing a study of failed airbag deployments in
crashes of the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion.  GM first
acknowledged the problem in a 2005 bulletin to dealers but
withheld information when questioned by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, the plaintiffs allege.  GM
announced a recall of vehicles with faulty ignition switches in
February of this year.

The affected cars are built on common platforms and have the same
ignition switches, made by a GM subsidiary, Delphi Automotive,
which is also a defendant.  They are the Chevrolet Cobalt (model
years 2005-10), Chevrolet HHR (2006-11), Pontiac Solstice (2006-
10), Pontiac G5 (2005-10), Saturn Ion (2003-07) and Saturn Sky
(2007-10).

Named plaintiff Lisa Ruff of Hazlet alleges her 2007 Cobalt was
totaled in an accident.  Her daughter was driving when the engine
stopped and she lost control and struck a tree, the suit says.
Another plaintiff, Sheri Marx of East Brunswick, alleges numerous
mechanical problems with her 2006 Cobalt -- though not engine
failure -- and that she is concerned about the risk of driving
it.

The complaint asserts claims for a nationwide class under
Michigan's Consumer Protection Act and other states' laws and for
a New Jersey class under the Consumer Fraud Act.  Also pleaded
are claims of fraud by concealment and breach of implied
warranty.  The plaintiffs seek damages for expenses incurred
rectifying the defects in their vehicles, such as time off from
work, rental cars and child care.

Other federal suits have been filed over the alleged defect.  The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has received notice of
15 pending cases, eight of them filed in the Central District of
California in Los Angeles.

There are two each in the Eastern District of Michigan and the
Southern District of Texas and one each in the Northern District
of California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.

The panel will consider on May 29 an application to consolidate
the cases in Los Angeles as General Motors Ignition Switch
Litigation.

Eight plaintiff firms are of record in the New Jersey suit:
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein of New York and San
Francisco; Weitz & Luxenberg of New York; Bailey & Glasser of
Charleston, W. Va.; Barrett Law Group of Lexington, Miss.;
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles of Montgomery,
Ala.; Berger & Montague of Philadelphia; Lackey Hershman of
Dallas; and the Lanier Law Firm of New York.

A GM spokesman, Kevin Kelly, said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.


GENERAL MOTORS: Gray Ritter Files Consumer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis law firm of Gray, Ritter & Graham, along with the
Kansas City law firm of Stueve Sigel Hanson, on April 7, 2014
filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of
Missourians who purchased and currently own a car covered by the
February and March 2014 recalls of General Motors vehicles.

This is similar to a class action lawsuit the firms brought
against Merck & Co., the maker of Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory
drug.  That lawsuit was brought on behalf of the many thousands
of Missouri consumers who purchased Vioxx and was settled in 2013
for $220 million.

That suit alleged that the drug maker knew about but concealed
the drug's safety risks, thereby violating the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.  The class action lawsuit against GM
is based upon the same legal principal.  It is alleged that
General Motors has acknowledged it was aware of the faulty
ignition switch in the recalled vehicles as early as 2001.  The
defective part could cause the cars to lose power, affecting the
vehicles' air bags, power steering, and brakes.

General Motors Cars Recalled for Defective Ignition Switches

The cars covered under the recall for the defective part are:

- Chevrolet Cobalt - 2005-10 model years

- Pontiac G5 - 2003-10

- Saturn Ion - 2003-07

- Chevrolet HHR - 2006-11

- Pontiac Solstice - 200610

- Saturn Sky - 2007 - 2010

- Opel GT - 2007

- Pontiac Pursuit - 2005-2006

Gray, Ritter & Graham and Stueve Siegel Hanson are working
together on the Missouri consumer fraud class action lawsuit
against General Motors.  The two firms also are investigating
personal injury claims of owners of the recalled GM vehicles who
suffered injuries in roadway accidents.

Missourians who purchased and currently own one of the GM
recalled vehicles and believe they may have a legal claim --
whether or not they have been hurt in an accident -- can contact
Gray, Ritter & Graham at 314-241-5620.

Gray, Ritter & Graham attorney Don Downing, who was a lead
attorney for the Missouri class of consumers who purchased Vioxx,
is heading the GM consumer fraud investigations for the firm.

                About Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.

Founded in 1946, Gray, Ritter & Graham -- http://www.grgpc.com/
-- is a St. Louis plaintiff litigation law firm that practices
primarily in matters involving catastrophic injury and death,
complex commercial and consumer litigation, product liability,
medical negligence, and railroad and river worker injuries.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Judge Tosses Investors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge in New York has refused to let more than 2,000 Genworth
Financial Inc. clients pursue a class action lawsuit claiming
they were defrauded into believing a well-known radio talk show
host and financial adviser would oversee their portfolios.

The plaintiffs claimed to lose millions of dollars from December
2003 to December 2009 because Genworth Financial Wealth
Management Inc reneged on promises that Bob Brinker, host of the
syndicated "Moneytalk," would recommend asset allocation and
investment choices, and that "experienced professionals" would
implement his strategy.

Instead, Genworth allegedly stuffed their portfolios at its BJ
Group Services affiliate with underperforming funds that
generated higher administrative and service fees, and which were
not recommended or chosen by Brinker.  Those funds routinely made
up more than half of the portfolios, the plaintiffs claimed.

Though the plaintiffs enlisted former U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Chair Harvey Pitt for support, U.S. District
Judge Joseph Bianco in Central Islip, New York on April 15 said
they could not pursue their securities fraud case as a group.

"Plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence a common method of proving that all class members relied
on defendants' alleged representations and omissions," he wrote.

Genworth spokesman Tom Topinka declined to comment, saying the
Richmond, Virginia-based financial services company does not
discuss pending litigation.

                        Underperformance

The plaintiffs claimed that Genworth's marketing materials touted
the company's "exclusive partnership" with Brinker, in which it
would implement Brinker's recommendations by selecting mutual
funds for clients.

They contended that Genworth did not actually do that, causing
their returns to trail those in Brinker's "Marketimer" portfolio
in every calendar year from 2003 to 2008.

For example, in 2003 Brinker's portfolio allegedly returned 43.4
percent while a BJ Group portfolio earned 29.1 percent.

Meanwhile, in 2008, the year of the financial crisis, Brinker's
portfolio allegedly fell 37.4 percent, while the BJ Group
portfolio lost 39.6 percent.

Among the non-Brinker funds allegedly used by Genworth was Bill
Miller's Legg Mason Value, which had outgained the Standard &
Poor's 500 for 15 straight years through 2005.  But in each of
the next three years, the fund lagged that benchmark by at least
nine percentage points and trailed at least 97 percent of its
peers, according to Morningstar Inc.  The fund is now known as
ClearBridge Value.

Joseph Weiss and Lenard Leeds, two of the lawyers for the
plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case is Goodman et al v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management
Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No.
09-05603.


GOOGLE INC: "Rudgayzer" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rudgayzer, et al. v. Google Inc.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00120, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00673-PSG to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK
          119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125
          E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dennis C. Hopkins, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 262-6900
          Facsimile: (212) 977-1646
          E-mail: dhopkins@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Rebecca S. Engrav, Esq.
          Susan D. Fahringer, Esq.
          Ryan Spear, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-6168
          Facsimile: (206) 359-7168
          E-mail: rengrav@perkinscoie.com
                  sfahringer@perkinscoie.com
                  rspear@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Sunita B. Bali, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 344-7000
          E-mail: sbali@perkinscoie.com


HESS CORP: Removed "Olson" Suit to North Dakota District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sheryle J. Olson Family Mineral
Trust v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-2014-000007, was
removed from the Southwest Judicial District Court of Dunn County
to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota
(Southwestern).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-
cv-00020-DLH-CSM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Peterson, Esq.
          MACKOFF KELLOGG LAW FIRM
          38 2nd Ave. E.
          P.O. Box 1097
          Dickinson, ND 58602-1097
          Telephone: (701) 456-3210
          E-mail: cpeterson@mackoff.com

               - and -

          Cody L. Balzer, Esq.
          BALZER LAW FIRM, PC
          1302 Cleveland, Ave.
          Loveland, CO 80537
          Telephone: (970) 203-1515
          E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com

