CAR_Public/140430.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 30, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 85

                             Headlines


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Files Motion to Junk Amended Securities Claims
ALPHA NATURAL: June Fairness Hearing of Massey Investors Accord
ALPHA NATURAL: Massey Securities Lawsuit Trial Set for June 2014
ALPHA NATURAL: Faces Wrongful Death, Personal Injury Lawsuits
ALPHA NATURAL: Stay of Discovery in Del. Suit Extended Thru July

ALPHA NATURAL: NCI May Appeal to W.Va. High Court
AMARIN CORP: N.Y., N.J. Securities Suits Await Consolidation
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling in Lawsuit Over 401(k) Plan
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Jeffers" Suit
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Venue of Versata Software Lawsuit at Issue

ASSURED GUARANTY: AGM, AGMH Excluded in Amended Antitrust Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Faces New Allegation of Interchange Fee Fixing
CAPITAL ONE: Merchant Awaits Certification of Discount Fees Suit
CAPIAL ONE: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Late Fees Lawsuit
CAPITAL ONE: Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation Extinguished

CAPITAL ONE: Checking Account Overdraft Suit Discovery to End Q2
CAPITAL ONE: Bares Updates in State AG Payment Protection Suits
CAPITAL ONE: COBNA Faces Consolidated TCPA Litigation in Illinois
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces Suits for "Required" Employee Uniforms
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Summary Judgment in 2008 IPO Suit Under Appeal

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of 2012 Securities Suit Appealed
CIGNA CORP: Appeals Ruling in Pension Plan Litigation
CIGNA CORP: No Class Status for Suit Over Use of Ingenix Data
CIT GROUP: Named as Defendant in Quebec Suit Over 2013 Derailment
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit by Former Sales Employee

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Suit Over Royalty Deductions in Discovery
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: May 16 Hearing on Accord in Unitholder's Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Awaits Court's Ruling on Motion to Junk Stock Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Certification Bid in RSP Suit Pending
DUN & BRADSTREET: TCPA Violations Suit in Illinois Now Resolved

DUN & BRADSTREET: Suit by O&R Construction in Formal Discovery
DUN & BRADSTREET: Suit by Die-Mension in Ohio Court Inactive
EQUINIX INC: Court Dismisses Cement Masons Trust's Lawsuit
EQUINIX INC: Cal. Court Dismisses "Stopa" Shareholder Lawsuit
FIBRIA CELULOSE: Defendants in ADR Holders' Suit Pay US$37.5MM

FIRSTENERGY GENERATION: Cheremisinoff Expert Report Excluded
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: To Settle Del., La. Suits Over MMR Merger
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Processing System Intrusion Lawsuit Remanded
INDIANA: Clark County Court Sued Over Drug Treatment Program
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Settlement of Suit Over Bogalusa Approved

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Suits in Ill., Tenn. Courts
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Suit in Pa. & Canada Courts
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dismissal of North Port Lawsuit Appealed
JP MORGAN: Faces "DeJohnette" Suit Over Short Sale in California
KFORCE INC: Cal. Grants Summary Judgment in Employees Lawsuit

LAS MARGARITAS: Faces Suit in New York Alleging FLSA Violations
LAS VEGAS: Briefing in Suit Over "Inadequate" Disclosure Deferred
LENSCRAFTERS INC: Removed "Smith" Class Suit to S.D. California
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: To Settle Rights-of-Way Litigation
LOUISIANA PACIFIC: Bares Updates on Hardboard Trim Lawsuits

LOUISIANA PACIFIC: Decreases Settlement Reserves in Suit v. ABT
MFA PETROLEUM: Obtains Favorable Ruling in False Advertising Case
MYLAN INC: Awaits Court Decision on Add'l Discovery & New Trial
MYLAN INC: Accrues $64.1MM Due to Merck KGaA for Pricing Lawsuit
NJM INC: Has Deprived Workers of Lawfully Earned Wages, Suit Says

PFIZER INC: Faces "Baham" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Has Mislabeled Lipitor Drug, "Hines" Suit Claims
PFIZER INC: Sued Over Injury Suffered From Use of Lipitor Drug
POOL CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits by Swimming Pool Products Buyers
RITE AID: "Flowers" Suit Transferred From California to Maryland

SKECHERS USA: Court Approved $50MM Accord in Toning Shoes Suit
SKECHERS USA: "Grabowski" Accord to Resolve "Tomlinson" Claims
SKECHERS USA: "Grabowski" Accord to Resolve "Boatright" Claim
SKECHERS USA: Finalizing Deal in Canadian Shape-ups Footwear Suit
SKECHERS USA: Quebec Settlements to Resolve Alberta Lawsuit

SKECHERS USA: Finalizing Settlement of "Niras" Shape-up Suit
SKECHERS USA: Finalizing Settlement of "Dedato" Shape-up Suit
SKECHERS USA: "Chavez" Labor Lawsuit Dismissed as Duplicate
SKECHERS USA: Enters Into Settlement in "Roneshia" Labor Lawsuit
SOTHEBY'S INC: "Graham" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit

STEVEN MADDEN: Cal. Court OKs Settlement of TCPA Violation Suit
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Chief Financial Officer Faces Stock Suit
TAX DEFENSE: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, California Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Magistrate Judge's Report in "Evans" Suit Adopted
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Mass Associational Tracking Program

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PSI Faces Suit in Tenn. by Retirement System
UNIVERSAL WELLNESS: Deceives Alkazone Water Consumers, Suit Says
WAGENER EQUITIES: Bid for Leave to Appeal in "Chapman" Suit Nixed
WATTS WATER: July Hearing Set on $23MM "Trabakoolas" Settlement
WEISS-ROHLIG USA: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act

WELLS FARGO: Court Tosses Class Cert. Motion in "Gresser" Suit


                             *********


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Files Motion to Junk Amended Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a second amended
securities complaint pending against it in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align,
Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's
former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between April 23, 2012 and October 17,
2012 (the "Securities Action"). On July 11, 2013, an amended
complaint was filed, which named the same defendants, on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The amended
complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the
purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate
goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011
acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered the company's financial statements and projections
of future earnings materially false and misleading and in
violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary
damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorney's fees.  On
December 9, 2013, the judge granted the company's motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the first amended complaint.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on February 7, 2014.


ALPHA NATURAL: June Fairness Hearing of Massey Investors Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia entered an order preliminarily approving a
settlement reached by Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. in a suit
filed by Massey Energy Company stockholders in the wake of the
Upper Big Branch (UBB) explosion, according to the company's Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions
that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought
against, among others, Massey, now the Company's subsidiary Alpha
Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
(the "Court") in connection with alleged violations of the
federal securities laws. The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly
on behalf of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i)
Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by
intentionally misleading the market about the safety of Massey's
operations and that (ii) Massey's former officers violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over
persons alleged to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that
this action is a proper class action; certification as class
representatives; an award of compensatory damages in an amount to
be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  On March 3, 2011, the United
States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the
completion of criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the
same facts that allegedly give rise to this action. On July 9,
2012, the Court entered an order maintaining the stay of
discovery until the earlier of either the completion of the
United States' criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or
January 15, 2013. The Court has extended the stay several times;
most recently, on July 18, 2013, the court further extended the
existing discovery stay until January 15, 2014.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint. On March 27, 2012, the Court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer
to the consolidated amended class action complaint.

In October and December 2013, the parties participated in
mediation. In December 2013, the parties reached agreement on all
material terms of settlement, including a cash payment of
$265,000,000. In February 2014, the parties reached agreement on
definitive settlement documentation, subject to court approval,
and on February 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs moved the court for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 19, 2014, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
subject to a final determination following a settlement hearing
on June 4, 2014. On February 25, 2014, pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, the Company made an initial payment of
$30,000,000 into an escrow account. Pending final determination,
the plaintiffs may not further prosecute the action. If the Court
approves the settlement, it would result in the dismissal of the
action. Whether the Court will approve the settlement remains
uncertain. The Company expects insurance recoveries of
approximately $70,000,000 to help cover the cost of the
settlement.


ALPHA NATURAL: Massey Securities Lawsuit Trial Set for June 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boone County Circuit Court has set a preliminary trial date
of June 24, 2014 in a securities suit filed against Alpha Natural
Resources, Inc. by former Massey Energy Company stockholders,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone
County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company
and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the acquisition of Massey by the Company (the "Massey
Acquisition"). The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award
of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia. On
September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion to remand.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on October
19, 2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on
November 2, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the federal court remanded
the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court (without ruling
on the pending motion to dismiss). The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013, which motions are currently
pending. The Boone County Circuit Court has set a preliminary
trial date of June 24, 2014.


ALPHA NATURAL: Faces Wrongful Death, Personal Injury Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. moved to dismiss complaints brought
by one of the families of deceased miners in Boone County Circuit
Court, purportedly on behalf of the families that settled their
claims prior to the mediation, according to the company's Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed
wrongful death suits against Massey and certain of its
subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County
Circuit Court. In addition, as of July 19, 2013, two seriously
injured employees had filed personal injury claims against Massey
and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court
seeking damages for physical injuries and/or alleged psychiatric
injuries, and thirty-nine employees had filed lawsuits against
Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit
Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court alleging emotional
distress or personal injuries due to their proximity to the
explosion. On April 19, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
transfer the Wyoming County lawsuits to Boone County.

On October 19, 2011, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that
the cases pending before it be mediated by a panel of three
mediators.  These mediations are, per order of the court,
strictly confidential. The Company reached agreements to settle
with all twenty-nine families of the deceased miners as well as
the two employees who were seriously injured. The settlements
reached with the families of the deceased miners have received
court approval. The settlements relating to the two serious
injuries did not require court approval.

On May 4, 2012, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that the
remaining personal injury and emotional distress claims continue
to be mediated through July 6, 2012. Until that date, a stay was
in place for all remaining cases until further order from the
court. The stay was lifted on July 6, 2012 but mediation was
ordered to continue. On July 20, 2012, the stay was reinstated
for discovery-related activities at the request of the United
States Attorney and by agreement of the parties. On August 19,
2013, at the request of the United States Attorney, the stay was
extended until the earlier of either the completion of the United
States' criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January
15, 2014. Mediation efforts in August 2012 successfully resolved
all but two of the personal injury and emotional distress claims.
On June 26, 2013, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claims alleging the tort
of outrage and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs' two remaining claims have been resolved. The Wyoming
County lawsuits were settled and dismissed prior to the court
ruling on the Company's motion to transfer.

On April 5, 2012, one of the families of the deceased miners
filed a class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court,
purportedly on behalf of the families that settled their claims
prior to the mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a
contract, naming as defendants Massey, the Company and certain of
its subsidiaries, the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of
Directors.

On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013 two complaints were filed in
Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims
relating to the UBB explosion. The Company moved to dismiss both
complaints on July 17, 2013 and October 16, 2013 respectively.


ALPHA NATURAL: Stay of Discovery in Del. Suit Extended Thru July
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Company shareholders suing Alpha Natural Resources,
Inc. in Delaware state court won a ruling to further extend a
discovery stay of their case until the earlier of the completion
of the United States' criminal investigation on the explosion at
Upper Big Branch, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

A number of purported former Massey stockholders have brought
lawsuits derivatively, purportedly on behalf of Massey, in West
Virginia and Delaware state courts, in connection with the April
5, 2010 explosion at the UBB mine and in connection with claims
allegedly arising out of the Massey Acquisition. Certain of these
former stockholders have also initiated contempt proceedings in
West Virginia state court in connection with alleged violations
of the settlement of a previous derivative lawsuit. In addition,
these and other purported former Massey stockholders have
asserted class action claims allegedly arising out of the Massey
Acquisition in Delaware and West Virginia state courts and
Virginia federal court.