               - and -

          Derrick L. Braaten, Esq.
          Lindsey R. Nieuwsma, Esq.
          BAUMSTARK BRAATEN LAW PARTNERS
          109 N. 4th Street, Suite 100
          Bismarck, ND 58501
          Telephone: (701) 221-2911
          Facsimile: (701) 221-5842
          E-mail: derrick@baumstarkbraaten.com
                  lindsey@baumstarkbraaten.com

               - and -

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-6092
          E-mail: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

               - and -

          James Nicholas Murdock, Esq.
          Timothy J. Pearse, Esq.
          MURDOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          123 W. 1st Street, Suite 675
          Casper, WY 82601
          Telephone: (307) 235-0480
          E-mail: jnmurdock@murdocklawfirm.com
                  tpearse@murdocklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
          TARLOW & STONECIPHER, PLLC
          1705 West College Street
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 586-9714
          E-mail: mkelly@lawmt.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John W. Morrison, Jr., Esq.
          Paul Jonathan Forster, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
          100 West Broadway, Suite 250
          P.O. Box 2798
          Bismarck, ND 58502-2798
          Telephone: (701) 223-6585
          Facsimile: (701) 222-4853
          E-mail: jmorrison@crowleyfleck.com
                  pforster@crowleyfleck.com


HGB PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amadou Fall, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated
v. HGB Petroleum, Inc., Kamal Petroleum, Inc., and Harpreet
Sandhu, Case No. 1:14-cv-00237-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., February 18,
2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the federal
minimum wage to the Plaintiff and others for all hours worked up
to 40 per week and the federal overtime rate for all hours worked
over 40 per week.

HGB and Kamal are corporations operating and conducting business
in the Southern District of Indiana.  Harpreet Sandhu has been
the president of HGB and Kamal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Haskin, Esq.
          Bradley L. Wilson, Esq.
          JOHN H. HASKIN & ASSOCIATES
          255 North Alabama Street, 2nd Floor
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 955-9500
          Facsimile: (317) 955-2570
          E-mail: jhaskin@jhaskinlaw.com
                  bwilson@jhaskinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          G. John Cento, Esq.
          CENTO LAW LLC
          The Emelie Building
          334 North Senate Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 908-0678
          E-mail: cento@centolaw.com


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $86MM Payable in Suit Over Domestic Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. has a remaining unpaid projected
benefit obligation of $86 million related to a case over its
Domestic Plan, 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.

As of January 1, 2007, the frozen Domestic Plan and plans
maintained for certain domestic hotels currently or formerly
managed by the company were merged into a multiple employer plan.
As of December 31, 2013, the multiple employer plan had combined
assets of $342 million and a projected benefit obligation of $446
million.

A class action lawsuit was filed in 1998 against Hilton and the
Domestic Plan claiming that the Domestic Plan did not calculate
benefit obligations in accordance with the terms of the plan nor
were vesting rules followed in accordance with the plan. In May
2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the
"District Court") found in favor of the plaintiff in a summary
judgment and required that the company and the plaintiff enter
into mediation to reach agreement on the amounts necessary for
recognition of service and benefits for plan participants and in
August 2011, the District Court issued a final order with respect
to this lawsuit. The company recorded an increase to the
company's minimum additional pension obligation of $109 million
as of December 31, 2012 to reflect the expected increase in
benefit obligation relating to this case. The additional
obligation will be recognized as additional pension expense,
which will be amortized over the average remaining life
expectancy of the plan participants as determined by the
company's actuaries, with the unamortized portion of the
obligation having been recognized in accumulated other
comprehensive loss as an adjustment of the pension liability. As
of December 31, 2013, the remaining unpaid projected benefit
obligation related to this case was $86 million.

In November 2013, the District Court issued final administrative
orders in regard to the lawsuit, which allowed Hilton to adopt an
amendment to the Domestic Plan required by the Court. The
adoption of the amendment required the company to make a
contribution of $31 million in November 2013, prior to the
amendment to comply with minimum legal funding obligations of the
Domestic Plan. The company expects to commence benefit payments
under the new plan document in early 2014, in accordance with the
requirements of the court order. In February 2012, the District
Court ordered the company to post bond of $76 million under the
litigation to support potential future plan contributions. The
company funded an account, which is classified as restricted cash
and cash equivalents, with this amount to support this
requirement, and expect that the bond will be released upon the
commencement of benefit payments being made under the amended
plan document in 2014.


HUSTON CONTRACTING: Fails to Properly Pay Class, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin E. Baer II, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Huston Contracting and Consulting LLC and Jeremy
Huston, Case No. 1:14-cv-00241-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., February 18,
2014) alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him in accordance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

HC&C provides general contracting services and is an Indiana
limited liability corporation located in Fortville, Indiana.
Jeremy Huston is responsible for the day-to-day operations of
HC&C.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          10401 North Meridian Street, Suite 130
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 706-1100
          Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
          E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com
                  rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Lore, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. LORE P.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 782-5291
          Facsimile: (713) 758-0345
          E-mail: mlore@lorefirm.com


JAMES PETERS: One of 50 Women in Hep C Suit Blocks Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Russell, writing for The Age, reports that one of 50 women
suing drug-addicted anaesthetist James Latham Peters for
infecting them with hepatitis C is blocking settlement of the
case, a court has heard.

The woman is refusing to join the class action against Mr.
Peters, prominent abortion specialist Dr. Mark Schulberg who had
supervised Mr. Peters, and the Australian Health Practitioners
Regulation Authority, because she is not prepared to accept less
money.

Supreme Court Justice David Beach said he was "deeply troubled"
as to why the woman believed it was in her interests not to
settle along with all the other women in the class action.
Justice Beach said the woman was the only impediment to
settlement of the case.  If the woman, who had decided to opt out
of the class action, did not agree to re-join the group of
victims then the case would have to go to trial.

A trial would be time-consuming and cost tens of thousands of
dollars in legal fees which would have to come out of any final
settlement figure.  The judge was told the settlement offer now
on the table was contingent on the woman re-joining the class
action and not trying to go it alone.  Justice Beach adjourned
the matter until April 23 to give the woman's lawyer time to
discuss the situation with her.

Mr. Peters, 63, was jailed last year for 14 years with a
non-parole period of 10 years, after pleading guilty to 55 counts
of negligently causing serious injury to the patients by
injecting himself with prefilled syringes of fentanyl -- an
opioid used in general anaesthesia -- in theatre at Croydon Day
Surgery.  He then administered the remaining drug to the patients
as they underwent pregnancy terminations.

The Supreme Court was told the "complete incompetence" of
Victoria's Medical Practitioners Board led to Mr. Peters
infecting the women.  While he was required to undergo regular
urine drug screening as part of the board's monitoring conditions
after he confessed to having a drug problem, he was never tested
for the drug he was addicted to -- fentanyl.

Mr. Peters had a history of drug abuse as well as convictions for
possessing a drug of dependence and falsifying prescriptions when
he infected the women with the potentially deadly blood disease
between June 2008 and November 2009.  While he had informed the
medical board -- which was abolished under subsequent legislation
-- about his addiction to fentanyl and pethidine in 1996, Mr.
Peters failed to disclose his hepatitis C status.  The Health
Department, which the court heard would have been aware he was a
doctor being monitored for a fentanyl addiction, was told as soon
as he tested positive to the disease, but did not pass on the
information.

Despite being suspended while he sought help for his addiction,
Mr. Peters was allowed to return to work under certain monitoring
conditions.  Many of his victims have previously told the court
of the impact of what they called his "medical negligence",
"crime" and "act of violence" against them.  Their victim impact
statements spoke of broken relationships, ruined careers and
their ever-present fears of passing on the disease to their
partners, children and others.

Many have developed crippling depression, anxiety and stress
since learning they had been exposed to the disease and finding
out they had been infected.  Several have been placed in
psychiatric care and many contemplated suicide as a direct result
of Mr. Peters' actions.

In May last year, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
cancelled the registration of Dr. Schulberg -- who had been
Mr. Peters' supervisor at the Croydon Day Surgery -- for one year
from July after finding him guilty of serious misconduct.

Between 2000 and 2009, the Croydon-based doctor prescribed
multiple patients with more than 25,000 Xanax tablets and 9000
Valium among other addictive drugs.