               Delaware Chancery Court Suit

In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey
stockholders (the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on
behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and
officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor
and oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in fines
against Massey and the explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate
assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to
former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L.
Blankenship as part of his retirement package. The Delaware
Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported class of former
Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Massey
Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best
price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for
the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the
possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop"
provision and a termination fee. In addition, the Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey
Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on
the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all
material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an
informed vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed
to orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of
eliminating the former Massey directors' potential liability on
the derivative claims. Two additional putative class actions were
brought against Massey, certain former Massey directors and
officers, the Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of
Chancery following the announcement of the Massey Acquisition,
which were consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey on
February 9, 2011 and February 24, 2011, respectively.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve
the derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware
Plaintiffs' derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware
Plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right
to pursue those claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia
Merger Sub moved to dismiss the purported class action claim
against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. On June 10 and 13, 2011, certain former Massey
director and officer defendants moved to dismiss the derivative
claims and filed answers to the remaining direct claims.

On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation
Staying Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012,
without prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court. The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The
court has extended the stay several times; most recently, on July
29, 2013, the court further extended the existing discovery stay
until the earlier of the completion of the United States'
criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2014.

On January 14, 2014, defendants moved to further extend the stay
until the earlier of the completion of the United States'
criminal investigation or July 15, 2014. That motion was granted
on February 4, 2014.


ALPHA NATURAL: NCI May Appeal to W.Va. High Court
-------------------------------------------------
In the "Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. Employee Litigation,"
against Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County granted the Motion of NCI to Certify Questions of
Law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a purported
class action lawsuit against Nicewonder Contracting, Inc.
(NCI) filed in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia
by a former NCI employee (the "NCI Employee Litigation"). The
plaintiff in the NCI Employee Litigation is represented by the
same attorney who represents the plaintiff in the litigation by
the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation ("ACTF"), and the
complaint's allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF
litigation.

ACTF, a division of the West Virginia State Building and
Construction Trades Council, brought an action against the West
Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
("WVDOH") and Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. ("NCI"), which became
the Company's wholly-owned indirect subsidiary as a result of the
Nicewonder acquisition, in the United States District Court in
the Southern District of West Virginia

On February 26, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled
that the contract in dispute in the ACTF litigation, as well as
the awarding and implementation of the contract were in violation
of West Virginia law. The Company is reviewing the Court's ruling
and evaluating its implications in relation to the NCI Employee
Litigation.  The Company believes that NCI has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation.

NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee
Litigation on March 4, 2013.  On April 23, 2013, the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to
transfer and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI
Employee Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County.

On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted
NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, where the case is now pending. Briefing
before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia was to be
completed by March 13, 2014, and a decision on the certified
questions is expected later in 2014.


AMARIN CORP: N.Y., N.J. Securities Suits Await Consolidation
------------------------------------------------------------
Cases filed against Amarin Corporation plc in the Southern
District of New York were transferred to the District of New
Jersey, where four cases are now proceeding in front of the same
judge pending a formal order consolidating the actions, 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 November 1, 2013, a purported investor of Amarin filed a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Steven Sklar v. Amarin
Corporation plc et al., No. 13-cv-6954 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013) in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Substantially similar lawsuits, captioned Bove v. Amarin
Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-07882 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013),
Bentley v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-08283 (AT)
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2013) and Siegel v. Amarin Corporation plc,
No. 3:13-cv-07210 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2013), were subsequently filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On
December 9, 2013 the cases filed in the Southern District of New
York were transferred to the District of New Jersey, where the
four cases are now proceeding in front of the same judge pending
a formal order consolidating the actions.

Each of the complaints asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints allege that Amarin and
certain of its current and former officers and directors made
misstatements and omissions regarding the FDA's willingness to
approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and the potential relevance
of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that approval. The
putative class periods alleged in the complaints vary from the
July 9, 2009-October 15, 2013 period alleged in the Sklar and
Siegel complaints, the July 9, 2009-October 16, 2013 period
alleged in the Bentley complaint, and August 8, 2012-October 16,
2013 period alleged in the Bove complaint. The lawsuits seek
unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 3, 2014, ten plaintiffs and their respective counsel
moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
putative class. The plaintiffs also moved for consolidation of
the pending actions. The motion for appointment of lead plaintiff
was set for February 3, 2014, but has not yet been decided. After
the Court appoints a lead plaintiff, and consolidates the
actions, the company expects that the lead plaintiff will file a
consolidated amended complaint that will become the operative
complaint for the action.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling in Lawsuit Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota is
yet to rule on a motion for summary judgment on statute of
limitations grounds filed by Ameriprise Financial, Inc. in a suit
filed on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of its 401(k)
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.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
against the Company, certain of its present or former employees
and directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf
of participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial
401(k) Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to
the present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached
fiduciary duties under ERISA, by selecting and retaining
primarily proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor
performance histories, higher expenses relative to other
investment options and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial
or its subsidiaries. The action also alleges that the Company
breached fiduciary duties under ERISA because it used its
affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan trustee and
record-keeper and improperly reaped profits from the sale of the
record-keeping business to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Plaintiffs allege
over $20 million in damages. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on February 7, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the Company
filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was
denied on November 20, 2012. The parties are engaged in
discovery. On July 3, 2013, the Company moved for summary
judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The hearing on the
motion was heard on August 14, 2013, and the parties are awaiting
a decision by the Court. A hearing on class certification was
held on December 10, 2013, and the parties are awaiting a
decision. The trial is currently scheduled for March 1, 2015.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Jeffers" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion by Ameriprise Financial, Inc. to dismiss the suit
Jeffers vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. has been fully
briefed and submitted to the Court for review and decision,
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 entitled Jeffers
vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois relating to its sales of the Inland Western
(now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc. ("RPAI")) REIT.
The action also names as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI's
executives, and several members of RPAI's board. The action
alleges that the Company failed to perform required due diligence
and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including fees
charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and
valuation of the shares on client account statements. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages. The Company was served in December
2012, and, on April 19, 2013, moved to dismiss the complaint. The
motion has been fully briefed and submitted to the Court for
review and decision.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Venue of Versata Software Lawsuit at Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Ameriprise Financial, Inc. to remove the case
relating to the Company's licensing and use of software owned by
Versata Software, Inc. to the district court is currently subject
to a motion to return the case to state court, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In November 2012, a lawsuit entitled Versata Software, Inc.,
f/k/a Trilogy Software, Inc., et al. ("Versata") v. Ameriprise
Financial, Inc., Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. & American
Enterprise Investment Services, Inc. was filed in the District
Court of Travis County, Texas relating to the Company's licensing
and use of software owned by Versata that the Company uses to
manage registration, licensing and compensation, among other
things. The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the terms of the
license agreement by allowing an impermissible third-party
contractor to decompile Versata's software code, and failing to
have the third-party contractor execute individual non-disclosure
agreements. The Company has alleged counterclaims for wrongful
termination and breaches of warranties, among other causes of
action. Both sides have asserted defenses to the claims and
counterclaims. The relief requested by Versata is for the Company
to return the software and for other, unspecified, legal and
equitable relief. The relief requested by the Company against
Versata is delivery and free use by the Company of the Versata
source code. Ameriprise removed the dispute to federal court.
That removal is currently subject to a motion to return the case
to state court. The matter is still in the discovery stage and no
trial date has been set. The Company cannot reasonably estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due
to the procedural status of the case.


ASSURED GUARANTY: AGM, AGMH Excluded in Amended Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Complaint in In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation lists neither Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corp. (AGM) nor Financial Security Assurance
Holdings Ltd. (renamed Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings Inc.,
AGMH) as a named defendant or a co-conspirator, according to
Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including GICs. These
cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 ("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named both AGMH and AGM: (a) Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District,
Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council
of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington
County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009, the MDL
1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the
federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint. The Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, filed on October 9, 2013, lists neither AGM nor
AGMH as a named defendant or a co-conspirator. The complaints in
these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss
that may arise from these lawsuits.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities
paying higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland,
California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of
Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of
Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i)
Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.
When the four plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
September 2009, the plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.
However, the complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's
activities. The consolidated complaint generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
costs. In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and
denied in part the named defendants' motions to dismiss this
consolidated complaint.

In 2008, AGMH and AGM also were named in five non-class action
lawsuits originally filed in the California Superior Courts
alleging violations of California law related to the municipal
derivatives industry: (a) City of Los Angeles, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (b) City of Stockton, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (c) County of San Diego, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (d) County of San Mateo, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; and (e) County of Contra Costa, California v. Bank
of America, N.A. Amended complaints in these actions were filed
in September 2009, adding a federal antitrust claim and naming
AGM (but not AGMH) and AGUS, among other defendants. These cases
have been transferred to the Southern District of New York and
consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.

In late 2009, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
six additional non-class action cases filed in federal court,
which also have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with MDL 1950: (f) City of Riverside, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.; (g) Sacramento Municipal Utility District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (h) Los Angeles World Airports v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (i) Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Stockton v. Bank of America, N.A.; (j) Sacramento Suburban Water
District v. Bank of America, N.A.; and (k) County of Tulare,
California v. Bank of America, N.A.

The MDL 1950 court denied AGM and AGUS's motions to dismiss these
eleven complaints in April 2010. Amended complaints were filed in
May 2010. On October 29, 2010, AGM and AGUS were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice from the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District case only. The complaints in these lawsuits generally
seek or sought unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from the remaining lawsuits.

In May 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
five additional non-class action cases filed in federal court in
California: (a) City of Richmond, California v. Bank of America,
N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (b) City of
Redwood City, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May
18, 2010, N.D. California); (c) Redevelopment Agency of the City
and County of San Francisco, California v. Bank of America, N.A.
(filed on May 21, 2010, N.D. California); (d) East Bay Municipal
Utility District, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
May 18, 2010, N.D. California); and (e) City of San Jose and the
San Jose Redevelopment Agency, California v. Bank of America, N.A
(filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California). These cases have also
been transferred to the Southern District of New York and
consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. In September
2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a sixth
additional non-class action filed in federal court in New York,
but which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Active Retirement Community,
Inc. d/b/a Jefferson's Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
September 21, 2010, E.D. New York), which has also been
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. In December 2010, AGM and
AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a seventh additional
non-class action filed in federal court in the Central District
of California, Los Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of
America, N.A., and in an eighth additional non-class action filed
in federal court in the Southern District of New York, Kendal on
Hudson, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. These cases also have been
consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. The
complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses. The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or
range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.

In January 2011, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in an additional non-class action case filed in federal court in
New York, which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Peconic Landing at Southold,
Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. This case has been consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. The complaint in this
lawsuit generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses. The Company cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss
that may arise from this lawsuit.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces New Allegation of Interchange Fee Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Individual consumer plaintiffs filed a proposed national class
action against a number of banks, including Capital One Financial
Corporation, alleging that because the banks conspired to fix
interchange fees, consumers were forced to pay more for the fees
than appropriate, 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 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several
member banks, including the company's subsidiaries and the
company, alleging among other things, that the defendants
conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints
seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be
trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted
similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In October 2005,
the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for certain purposes, including discovery. In July 2012, the
parties executed and filed with the court a Memorandum of
Understanding agreeing to resolve the litigation on certain terms
set forth in a settlement agreement attached to the Memorandum.