The tribunal heard Dr. Schulberg was the only doctor in Victoria,
and potentially Australia, who continued to perform late-term
surgical abortions on women between 16 and 24 weeks gestation.


JERSEY CITY PARKING: Default Judgment Bid in "Ali" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUKAT ALI, Plaintiff, v. JERSEY CITY PARKING AUTHORITY, NIKO
TAMTASURI, MARY F. PARETTI, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-
02678 (SDW) (MCA), (D. N.J.) is before the Court upon (1) motion
by Pro Se Plaintiff Shaukat Ali for default judgment and (2)
cross-motion to set aside default and motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (TAC) pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by Jersey City Parking Authority, Pius Niko
Tampusari, improperly named as "Niko Tamtasuri," and Mary F.
Paretti.

In an opinion entered April 16, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/TSoUZrfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Susan D. Wigenton denied the Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment. Defendants' cross-motion to set aside default and
motion to dismiss the TAC were granted.

"The default entered by the clerk of the court on June 7, 2013 is
to be vacated and the TAC is dismissed in its entirety, with
prejudice," ruled Judge Wigenton.

SHAUKAT ALI, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

JERSEY CITY PARKING AUTHORITY, Defendant, represented by KEITH J.
ROSENBLATT -- krosenblatt@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
& RACHEL ANNE SEATON -- rseaton@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON
PC.

NIKO TAMTASURI, Defendant, represented by KEITH J. ROSENBLATT,
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RACHEL ANNE SEATON, LITTLER MENDELSON
PC.

MARY F. PARETTI, CEO, Defendant, represented by KEITH J.
ROSENBLATT, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RACHEL ANNE SEATON, LITTLER
MENDELSON PC.


KANSAS CITY: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 15 announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of
purchasers of Kansas City Southern common stock during the period
between October 18, 2013 and February 18, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from April 15, 2014.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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/kansascitysouthern/

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

The complaint charges KCS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
KCS operates railroads in the Midwest and Mexico that run north
to south, unlike most other U.S. railroads that run east to west.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, KCS issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed
to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that KCS's utility
coal volumes and crude oil shipments were declining below
forecasted levels during its 2013 fourth quarter; (ii) that the
construction of the Company's new Port Arthur crude oil terminal
was experiencing operational difficulties which was delaying its
completion and the Company's realization of the benefits from the
plant; (iii) that carloads in the Company's Chemical & Petroleum
shipments to Mexico had declined during the fourth quarter of
2013 due to operational issues with the Company's customers in
Mexico; (iv) that KCS's anticipated ramp-up of its Mexican auto
shipment business was not advancing to the degree KCS led the
market to believe, as the new plants were not coming on-line and
there would be a negligible benefit to KCS's revenues and profits
in 2014; and (v) that Mexican government officials were privately
clamoring to take back or control the monopoly pricing power KCS
had by way of an agreement giving KCS and another company
exclusive use of tracks in Mexico. As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements and omissions, KCS common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $125.96 per share on November 14, 2013.

On January 24, 2014, KCS issued a press release announcing its
fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 financial results.  The Company's
reported fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 net income significantly
missed the net income the investment community had been led to
expect based on defendants' Class Period statements.  The Company
also offered a disappointing earnings growth outlook for fiscal
2014, forecasting per-share earnings for 2014 to rise only in the
mid-teens, while the investment community had been led to expect
26% growth based on defendants' Class Period statements.  On this
news, the price of KCS common stock declined more than $17.79 per
share to close below $100 per share on January 24, 2014.  Then,
on February 18, 2014, the market learned that the lower house of
the Mexican legislature had approved a new bill to increase rail
competition in Mexico by giving third-party companies access to
KCS's exclusive freight and passenger rail networks, and to give
the government control over tariffs.  On this news, the price of
KCS stock fell another $4.00 per share.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion. The firm has obtained many of the largest
recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of
shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every
year since 2003.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Banks Balk at Bid to Dismiss Derivatives Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Checkler, writing for Dow Jones' Daily Bankruptcy Review,
reports that the banks being sued by Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc. in a long-simmering derivatives fight say Lehman is seeking
an "undue advantage" in the litigation by prohibiting the banks
from seeking a dismissal without first receiving class-action
status.

In an April 14 filing with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York,
lawyers for 77 banks and other entities said Lehman's bid to put
the brakes on their bid to dismiss the lawsuit was unfair, and
that receiving approval for class-action status should be a
"secondary" matter.

"The [Lehman] proposed order is unprecedented," lawyers for the
banks said.  "Defendants have found no cases in which a court has
prohibited defendants from moving to dismiss the complaint until
the court first addresses class certification."  The banks also
said Lehman is stalling so it can use a favorable U.S. District
Court ruling in a similar matter to its advantage during
settlement discussions.

The lawyers for the banks say their scheduling proposal is fairer
to all parties, and more efficient.

A hearing on the scheduling argument is set for May 14 in front
of Judge Shelley Chapman.

Lehman affiliates Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. and
Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. in September 2010 sued
the banks to recover funds the investment bank says were wrongly
transferred to credit-default swap counterparties after it filed
for bankruptcy protection.  The swaps contained so-called flip
clauses that give investors priority over a counterparty that
defaults.

Lehman says those transfers, which were triggered when the swaps
were terminated and the counterparties jumped ahead of Lehman in
the payment priority line after its bankruptcy filing, cost its
bankruptcy estate and its creditors more than $3 billion.

Among the defendants named in the suit are Bank of America Corp.,
Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Citigroup Inc. and U.S. Bancorp.

In a 2010 ruling, then-Lehman bankruptcy Judge James Peck said
the flip clause was a so-called ipso facto provision that
deprived Lehman of the benefit of its in-the-money position under
the swaps.  Provisions terminating a contract solely because of a
bankruptcy filing are known as ipso facto clauses and are
generally prohibited under U.S. bankruptcy law.

Judge Peck's decision, which involved an entity called Saphir
Finance Public Limited Co., roiled expectations in the market for
structured-finance deals such as credit-default swaps, forcing
investors to forgo billions of dollars in collateral.

Although Lehman's holding company is out of bankruptcy, the
reorganized company, overseen by a new board of directors, is
expected to continue for several more years as the team
liquidates the Lehman estate's assets and pursues litigation.

Lehman's collapse on the morning of Sept. 15, 2008, was the
largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.  The filing sent markets into
turmoil and triggered a global financial crisis.  Lehman's main
business was quickly sold to Barclays PLC, and the company's New
York-based holding company officially exited bankruptcy in 2012.

Individual customers of Lehman's brokerage received all $92.3
billion they were owed almost immediately after the bankruptcy.


MAIDENFORM BRANDS: 2 Women Sue Over Weight Reduction Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Convey, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that
two Massachusetts women filed a civil lawsuit in federal court on
April 14 claiming they were tricked into buying undergarments
with names like iPant and Instant Slimmer that made with fabric
advertised as containing special weight-reducing substances.
Annique Bellot and Tara Stefani are seeking class action status
for their claim against Maidenform Brands LLC and Wacoal America
Inc.

The lawsuit states both companies used fabric made by Nurel S.A.
of Spain that is advertised as being "constructed with minerals
and nutrients that are absorbed by the skin and can permanently
change women's body shape and skin tone."

The suit claims the fabric is produced "to prey upon women's
insecurities about their body images, because defendants know
that the annual revenue of the U.S. weight-loss industry is $20
billion, sales of shapeware are estimated at over $750 million
annually and sales of 'nutrient-infused' textiles, or 'cosmeto-
textiles,' are estimated at more than $600 million annually."

The plaintiffs were harmed, the suit states, because they paid as
much as 50 percent premiums to buy undergarments falsely
advertised as having the special powers.


MATTLEMAN WEINROTH: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Camden on April 16 approved settlement of a
class-action suit against a New Jersey law firm that allegedly
violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act by sending out
letters that failed to mention the consumer's right to dispute
the debt.