The class settlement provides for, among other things, (i)
payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs
totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) a distribution to the
class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of certain
interchange transactions for a period of eight months; and (iii)
modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding
point of sale practices. This agreement is contingent on final
court approval of the class settlement. In November 2012, the
court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement. In
December 2013, the court granted final approval of the proposed
class settlement, which was appealed to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals in January 2014. Several merchant plaintiffs have also
opted out of the class settlement, some of which have sued
MasterCard, Visa and various member banks, including Capital One
(collectively "the Opt-Out Plaintiffs").

Relatedly, in December 2013, individual consumer plaintiffs also
filed a proposed national class action against a number of banks,
including Capital One, alleging that because the banks conspired
to fix interchange fees, consumers were forced to pay more for
the fees than appropriate. These cases are in their preliminary
stages.

As members of Visa, the company's subsidiary banks have
indemnification obligations to Visa with respect to final
judgments and settlements, including the Interchange Lawsuits. In
the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock.
With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the
benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements
and claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits. As a result, in
the first quarter of 2008, the company reduced the company's
Visa-related indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded
in other liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-
interest expense. The company made an election in accordance with
the accounting guidance for fair value option for financial
assets and liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa,
and the fair value of the guarantee at December 31, 2013 and 2012
was zero.

Separately, in January 2011, the company entered into a
MasterCard Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with
other defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and
its member banks the costs and liabilities of any judgment or
settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.


CAPITAL ONE: Merchant Awaits Certification of Discount Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Furniture store owner named Mary Watson and Capital One Financial
Corporation awaits a ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In March 2011, Watson filed a proposed class action in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia against Visa, MasterCard, and
several banks, including Capital One.  The lawsuit asserts, among
other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant
discount fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in
violation of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital
One has been named as a defendant in similar proposed class
action claims filed in other jurisdictions in Canada. The Court
heard oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in the Watson Litigation in April 2013, and the parties await a
ruling.


CAPIAL ONE: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Late Fees Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's
dismissal of the case filed by a purported class of cardholders
against Capital One Bank (USA), National Association alleging
conspiracy to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees
charged to cardholders, according to Capital One Financial
Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including COBNA. These lawsuits
allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix
the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to
cardholders, and that these fees are excessive. In May 2007, the
cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed alleging violations of federal
statutes and state law. The amended complaint requests civil
monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive relief.
In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal of their
claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions
Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition
Law (the "UCL"), but not their antitrust conspiracy claims. In
January, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's
dismissal of the case.


CAPITAL ONE: Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation Extinguished
--------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of a settlement in another matter, the California-
based Unfair Competition Law and Truth in Lending Acts claims in
The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation are extinguished, according to Capital One Financial
Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer
order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
district Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia two pending putative class actions against COBNA-Nancy
Mancuso, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D.
Virginia); and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA),
N.A., (N.D. Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently
transferred into the MDL. In August 2010, the plaintiffs in the
MDL filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated
Amended Complaint alleges in a putative class action that COBNA
breached its contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in
Lending Act ("TILA"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, the UCL, the California False Advertising Act, the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act
when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts.
The MDL plaintiffs seek statutory damages, restitution,
attorney's fees and an injunction against future rate increases.
Fact discovery is now closed.

In August 2011, Capital One filed a motion for summary judgment,
which remains pending with the court. In July 2013, the MDL
plaintiffs filed a supplemental opposition to Capital One's
motion for summary judgment. As a result of a settlement in
another matter, the California-based UCL and TILA claims in the
MDL are extinguished.


CAPITAL ONE: Checking Account Overdraft Suit Discovery to End Q2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The modified scheduling order entered by the Multi-district
Litigation court in In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,
of which Capital One Financial Corporation is a defendant,
contemplates the conclusion of discovery in the second quarter of
2014 and the company anticipates a remand to the Eastern District
of Louisiana in the third quarter of 2014, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association were named as defendants in a
putative class action named Steen v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges practices
relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on
consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that the company's
methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts is
designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting
claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust
enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws.
Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern District of
Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-
district litigation (MDL) involving numerous defendant banks,
captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In January
2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against CONA in
the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint. In March 2011, the MDL court
granted CONA's motion to dismiss claims of breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing under Texas law, but denied the
motion to dismiss in all other respects. In June 2012, the MDL
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The
modified scheduling order entered by the MDL court contemplates
the conclusion of discovery in the second quarter of 2014 and the
company anticipates a remand to the Eastern District of Louisiana
in the third quarter of 2014.


CAPITAL ONE: Bares Updates in State AG Payment Protection Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, Capital
One Financial Corporation provided updates on the Hawaii,
Mississippi, Missouri and New Mexico State Attorney General
Payment Protection Matters.

In April 2012, the Attorney General of Hawaii filed a lawsuit in
First Circuit Court in Hawaii against Capital One Bank (USA)
N.A., and Capital One Services, LLC. The case is one of several
similar lawsuits filed by the Attorney General of Hawaii against
various banks challenging the marketing and sale of payment
protection and credit monitoring products. In June 2012, the
Attorney General of Mississippi filed substantially similar suits
against Capital One and several other banks. In April 2013, the
Attorney General of New Mexico also filed substantially similar
suits against Capital One and several other banks. All three
state attorney general complaints allege that Capital One enrolls
customers in such programs without their consent and that Capital
One enrolls customers in such programs in circumstances in which
the customer is not eligible to receive benefits for the product
in question. All suits allege unjust enrichment and violation of
Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act statutes. The remedies sought
in the lawsuits include an injunction prohibiting the Company
from engaging in the alleged violations, restitution for all
persons allegedly injured by the complained of practices, civil
penalties and costs.