The firm, Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller of Cherry Hill, and its
codefendant, Executive Credit Management of Stanhope, agreed to
pay $2,500 to the class representative, Monique Wilson, $7,000 to
the 225 other class members and $40,000 in fees to class counsel
Laura Mann of West Milford, N.J., and Joseph Jones of Fairfield,
N.J.  The suit alleged that the letters omitted language,
required by the FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a)(3), to explain
that consumers may dispute the debt within 30 days of receiving
the initial collection notice and that the debt will be presumed
valid if they don't.

Ms. Wilson's debt of $4,241 to a landlord was sold to Executive
Credit Management, which, in turn, sold it to Mattleman, Weinroth
& Miller, the suit says.  The law firm sent Wilson the
nonconforming letter in October 2012.

The suit, Wilson v. Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller, was filed in
January 2013.  The defendants moved to dismiss before filing an
answer.

In June 2013, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas dismissed a claim
that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices in violation
of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e(10) but he declined to dismiss the
Sec. 1692g(a)(3) claim.

The letter said that if the recipient disputed the debt within 30
days of receipt, the firm would provide verification of the debt,
a copy of the judgment or the name of the original creditor, if
it is different from the current creditor.  But the letter failed
to explain that the debt would be presumed valid if it is not
disputed after 30 days.

The firm contended that it complied with the notice requirement
with a statement in the letter that "Should you fail to respond
within 30 days, we will recommend that our client commence an
action against you to protect its rights."  But Judge Irenas said
that, from the perspective of the least-sophisticated debtor,
that statement did not convey that the debt would be assumed
valid after 30 days.

The case then went to discovery, which showed that the law firm's
standard collection letter included all the statutory language at
one time but a revision was made around the time Wilson's letter
was sent, removing the phrase about disputing the debt.

"The statute tells you what to say," Mr. Jones says.  "For some
reason this firm failed to do it in a series of letters that went
out."

The parties reached a tentative settlement last November.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Williams gave preliminary approval in
January and final approval on April 16.

The $7,000 aggregate payment to the class is based on the FDCPA's
requirement that such recovery is limited to 1 percent of the
defendants' net worth.  If no class members opt out, recovery
would amount to about $30 per class member.

Class counsel Mr. Jones and Ms. Mann agreed to accept the $40,000
counsel fee even though their total billings came to $44,222.
Jones submitted costs of $849 and billed $37,622 at his hourly
rate of $475.  Ms. Mann billed $6,600 at her hourly rate of $300.
The parties conducted discovery to confirm that the $7,000 figure
is fair and reasonable, says Jones, who often brings FDCPA suits
against debt collectors.

He acknowledges that the recovery of $30 per class member is
modest but says such litigation is "not necessarily about
financial recovery.  It's really about changing the behavior of
the debt collector.  Sometimes the only way you can do that is
hit them in the pocketbook."

The defendants' lawyers are Alison Weinroth-Shaw --
aweinroth@mwm-law.com -- and Martin Weisberg --
mweisberg@mwm-law.com -- both of Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller.


MERCK & CO: La. Court Approves Settlement in Vioxx Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
entered an order approving a settlement requiring Merck & Co.,
Inc. to pay up to $23 million in relation to its Vioxx product,
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.

Merck is a defendant in approximately 90 federal and state
lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging
personal injury or economic loss as a result of the purchase or
use of Vioxx. Most of the remaining cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge
Eldon E. Fallon.

Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of all
remaining federal court putative class actions that were brought
on behalf of individual purchasers or users of Vioxx seeking
reimbursement for alleged economic loss. Under the settlement,
Merck will pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented
claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and
expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and certain other
administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the
settlement on January 6, 2014. The period for members to submit
claims under the settlement is still pending.


MERCK & CO: Submission of Vioxx Claims in Missouri Closed in Oct
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri state court-approved process for class members to
submit claims in a settled suit over Merck & Co., Inc.'s product
Vioxx closed in October 2013, 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.

Merck also settled a Missouri state court class action of
plaintiffs who sought reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs
relating to Vioxx. The Company established a reserve of $39
million in 2012 in connection with that settlement agreement,
which is the minimum amount that the Company is required to pay
under the agreement. The settlement was approved, and final
judgment in the action has been entered.


MERCK & CO: Settles Vioxx Suit in Indiana With Named Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
A suit filed by Indiana Vioxx purchasers against Merck & Co.,
Inc. in the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana settled on a
named-plaintiff-only basis, 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 Indiana, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of
Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the Circuit
Court of Marion County, Indiana. That case has been dormant for
several years. In April 2010, a Kentucky state court denied
Merck's motion for summary judgment and certified a class of
Kentucky plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs
relating to Vioxx. The trial court subsequently entered an
amended class certification order in January 2011. The matter was
settled on a named-plaintiff-only basis in December 2013.

Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys
General of four states -- Alaska, Mississippi, Montana and Utah.
All of these actions are pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding.
These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of
Vioxx. These suits seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by
government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or
penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. In November
2013, the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky approved a
settlement in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney General,
under which Merck agreed to pay Kentucky $25 million to resolve
its lawsuit and the related appeals.


MERCK & CO: Discovery in N.J. Vioxx Securities Suit Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been completed and is now closed in The Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according
to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under
federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against
Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the
"Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are
coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August
2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's
motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims
based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of
Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In October
2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action
Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted that
motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand the
class period. In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend their complaint to expand the class period,
but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add
certain allegations within the existing class period. In June
2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action
Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended
Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now
closed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositive motions
were filed on January 17, 2014.


MERCK & CO: Settles Fosamax ONJ Litigation for $27.7 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the Fosamax osteonecrosis of
the jaw (ONJ) MDL to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in
the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate
amount of $27.7 million, 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.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of
December 31, 2013, approximately 5,415 cases, which include
approximately 5,680 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were
pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including
one case which seeks class action certification, as well as
damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 1,140 of
these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they
have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth
extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in
approximately 4,275 of these actions generally allege that they
sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur
Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with
the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL
and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million,
which the Company recorded as liability in the fourth quarter of
2013. All of plaintiffs' counsel have advised the Company that
they intend to participate in the settlement plan. As a condition
to the settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs
must also agree to participate in the settlement plan by March
31, 2014. If 100% participation is not achieved, Merck has until
May 15, 2014, to determine whether it will terminate the
agreement, waive the 100% participation requirement, or agree to
a lesser funding amount for the settlement fund. This tentative
settlement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures.


MERCK & CO: Wins Court OK for $215MM Accord in Vytorin/Zetia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The District of New Jersey approved a $215 million settlement of
In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin/Zetia Securities Litigation,
according to Merck's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

In April 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in federal court which was consolidated in the District
of New Jersey under the caption, In re Merck & Co., Inc.
Vytorin/Zetia Securities Litigation. The complaint alleged that
Merck and other defendants delayed releasing unfavorable results
of the ENHANCE clinical trial regarding the efficacy of Vytorin
and that Merck made false and misleading statements about
expected earnings knowing that, once the results of the ENHANCE
study were released, sales of Vytorin would decline and Merck's
earnings would suffer. In February 2013, Merck announced an
agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle this matter for
$215 million. The settlement agreement was executed by the
parties in June 2013, and approved by the court in October 2013.
The settlement was reflected in the Company's 2012 financial
results.


MERCK & CO: Pays $480MM Into "ENHANCE Litigation" Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. paid $480 million into a settlement fund of the
"ENHANCE Litigation," according to Merck's Feb. 27, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

A consolidated securities class action lawsuit was pending in the
District of New Jersey against Schering-Plough and other
defendants under the caption, In re Schering-Plough
Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation. In February 2013,
Merck announced an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to
settle this matter for $473 million.  The settlement agreement
was executed in June 2013, and approved by the court in October
2013. The settlement was reflected in the Company's 2012
financial results and, together with the settlement described in
the preceding paragraph (collectively, the "ENHANCE Litigation"),
resulted in an aggregate charge of $493 million after taking into
account anticipated insurance recoveries of $195 million. In the
second quarter of 2013, the Company paid $480 million into a
settlement fund. The Company's insurers subsequently paid the
remaining $208 million, which reflects an additional $13 million
of insurance recoveries not previously recognized.

On November 14, 2013, two complaints were filed in the District
of New Jersey against Merck as successor to Schering-Plough, and
other defendants, by certain institutional investors who "opted-
out" of the ENHANCE securities class action against Schering-
Plough. In addition, on January 14, 2014, two complaints were
filed in the District of New Jersey against Merck and other
defendants by certain institutional investors who "opted-out" of
the Vytorin/Zetia securities class action against Merck. The
"opt-out" complaints contain allegations similar to those made by
plaintiffs in the settled class actions against Schering-Plough
and Merck. The Company intends to move to dismiss these
complaints and otherwise to defend itself in the litigation.


MERCK & CO: Sued by Pa. Purchasers of M-M-R II Vaccine
------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is facing a putative class action in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of direct purchasers
of the M-M-R II vaccine, 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 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that has been filed
against the Company under the federal False Claims Act by two
former employees alleging, among other things, that the Company
defrauded the U.S. government by falsifying data in connection
with a clinical study conducted on the mumps component of the
Company's M-M-R II vaccine. The complaint alleges the fraud took
place between 1999 and 2001. The U.S. government had the right to
participate in and take over the prosecution of this lawsuit, but
has notified the court that it declined to exercise that right.
The two former employees are pursuing the lawsuit without the
involvement of the U.S. government. In addition, a putative class
action lawsuit has been filed against the Company in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of direct purchasers of the M-
M-R II vaccine which is predicated on the allegations in the
False Claims Act complaint and charges that the Company
misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in violation
of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection
laws. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: Reinstated as Defendant in New Jersey AWP Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. was reinstated as a defendant in a putative
class action in New Jersey Superior Court which accuses drug
manufacturers of manipulating Average Wholesale Prices,
according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

As previously disclosed, the Company and/or certain of its
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in cases brought by
various states alleging manipulation by pharmaceutical
manufacturers of Average Wholesale Prices ("AWP"), which are
sometimes used by public and private payors in calculating
provider reimbursement levels. The outcome of these lawsuits
could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial
fines and penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies.
Since the start of 2012, the Company has settled AWP cases
brought by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Wisconsin. A
subsidiary of the Company continues to be a defendant in a case
brought by one state, Utah.

The Company has also been reinstated as a defendant in a putative
class action in New Jersey Superior Court which alleges on behalf
of third-party payers and individuals that manufacturers inflated
drug prices by manipulation of AWPs and other means. This case
was originally dismissed against the Company without prejudice in
2007. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit.


MERCK & CO: 3rd Cir. Sends K-DUR Antitrust Suit to District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals returned the case filed on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against
Schering-Plough Corp. to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey for further proceedings in accordance with the
standard used in another suit FTC v. Actavis, Inc. on whether a
so-called "reverse payment" violates antitrust laws, according to
Merck & Co., 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 June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough settled patent
litigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") and ESI
Lederle, Inc. ("Lederle"), respectively, relating to generic
versions of K-DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium
chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which
Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications ("ANDAs"). Following the commencement of an
administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(the "FTC") in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effects from those
settlements (which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor),
putative class and non-class action suits were filed on behalf of
direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough,
Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in a multi-
district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey. These suits claimed violations of federal and
state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common
law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages. In April
2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their case.
In March 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment to the
defendants on the remaining lawsuits and dismissed the matter in
its entirety. In July 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and
remanded the case for further proceedings. At the same time, the
Third Circuit upheld a December 2008 decision by the District
Court to certify certain direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as a
class action.

In August 2012, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit's
decision. In June 2013, the Supreme Court granted that petition,
vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit, and remanded the case
for further consideration in light of its recent decision in FTC
v. Actavis, Inc. That decision held that whether a so-called
"reverse payment" -- i.e., a payment from the holder of a
pharmaceutical patent to a party challenging the patent made in
connection with a settlement of their dispute -- violates the
antitrust laws should be determined on the basis of a "rule of
reason" analysis. In September 2013, the Third Circuit returned
the case to the District Court for further proceedings in
accordance with the Actavis standard.


MERCK & CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Coupon Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit alleging Merck & Co., Inc.'s coupon programs
injured health insurers filed a consolidated amended complaint,
and Merck has filed a new motion to dismiss that complaint,
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 2012, a number of private health plans filed separate putative
class action lawsuits against the Company alleging that Merck's
coupon programs injured health insurers by reducing beneficiary
co-payment amounts and, thereby, allegedly causing beneficiaries
to purchase higher-priced drugs than they otherwise would have
purchased and increasing the insurers' reimbursement costs. The
actions, which were assigned to a District Judge in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, sought damages and
injunctive relief barring the Company from issuing coupons that
would reduce beneficiary co-pays on behalf of putative nationwide
classes of health insurers. Similar actions relating to
manufacturer coupon programs have been filed against several
other pharmaceutical manufacturers in a variety of federal
courts. On April 29, 2013, the District Court dismissed all the
actions against Merck without prejudice on the grounds that
plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate their standing to sue.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint,
and Merck has filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.


MERCK & CO: To Re-File Motion to Dismiss Sales Force Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. intends to re-file its motion to dismiss class
allegations in a suit filed by female sales representatives in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
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 May 9, 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the
Company in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey of behalf of herself and a putative class of female
sales representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales
representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory
policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement,
(b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work
environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state
discrimination laws. On November 27, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the class claims. Plaintiffs sought and were
granted leave to file an amended complaint. On January 16, 2014,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four additional
named plaintiffs. The Company intends to re-file its motion to
dismiss the class allegations and to otherwise defend itself.


NATIONAL BROADBAND: Contractors Postpone Proposed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that Tasmanian civil contractors are postponing
legal action against the company rolling out the National
Broadband Network, but have asked for government help.  They are
accusing Visionstream of misleading them about the amount of work
on offer.  They were planning a class action but contractor
Andrew Bullock says it is on hold while the Premier, Will
Hodgman, looks at the case.

Two of the biggest contractors are in talks with the new Premier
about getting more work on the NBN, or compensation.

Mr. Bullock says Mr. Hodgman has only a few weeks to help.
"We've pretty well put it to the Premier now that if we don't get
some sort of State Government intervention, there's going to be
more job losses and more people putting pressure on Centrelink,"
he said.

"If we can't get some kind of assistance from the State
Government, if our two businesses fold, it'll take 80 to 85 jobs
with it."

Contractors are keeping the pressure on, saying legal action is
still an option.

Mr. Hodgman says he is lobbying the Federal Government on behalf
of Tasmanian contractors who believe they have been short-
changed.

"We are actively pursuing opportunities for those workers to have
their voice heard, to lobby obviously the Federal Government and
make representations on their behalf," the Premier said.

"But obviously the Federal Government has to deal with an
appalling legacy left by the Labor Government in Canberra."

Visionstream denies the contractors' claims, saying commercial
contracts did not include a guarantee of work.

Next rollout phase detailed

NBN Co has announced the next 10 locations in Tasmania to get the
NBN.

Construction is beginning in areas including George Town,
Riverside, Port Sorell and Ellendale.

More than 4,000 people live in the 10 areas.

NBN Co spokeswoman Lalla Mackenzie says some will have fibre
connections while others will have fixed wireless networks
installed.

"In southern Tasmania we have communities such as Ellendale,
we'll be announcing Bell Bay to receive fibre, Low Head,
Beachhead, Riverside will be receiving fibre, Bridgenorth, places
like that," she said.

"So any fibre community, it roughly takes 18 months to construct
that community.

"The fixed wireless communities, it doesn't take as long to roll
out because we don't need to take fibre to each of the premises.

"So they can expect to be operational about six months after we
announce."

The old copper network is set to be decommissioned in George
Town, Deloraine, St Helens, Triabunna, Sorell and Kingston Beach.
With five weeks, there are still 1,200 people yet to switch to
the new fibre network.

People need to manually switch accounts, or face problems.
EFTPOS machines will not work and medical alarms will
automatically switch off, as well as landline phones.

"I would encourage, if you live beside an elderly resident or
someone that wouldn't normally know about the switch, go and
knock on their door and let them know to make the switch as soon
as possible," Ms Mackenzie said.

The cut off date is May 23.