In May 2012, Capital One removed the Hawaii AG case to U.S.
District Court, District of Hawaii. In November 2012, the court
denied the Hawaii AG's motion to remand. The Hawaii AG petitioned
to appeal the District Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was granted by the Ninth Circuit in April
2013. The District Court case is now stayed pending the appeal.

In August 2012, Capital One removed the Mississippi AG case to
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi. In
July 2013, the court denied the Mississippi AG's motion to
remand. The Fifth Circuit overturned the District Court's denial
of the AG's motion to remand in December 2013, and the case will
proceed in state court.

In June 2013, Capital One removed the New Mexico AG case to the
U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico. In response, the New
Mexico AG filed an Amended Complaint in federal court, adding a
claim for alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act. In
November 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part
Capital One's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the state
deceptive practices act claim but allowed the New Mexico AG to
proceed on its claims under the Truth In Lending Act. In a
separate order, the court also granted Capital One's motion
precluding the New Mexico AG from recovery of alleged damages for
New Mexico residents who were class members in a prior class
action against Capital One.

Relatedly, Capital One has provided information to the Attorney
General of Missouri as part of an industry-wide informal inquiry
initiated in August 2011, relating to the marketing of payment
protection products.


CAPITAL ONE: COBNA Faces Consolidated TCPA Litigation in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association is facing
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint in the Capital One
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") Litigation Multi-
district Litigation, according to Capital One Financial
Corporation's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was
created as a result of a transfer order issued by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ("TCPA MDL"),
which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois three pending
putative class actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One
Financial Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin,
et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois);
and Charles C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al.
(N.D. Illinois)-and several individual lawsuits. In February
2013, the putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed
a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint and individual lawsuits allege that
COBNA and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent
to do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged
negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees,
costs, and injunctive relief.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces Suits for "Required" Employee Uniforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated is facing lawsuits alleging
it violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for
work, 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 April 11, 2013, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer
County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring
employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).  A similar
lawsuit covering a different period of time is also pending in
Placer County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.
et al; Case No. S CV 27073).  The company is also arbitrating
similar uniform and related issues under federal law in separate
collective actions in Alabama, Colorado, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Texas (Smith v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. 3 06 0829).

On October 24, 2013, the arbitrator in the Tennessee matter
denied summary judgment motions filed both by the claimants and
by the company on the uniform issue.  However, the arbitrator in
the Ohio matter has ruled in favor of the Company on the material
claims raised in the Ohio arbitration, including uniform, minimum
wage and overtime issues, while finding in favor of the claimants
on two non-material claims and awarding claimants' recovery of
fees and costs for such matters in a non-material amount.  On
January 15, 2014, the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration
Re: Arbitration with the federal district court for the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Case No. 3
06 0829).

On February 7, 2014, claimants filed a motion to vacate the Ohio
arbitrator's decision and, following mediation, the parties also
agreed to a stay of all arbitration proceedings until the federal
district court rules on the Company's motion.  These lawsuits and
arbitrations seek unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the respective claimants and other
purported class members.  The claimants also seek attorneys'
fees.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Summary Judgment in 2008 IPO Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a suit against Chesapeake Energy Corporation
over its July 2008 Common Stock Offering filed a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit against the
grant of a summary judgment in favor of defendants by the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September
11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the
offering contained material misstatements and omissions and
seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission. The action
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the
officer and director defendants moved for summary judgment on
grounds of loss causation and materiality on December 28, 2011,
and the motion was granted as to all claims as a matter of law on
March 29, 2013. Final judgment in favor of Chesapeake and the
officer and director defendants was entered on June 21, 2013, and
the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013 in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

A derivative action relating to the July 2008 offering filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
September 6, 2011 is pending. Following the denial on September
28, 2012 of its motion to dismiss and pursuant to court order,
nominal defendant Chesapeake filed an answer in the case on
October 12, 2012. By stipulation between the parties, the case is
stayed pending resolution of the Tenth Circuit appeal.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of 2012 Securities Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the 2012 Securities and Shareholder Litigation
against Chesapeake Energy Corporation is appealing the dismissal
of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,
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.

A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012 against the
Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Aubrey K.
McClendon. On July 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, which filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2012
against the Company, Mr. McClendon and certain other officers.
The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) (and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misrepresentations
regarding the Company's asset monetization strategy, including
liabilities associated with its volumetric production payment
(VPP) transactions, as well as Mr. McClendon's personal loans and
the Company's internal controls. On December 6, 2012, the Company
and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. On
April 10, 2013, the Court granted the motion, and on April 16,
2013 entered judgment against the plaintiff and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on June 14, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit. Briefing on the appeal was complete on August 2, 2013,
and on November 18, 2013, argument was heard.

A related federal consolidated derivative action and an Oklahoma
state court derivative action are stayed pursuant to the parties'
stipulation pending resolution of the appeal in the federal
securities class action.

On May 8, 2012, a derivative action was filed in the District
Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma against the Company's
directors alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties and corporate waste related to the Company's officers and
directors' use of the Company's fractionally owned corporate
jets. On August 21, 2012, the District Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss for lack of derivative standing, and
the plaintiff appealed the ruling on December 6, 2012.


CIGNA CORP: Appeals Ruling in Pension Plan Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed on behalf of participants in the Cigna
Pension Plan appealed an order awarding equitable relief to the
class in the suit and the judge stayed implementation of the
order pending resolution of the appeals, 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.