OVASCIENCE INC: Mass. Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Meriam Ratner voluntarily dismissed the securities suit
she filed against OvaScience, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, 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 September 16, 2013, a purported shareholder class action,
styled Meriam Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the company and certain of the company's
officers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the company made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact
relating to the qualification of AUGMENT as a 361 HCT/P in the
company's public disclosures during the period from February 25,
2013 through September 10, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 2, 2014, the
company and certain of the company's officers, as defendants,
filed a motion to dismiss with the District Court. On February 3,
2014, plaintiff Meriam Ratner voluntarily dismissed the suit
without prejudice.


PACKAGING CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $17.6 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America on April 16 disclosed that it
has reached an agreement to settle a civil, class action lawsuit
filed against PCA and eight other North American manufacturers of
containerboard.  The lawsuit, filed in 2010, is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Under the terms of the agreement, which must be approved by the
court, PCA will pay $17.6 million into a settlement fund in
return for a dismissal and release of all claims of the purported
class. PCA will record a reserve for the expected settlement of
the agreement in first quarter 2014 results, which will result in
an after-tax charge of $11.3 million, or $0.11 per share.

Commenting on the settlement agreement, Mark W. Kowlzan, Chief
Executive Officer of PCA, said, "While PCA believes that the
allegations brought against it in this action have no merit, our
Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interest
of our shareholders to settle this lawsuit at this time to avoid
the substantial legal costs as well as the uncertainty involved
with litigation of this nature."

PCA is the fourth largest producer of containerboard and
corrugated packaging products in the United States and the third
largest producer of uncoated freesheet paper in North America.
PCA operates eight paper mills and 98 corrugated products plants
and related facilities.


QANTAS: Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Class Action for $38-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sky News reports that several airlines including Qantas have
agreed to a $38 million settlement of a class action related to
price fixing.  The settlement agreement, which still needs court
approval, comes seven years after the law suit relating to
alleged cartel conduct in air freight services began.

The class action against Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Cathay
Pacific, Air New Zealand, British Airways and Lufthansa Cargo
relates to alleged price fixing on international freight services
since January 1, 2000.  The allegations relate to fuel and
security surcharges imposed by the airlines.  The lawsuit sought
damages on behalf of purchasers of air freight services for
losses suffered as a result of the alleged cartel conduct by the
airlines.

The proposed settlement involves no admission of liability by the
airlines.

Air New Zealand did not participate in the proposed settlement,
but the proceedings against Air New Zealand will be discontinued.

Maurice Blackburn class actions principal Brooke Dellavedova said
the class action had been complex, difficult and long, so it was
a significant victory for the businesses pursuing the case.
Maurice Blackburn said the lawsuit was only the fourth cartel
class action to be run in Australia.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Maurice Blackburn
will receive about $13 million from the payment of $38 million to
cover fees.

An application for approval is due to be heard in the Federal
Court on June 6.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has
fined 10 airlines nearly $100 million for price fixing of
international air freight.

Air New Zealand and Garuda Indonesia defended proceedings brought
by the ACCC, and a judgment is still to be delivered.


RITZ TRANS: Dist. Ct. Adopts Mag. Judge's Report in "Cohn" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In FRANK COHN, Plaintiff, v. RITZ TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:11-CV-1832 JCM (NJK), (D. Nev.), before the
court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Koppe. Plaintiffs filed objections to the report, and defendants
filed an opposition to those objections.

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Koppe's report, the plaintiffs'
objections, and the underlying briefs de novo, District Judge
James C. Mahan adopted the report and recommendation in full. In
addition, the court ordered that defendants pay any arbitration
fees assessed against plaintiffs that are in excess of the costs
plaintiffs would have paid if the action had remained in the
district court.

Defendants' motions to dismiss and/or compel arbitration and
strike class/collective claims were granted.

The action is dismissed with prejudice as to the thirty-three
plaintiffs listed on pages five and six of defendants' motion to
compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs' motion to supplement their objections was denied as
moot.

A copy of Judge Mahan's April 17, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/28nMmPfrom Leagle.com.

Frank Cohn, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy --
christian@gabroy.com -- Gabroy Law Offices, Dana Sniegocki --
dana@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg, Leon Marc Greenberg --
wagelaw@aol.com -- Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation &
Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices.

Frank Ferrino, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Lionel Forstall, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

David Lansdowne, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Graciela Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Gary Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Everett Hodge, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Emir Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Danny Umland, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Leith Poindexter, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Nikola Radev, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Raymond Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Kevin G Nash, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Ross Lee Brady, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Michael Downton, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Michael Gilmore, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

James Lee Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Randall Borchers, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Dwight P Canyon, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

James E. Duerr, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Shawn C. Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Kikhela Tsasa, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Peter F. Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Loretta Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Orlando Green, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Roberto S. Maglaya, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Arthur W. Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Nicole Anthony, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

David Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law Offices &
Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Michael H Bates, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Leidolf L Systad, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeffrey Scott Gronich, Gabroy Law
Offices & Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

AWG Ambassador, LLC, Defendant, represented by R. Calder
Huntington -- rchuntington@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP,
Rick D Roskelley -- rroskelley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
PC, Roger L Grandgenett -- rgrandgenett@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC, Ethan Thomas -- ethan.thomas@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis LLP & Montgomery Y Paek --
Montgomery.Paek@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.

Ritz Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by R. Calder
Huntington, Holland & Hart LLP, Rick D Roskelley, Littler
Mendelson, PC, Roger L Grandgenett, Littler Mendelson, PC, Ethan
Thomas, Jackson Lewis LLP & Montgomery Y Paek, Jackson Lewis P.C.

Alan Waxler, Defendant, represented by R. Calder Huntington,
Holland & Hart LLP, Rick D Roskelley, Littler Mendelson, PC,
Roger L Grandgenett, Littler Mendelson, PC, Ethan Thomas, Jackson
Lewis LLP & Montgomery Y Paek, Jackson Lewis P.C.

Raymond Chenoweth, Defendant, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, R. Calder Huntington, Holland & Hart
LLP, Rick D Roskelley, Littler Mendelson, PC, Roger L
Grandgenett, Littler Mendelson, PC, Ethan Thomas, Jackson Lewis
LLP & Montgomery Y Paek, Jackson Lewis P.C.


SEI INVESTMENTS: 5th Cir. Won't Review Stock Suit Transfer Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied
a petition of plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit
against SEI Investments Company for a writ of mandamus asking
the court to review the Multi-district Litigation Panel's
transfer Order of the case, 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.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. One of the five
actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and
also names SPTC as a defendant and, was certified as a class in
December 2012. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a
defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition
to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring
a cause of action against SEI and SPTC under the Louisiana
Securities Act. The class action originally included a claim
against SEI and SPTC for an alleged violation of the Louisiana
Unfair Trade Practices Act. Two of the other five actions include
claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and
possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs
filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana, against SEI and SPTC and
other defendants asserting claims of negligence, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform
fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and
Louisiana Racketeering Act and conspiracy. The underlying
allegations in all the actions are purportedly related to the
role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted
or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of
deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank.

Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to
federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. On August 31, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order
and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the
two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court
dismissed these cases with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this
ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States
District Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings.
On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the
decision by the United States Court of Appeals in the Fifth
Circuit to permit the claims against SEI to proceed. SEI believes
that the trial court correctly concluded that the claims against
SEI were barred by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act and is requesting that the Supreme Court reinstate
that dismissal. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
the petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 7, 2013, the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal and on February
26, 2014 the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of
Appeals.

The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to
that complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in
the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and
SPTC an extension to respond to the filings. SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which
the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the
other exceptions.

SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class
action, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and
SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against
certain named plaintiffs which the Court stated will not be set
for hearing until after the hearing on the class certification
motion. The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing
on class certification on September 20, 2012. By oral decision on
December 5, 2012 and later entered in a judgment signed on
December 17, 2012 that was subsequently amended, the Court in
East Baton Rouge certified a class to be composed of persons who
purchased any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit
(SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13,
2009; persons who renewed any SIB CD in Louisiana between January
1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; or any person for whom the
Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between
January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009. On January 30, 2013, SEI
and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the judgments that stated
SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to stay the litigation. On
February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File
First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they
ask the Court to allow them to amend the petition in this case to
add additional facts that were developed during discovery and
adding claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers.

On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for
appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 15, 2013,
SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the alternative, for
reconsideration of the Court's order allowing amendment. On
February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay proceedings in view
of the pending Supreme Court case. On February 28, 2013, SEI
responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition
by filing an exception. On March 11, 2013, the insurance carrier
defendants filed a notice of removal removing the case to the
Middle District of Louisiana and on March 18, 2013, the insurance
carrier defendants filed answers. On March 13, 2013, SEI notified
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case
as a potential tag-along action.

On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, a motion
for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status conference and
expedited consideration of their motion to remand, a motion for
leave to file under seal and a motion for order pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants to supplement
federal court record with certified copy of state court record.
These motions are now fully briefed. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed
a motion that the court decline to adopt the state court's order
regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without
prejudice to renew upon a determination of removal jurisdiction
in an April 12, 2013 order that also dismissed without prejudice
a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue
filed on April 9, 2013 by one of the insurers. On April 1, 2013,
the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI) filed a
motion to remand and sever claims, and a response to that motion
by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the plaintiffs
were filed on April 22, 2013. Along with the briefing in the
Middle District of Louisiana, on March 13, 2013, SEI notified the
MDL of this case as a potential tag-along action. On March 19,
2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL that they had filed a motion to
remand and asked the panel to decline to issue a conditional
transfer order. On March 29, 2013, the MDL issued a conditional
transfer order (CTO). On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a motion to
vacate the CTO or, in the alternative, stay any ruling to
transfer the matter until after the Middle District of Louisiana
ruled on OFI's motion to remand and sever. Plaintiffs filed a
motion to vacate the CTO on April 19, 2013. SEI's responses to
those motions were filed on May 9, 2013.

On June 12, 2013, the MDL Panel issued an order notifying the
parties that on July 25, 2013, it would consider, without oral
argument, Plaintiffs' and OFI's motions to vacate the CTO. On
August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel affirmed the CTO and transferred
the matter against SEI to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas; the MDL Panel also severed the
claims against OFI and remanded those claims to the Middle
District of Louisiana. On September 11, 2013, defendants filed a
motion requesting a status conference with the Court to address
the status of all pending motions. On October 4, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review the MDL Panel's
transfer Order and on February 14, 2014, the Court denied the
petition.


SPEIGHT SEED: Court Certifies Class in "Hernandez-Martinez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Terrence W. Boyle granted a motion for class
certification in JUAN MANUEL HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, on behalf of
himself and themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. Speight Seed Farms, Inc., John Milton Beamon, and
Emma Ortega, Defendants, CASE NO: 4-13-CV-82-BO, (E.D. N.C.).  A
copy of the April 13, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/GE375Ffrom Leagle.com.

Judge Boyle granted the joint motion for certification of the
plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief under the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act (NCWHA) as a class action under Rule 23(b) (3),
Fed.R.Civ.P., for the time period from March 27, 2011 to December
31, 2012 for those persons included in the class definition.

A joint motion for class certification of an action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act collective was also granted with respect
to all those persons who have filed a written Consent to Sue
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on or before the date on which the
Court files any Order approving the terms of the proposed
settlement between the named plaintiff and the Speight
defendants.

Jose Luis Gonzalez-Quinones, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J.
Willis.

Maria de Jesus Figueroa-Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Robert
J. Willis.

Juan Manuel Hernandez-Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert
J. Willis.

Speight Seed Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by William A.
Oden, III -- wao@wardandsmith.com -- Ward and Smith, P.A..

John Milton Beamon, Defendant, represented by William A. Oden,
III, Ward and Smith, P.A..

Emma Ortega, Defendant, represented by William A. Oden, III, Ward
and Smith, P.A..


TEAM HEALTH: Medical Personnel File Class Action Over Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karla Ward, writing for Lexington Herald-Leader, reports that a
company that provides doctors and other medical personnel for
Kentucky hospitals and their emergency departments is the target
of a class-action lawsuit that alleges fraud and breach of
contract.

The suit, filed on April 10 in Fayette Circuit Court against Team
Health Holdings, says the plaintiff, Lori Wagner, and other Team
Health employees were "paid less money than they earned and were
entitled to as wages and . . . have had other amounts wrongfully
withheld from their pay."

The employees affected by the suit originally worked for Mesa
Medical Group, but Knoxville-based Team Holdings acquired Mesa in
October.  The suit alleges that Mesa improperly converted to its
own use more than $2.8 million that should have gone to 254
employees over a three-year period.  The suit says Mesa did this
for about nine years, so "the total money illicitly taken by Mesa
should approximate $9 million."

When Team Health took over, employees were required to sign new
contracts for less pay, the lawsuit says.

"Even though Team Health knew the plaintiffs were entitled to
money that had been wrongfully withheld and converted by Mesa, it
never offered to repay the money to the plaintiffs and sought to
take advantage of Mesa's illicit conduct to its own advantage by
breaching the contracts with the plaintiffs," the suit says.

Lexington attorney Dale Golden, who filed the class-action suit,
has filed two similar lawsuits in recent months against Mesa.

According to court documents, Mesa is accused of forcing
employees to pay the employer's share of Federal Insurance
Contributions Act, or FICA, taxes.

The first of the lawsuits Golden filed was dismissed from U.S.
District Court in Lexington after Judge Joseph Hood ruled that
the plaintiff, Tammy Berera, should take her complaint to the
IRS.

Ms. Berera is appealing that decision.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: Distributions From Privacy Suit Deal Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the final order
approving the distributions from the Settlement fund of the
Privacy Litigation against TransUnion Corp., according to
Transunion Holding Company, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The company is a defendant in 16 purported class actions that
arose from activities of the company's Performance Data Division
that was discontinued over 12 years ago. Fifteen of these
purported class actions alleging violations of federal law were
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division)
and are known as In Re TransUnion Corp. Privacy Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 1350. The company refers to these matters as the
"Privacy Litigation." A companion class action alleging violation
of Louisiana state law was filed in 2002 (Andrews v. Trans Union
LLC, case No. 02-18553, Civil District, Parish of Orleans,
Louisiana), and the company refers to this matter as the
"Louisiana Action."

The Privacy Litigation, which issues have been actively litigated
by the Company for close to 20 years, was the result of the
company's sale of information, including names and addresses of
individuals, to businesses for marketing purposes. The FTC
challenged the company's target marketing practice in 1992, which
challenge resulted in a final decision rendered in 1999 holding
that certain target marketing lists that the company sold were
consumer reports as defined in the FCRA, and were sold for
purposes not permitted under the FCRA.

Following that decision, the fifteen purported class actions were
filed, alleging that each target marketing list was sold in
willful violation of the FCRA and seeking statutory damages.
A settlement of the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action
was approved on September 17, 2008 (the "Settlement"). The
Louisiana Action was dismissed in connection with the Settlement.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the company paid $75.0
million into a fund for the benefit of class members on July 7,
2008, and approximately 100,000 individuals took advantage of the
company's offer of free credit monitoring services. All class
members released their procedural rights to pursue the claims
alleged in these matters through the pending, or any new, class
action. However, all class members (other than the named
plaintiffs in the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action)
did retain their right to bring a separate, individual claim
against the company for the violations alleged in these matters
provided these claims were asserted on or before September 16,
2010 (the "PSCs"). The Settlement provides that any money
remaining in the fund after payment of notice costs, class
counsel fees and administrative expenses will be used to satisfy
any such PSCs, with remaining funds distributed on a pro-rata
basis to class members who elected to receive a potential cash
payment in the Settlement as part of the consideration to release
their procedural rights.