Amara cash balance pension plan litigation. On December 18, 2001,
Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit, captioned Janice C.
Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cigna Corporation and
Cigna Pension Plan, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna
Pension Plan on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
participants in the Cigna Pension Plan affected by the 1998
conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege
various ERISA violations including, among other things, that the
Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older
employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period
(when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-
conversion benefit); and that these conditions are not adequately
disclosed in the Plan.

In 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan on the age discrimination
and wear-away claims. However, the court found in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims and ordered
an enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance
formula for the majority of the class, requiring class members to
receive their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion Cigna
Pension Plan and their post-1997 accrued benefits under the post-
conversion Cigna Pension Plan. The court also ordered, among
other things, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Both parties appealed the court's decisions to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that issued a decision on
October 6, 2009 affirming the District Court's judgment and order
on all issues. On January 4, 2010, both parties filed separate
petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court. Cigna's petition was granted, and on May 16, 2011, the
Supreme Court issued its Opinion in which it reversed the lower
courts' decisions and remanded the case to the trial judge for
reconsideration of the remedy. The Court unanimously agreed with
the Company's position that the lower courts erred in granting a
remedy for an inaccurate plan description under an ERISA
provision that allows only recovery of plan benefits. However,
the decision identified possible avenues of "appropriate
equitable relief" that plaintiffs may pursue as an alternative
remedy. The case was returned to the trial court and hearings
took place on December 9, 2011 and March 29-30, 2012.

On December 20, 2012, the court issued a decision awarding
equitable relief to the class. The court's order requires the
Company to reform the pension plan to provide a substantially
identical remedy to that ordered in 2008. Both parties appealed
the order and the judge stayed implementation of the order
pending resolution of the appeals. The Company will continue to
vigorously defend its position in this case.


CIGNA CORP: No Class Status for Suit Over Use of Ingenix Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et
al. is proceeding in the District Court on behalf of the named
plaintiffs only after the court denied class certification to the
case, according to Cigna Corp.'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 13, 2008, State of New York Attorney General Andrew
M. Cuomo announced an industry-wide investigation into the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare,
used to calculate payments for services provided by out-of-
network providers. The Company received four subpoenas from the
New York Attorney General's office in connection with this
investigation and responded appropriately. On February 17, 2009,
the Company entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance resolving
the investigation. In connection with the industry-wide
resolution, the Company contributed $10 million to the
establishment of a new non-profit company that now compiles and
provides the data formerly provided by Ingenix.

The Company was named as a defendant in a number of putative
nationwide class actions asserting that due to the use of data
from Ingenix, Inc., the Company improperly underpaid claims, an
industry-wide issue. All of the class actions were consolidated
into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al.
that is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed
on August 7, 2009, asserts claims under ERISA, the RICO statute,
the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations.

On September 23, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in
part the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The court dismissed all claims by the health care
provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing
to sue, and as a result the case proceeded only on behalf of
subscribers. In addition, the court dismissed all of the
antitrust claims, the ERISA claims based on disclosure and the
New Jersey state law claims. The court did not dismiss the ERISA
claims for benefits and claims under the RICO statute.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of
subscriber plaintiffs on December 19, 2011 that was denied on
January 16, 2013. Plaintiffs petitioned for an immediate appeal
of the order denying class certification, but their petition was
denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit on March 14, 2013, meaning that plaintiffs cannot appeal
the denial of class certification until there is a final judgment
in the case. As a result, the case is proceeding in the District
Court on behalf of the named plaintiffs only.


CIT GROUP: Named as Defendant in Quebec Suit Over 2013 Derailment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc. was named as an additional defendant in a pending
class action in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada in relation
to a derailment in the town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, according to
the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On July 6, 2013, a freight train including five locomotives and
72 tank cars carrying crude oil derailed in the town of Lac-
Megantic, Quebec. Nine of the tank cars were owned by The CIT
Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. ("CIT/EF") (a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company) and leased to Western Petroleum
Company ("WPC"), a subsidiary of World Fuel Services Corp.
("WFS"). Two of the locomotives are owned by CIT/EF and were
leased to Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, Ltd. ("MMA"), the
railroad operating the freight train at the time of the
derailment, a subsidiary of Rail World, Inc.

The derailment was followed by explosions and fire, which
resulted in the deaths of over forty people and an unknown number
of injuries, the destruction of more than thirty buildings in
Lac-Megantic, and the release of crude oil on land and into the
ChaudiŠre River. The extent of the property and environmental
damage has not yet been determined. Twenty lawsuits have been
filed in Illinois by representatives of the deceased in
connection with the derailment. The Company is named as a
defendant in seven of the twenty lawsuits, together with 13 other
defendants, including WPC, MMA (who has since been dismissed
without prejudice as a result of its chapter 11 bankruptcy filing
on August 7, 2013), and the lessors of the other locomotives and
tank cars. Liability could be joint and several among some or all
of the defendants. All but two of these cases have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District
of Illinois. The Company has joined a motion to move these cases
to the U.S. District Court in Maine. The Company has been named
as an additional defendant in a pending class action in the
Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. Other cases may be filed in
U.S. and Canadian courts. The plaintiffs in the pending U.S. and
Canadian actions assert claims of negligence and strict liability
based upon alleged design defect against the Company in
connection with the CIT/EF tank cars. The Company has rights of
indemnification and defense against its lessees, WPC and MMA, and
also has rights as an additional insured under liability coverage
maintained by the lessees. In addition, the Company and its
subsidiaries maintain contingent and general liability insurance
for claims of this nature, and the Company and its insurers are
working cooperatively with respect to these claims.