Through court monitored mediation with counsel representing the
class members and the PSC claimants, the company entered into
agreements to settle substantially all of these PSCs for payments
from the Settlement fund to bring this matter to conclusion.
Payments from the Settlement fund have been made in accordance
with the terms of the agreements entered into with the settling
PSCs. After numerous hearings on this matter, the Court, on
February 22, 2013, issued a final order approving the
distributions from the Settlement fund that was created by the
Company and terminated the proceedings. This final order was
agreed to by all class counsel except one, who sought a review of
the final order and certain interlocutory orders in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On January 23,
2014, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the final order
as well as orders approving the PSC settlements and the company's
corresponding disbursements, effectively terminating this action.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: Objecting Counsel Seeks Interlocutory Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objecting counsel to the settlement reached in White, et al v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG
is seeking an interlocutory appeal of a ruling denying it "new
class counsel" status, according to Transunion Holding Company,
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 a matter captioned White, et al v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California), plaintiffs sought class action status against
Equifax, Experian and the company in connection with the
reporting of delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations
on a consumer report after the consumer was discharged in a
bankruptcy proceeding. The claims allege that each national
consumer reporting company did not automatically update a
consumer's file after their discharge from bankruptcy and such
non-action was a failure to employ reasonable procedures to
assure maximum file accuracy, a requirement of the FCRA.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, the company agreed to a
settlement of this matter. On August 19, 2008, the Court approved
an agreement whereby the company and the other industry
defendants voluntarily changed certain operational practices.
These changes require the company to update certain delinquent
records when the company learned, through the collection of
public records, that the consumer has received an order of
discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. These business practice
changes did not have a material adverse impact on the company's
operations or those of the company's customers.

In 2009, the company also agreed, with the other two defendants,
to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter for
$17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total), which amount will be
distributed from a settlement fund to pay the class counsel's
attorney fees, all administration and notice costs of the fund to
the purported class, and a variable damage amount to consumers
within the class based on the level of harm the consumer is able
to confirm. The company's share of this settlement was fully
covered by insurance. Final approval of this monetary settlement
by the Court occurred in July 2011. Certain objecting plaintiffs
appealed the Court's final approval of the monetary settlement
and, in April 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the final approval order and remanded the
matter to the District Court. The rationale provided by the
United States Court of Appeals was not that the proposed
settlement was unfair or defective, but that named class counsel
and certain named plaintiffs did not adequately represent the
interests of the class because of certain identified conflicts.
Objecting counsel to the settlement has sought to become new
class counsel and the District Court has denied this request.
Objecting counsel is currently seeking an interlocutory appeal of
this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: Seeks Approval for "Soutter" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval is being sought for a settlement reached in Donna
K. Soutter v. Trans Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH filed with
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, according to Transunion Holding Company, 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 purported class action (Donna K. Soutter v. Trans Union LLC
No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia) was filed in 2010 and alleges that
the company failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible file accuracy with respect to the collection and
reporting of the satisfaction, release, dismissal or appeal of
judgments entered in the Virginia state court system. Similar
cases are pending against the company's competitors. The company,
like the company's competitors, contracts with a third-party
vendor to collect public records on a timely basis. The plaintiff
alleges that the diligence used to gather and report
satisfactions, releases, dismissals or appeals is inadequate and
that the established intervals between trips to the various
Virginia state courthouses to gather this information is too
infrequent. In January 2014, the company agreed to settle this
matter for a cash payment and six months of the company's
Internet-based single bureau credit monitoring service for no
charge. The proposed settlement has been preliminarily approved
by the Court and a final fairness hearing was set for mid-March
2014.


TRANSUNION HOLDING: Certification Sought in OFAC Alert Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action certification proceedings are progressing in
lawsuits filed against Trans Union LLC over the Office of Foreign
Assets Control Alert, according to Transunion Holding Company,
Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

As a result of a decision by the United States Third Circuit
Court of Appeals in 2010 (Cortez v. Trans Union LLC), the company
modified one of the company's add-on services the company offered
to its business customers that was designed to alert the
company's customer that the consumer, who was seeking to
establish a business relationship with the customer, may
potentially be on the Office of Foreign Assets Control,
Specifically Designated National and Blocked Persons alert list
(the "OFAC Alert"). The OFAC Alert service is meant to assist the
company's customers with their compliance obligations in
connection with the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001.

In Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC, (No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, United
States District Court for the Northern District of California)
that was filed in 2012, the plaintiff has alleged that: the OFAC
Alert service does not comply with the Cortez ruling; the company
willfully violated the FCRA and the corresponding California
state-FCRA based on the Cortez ruling by continuing to offer the
OFAC Alert service, and; there are one or more classes of
individuals who should be entitled to statutory damages (i.e.,
$100 to $5,000 per person) based on the allegedly willful
violations. In addition to the Ramirez action, the same lawyers
representing Ramirez (who also represented the plaintiff in
Cortez) have filed two additional alleged class actions in 2012
(Miller v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-1715-WJN, United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and
Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-5726-JSC, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California) and one
in 2014 (Amit Patel, et al. v. TransUnion LLC, TransUnion Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc. and TransUnion Background Data
Solutions, No. 14-cv-0522-LB, United States District Court for
the Northern District of California) claiming that the company's
process for disclosing OFAC information to consumers, or how the
company matches OFAC information to a consumer's name or other
identifying information, violates the FCRA and, in some
instances, the corresponding California state-FCRA. Class action
certification proceedings are progressing with respect to the
Ramirez, Miller and Larson actions. With respect to the Patel
action, in addition to the OFAC issue it seeks to collapse all
TransUnion FCRA regulated entities into a single entity. This
matter is at a very early stage in its proceedings.


WPX ENERGY: Court Allows Method of Calculating Royalty Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a lawsuit by royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado against WPX Energy, Inc., the court issued its order
rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard as to the methodology to
use to calculate oil and gas royalty payments and accepting the
company's position, 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 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging the company improperly calculated oil
and gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received
from the sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly
charged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in
excess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought to
certify a class of royalty interest owners, recover underpayment
of royalties and obtain corrected payments related to calculation
errors. The company entered into a final partial settlement
agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined the class for
certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of
royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain
rules to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments,
resolved claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax
payments, established a procedure for refunds of any such excess
withholding in the future, and reserved two claims for court
resolution. The company prevailed at the trial court and all
levels of appeal on the first reserved claim regarding whether
the company is allowed to deduct mainline pipeline transportation
costs pursuant to certain lease agreements. The remaining claim
related to the issue of whether the company is required to have
proportionately increased the value of natural gas by
transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and, if
required, whether the company did so and are entitled to deduct a
proportionate share of transportation costs in calculating
royalty payments. Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately
$20 million plus interest for the period from July 2000 to July
2008.

The court issued pretrial orders finding that the company bears
the burden of demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in
order to deduct transportation costs and that the enhancement
test must be applied on a monthly basis in order to determine the
reasonableness of post-production transportation costs. Trial
occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether the company met
that burden. Following that trial, the court issued its order
rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting the
company's position as to the methodology to use in determining
the standard by which the company's activity should be judged.
The company is in the process of conducting an accounting under
that standard. However, the company continues to believe the
company's royalty calculations have been properly determined in
accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and
Colorado law.


WPX ENERGY: Sued by Royalty Interest Owners in N.Mex., Colo.
------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc., faces lawsuits by royalty interest owners
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico and Colorado, 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 October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against the company in
the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently
alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip
condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, fraud concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value
of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market
hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas
Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and a declaratory judgment
enjoining activities relating to production, payments and future
reporting. This matter has been removed to the United States
District Court for New Mexico. In August 2012, a second potential
class action was filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico by mineral interest
owners in New Mexico and Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of implied duty to market both in Colorado and New Mexico,
violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act and
seek declaratory judgment, accounting and injunction. At this
time, the company believes that its royalty calculations has been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate
contractual arrangements and applicable laws. The company does
not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range
of exposure related to these claims.


WPX ENERGY: Bares Updates in Suits Related to Natural Gas Biz
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, WPX
Energy, Inc. provided updates in lawsuits relating to the
reporting of natural gas-related information to trade
publications.

Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the company and others,
seeking unspecified amounts of damages. The company is currently
a defendant in class action litigation and other litigation
originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers
of natural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to
the federal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court granted summary
judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the company and most of
the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. On
January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment in
the company's favor. When a final order is entered against the
one remaining defendant, the Colorado plaintiffs may appeal the
order.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted the company's joint motions for summary judgment to
preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal
Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve
those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class
certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April
10, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued its opinion on the Western States Antitrust
Litigation.  The panel held that the Natural Gas Act does not
preempt the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims, reversing the
summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants.  The panel
further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend complaints.
Defendants' filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court. Because of the uncertainty around pending
unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the
purported classes and other related matters, the company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time.


                             *********

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  * * *