The Lac-Megantic derailment has triggered a number of regulatory
investigations and actions. The Transportation Safety Board of
Canada is investigating the cause of the derailment, with
assistance from Transport Canada. In addition, Quebec's
Environment Ministry has issued an order to WFS, WPC, MMA, and
Canadian Pacific Railway (which allegedly subcontracted with MMA)
to pay for the full cost of environmental clean-up and damage
assessment related to the derailment.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit by Former Sales Employee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cogent Communications Group, Inc. faces a suit filed by a former
sales employee in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In January 2013, a former sales employee filed in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County, California a lawsuit alleging
misclassification of sales employees under California wage and
hour laws. The lawsuit sought certification as a class action and
sought to recover pay for allegedly unpaid overtime and other
damages, including attorney's fees. The lawsuit has been
dismissed.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Suit Over Royalty Deductions in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing and information and documents continue to be
exchanged in a suit alleging Continental Resources, Inc.
improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties for
crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma, 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 November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the
Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty
interest owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and
natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have
alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and
seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages
and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has
responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a
number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged.

The Company said it is not currently able to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any,
the action will have on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the
matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues
presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among
other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the
potential size of the class, the scope and types of the
properties and agreements involved, the production years
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter.

The class has not been certified. Plaintiffs have indicated that
if the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of $165
million which may increase with the passage of time, a majority
of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes
plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the requirements
for a class action and is vigorously defending the case.


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: May 16 Hearing on Accord in Unitholder's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the possible final approval of the settlement reached
in In re Crestwood Midstream Partners Unitholder Litigation, Lead
Case No. 4:13-cv-01528 is scheduled for May 16, 2014, according
to Crestwood Equity Partners LP's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Crestwood
Merger have been filed, four in federal court in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas: (i)
Abraham Knoll v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01528); (ii) Greg Podell v. Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, et
al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01599); (iii) Johnny Cooper v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01660); and (iv)
Steven Elliot LLC v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-
cv-01763), and one in Delaware Chancery Court, Hawley v.
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 8689-VCL).  All
of the cases name Legacy Crestwood (since merged into the
Company), Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Crestwood Holdings LLC,
the current and former directors of Crestwood Gas Services GP
LLC, the Company, Inergy Midstream, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC
(formerly NRGM GP, LLC), and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC as
defendants.  All of the suits are brought by a purported holder
of common units of Inergy Midstream, both individually and on
behalf of a putative class consisting of holders of common units
of Inergy Midstream.  The lawsuits generally allege, among other
things, that the directors of Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC
breached their fiduciary duties to holders of common units of
Inergy Midstream by agreeing to a transaction with inadequate
consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an inadequate
process.  The lawsuits further allege that the Company, Inergy
Midstream, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub,
LLC aided and abetted the Legacy Crestwood directors in the
alleged breach of their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits seek, in
general, (i) injunctive relief enjoining the merger, (ii) in the
event the merger is consummated, rescission or an award of
rescissory damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs' costs,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) the
accounting by the defendants to plaintiffs for all damages caused
by the defendants, and (v) such further equitable relief as the
court deems just and proper.  Certain of the actions also assert
claims of inadequate disclosure under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Elliot case also
names Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as an alleged aider and
abettor.  The plaintiff in the Hawley action in Delaware filed a
motion for expedited proceedings but subsequently withdrew that
motion and then filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the
action without prejudice (which has not yet been approved by the
Court).  The plaintiffs in the Knoll, Podell, Cooper, and Elliot
actions filed an unopposed motion to consolidate these four
cases, which the Court granted and captioned the consolidated
matter as In re Crestwood Midstream Partners Unitholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 4:13-cv-01528 (the "Consolidated
Action"). The plaintiffs entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on September 24, 2013 to settle the
Consolidated Action whereby the defendants denied liability. The
settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to a number of
conditions, including notice to the class and final court
approval following completion of a settlement hearing, which is
scheduled for May 16, 2014. The defendants expect the Court to
approve the final settlement. The anticipated settlement of the
MOU will not have a material impact to the company's consolidated
financial statements.


DUKE ENERGY: Awaits Court's Ruling on Motion to Junk Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina is yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the
securities suit Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

Duke Energy, the Legacy Duke Energy Directors and certain Duke
Energy officers are also defendants in a purported securities
class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al).
This lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July
2012, and is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal
Securities Act and Exchange Act claims based on allegations of
materially false and misleading representations and omissions in
the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly
incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the
post-merger change in CEO. The claims are purportedly brought on
behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Duke Energy securities between June 11, 2012 and July 9,
2012. On July 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended the
District Court Judge deny the defendants' motion to dismiss. On
October 2, 2013, the District Judge heard defendants' objections
to this recommendation. A decision is pending on the motion to
dismiss.


DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Certification Bid in RSP Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling is pending on the plaintiffs' motion to certify as a
class action a suit over Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization
Plan (RSP), according to Duke Energy Corp.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual,
industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke
Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio.
Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide
inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large
business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements
in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy
Ohio's Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP) implemented in early 2005. A
ruling is pending on the plaintiffs' motion to certify this
matter as a class action.


DUN & BRADSTREET: TCPA Violations Suit in Illinois Now Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter Nicholas Martin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. and
Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., No. 12 CV 215 (USDC
N.D. IL.) is now settled and the case closed, according to The
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 11, 2012, Nicholas Martin filed suit against Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc.
("Convergys") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") because Convergys placed a telephone call to Plaintiff's
cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS")
and because Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. authorized the telephone call.
The TCPA generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call
to a cell phone for nonemergency purposes and without the prior
express consent of the called party. The TCPA provides for
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to
$1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the
plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the TCPA.
Plaintiff sought to bring this action as a class action on behalf
of all persons who Defendants called on their cell phone using an
ATDS, where the Defendants obtained the cell phone number from
some source other than directly from the called party, during the
period from January 11, 2010 to the present. The parties reached
an agreement to settle this matter and they have negotiated the
terms of a settlement agreement and other related settlement
documents.

On July 16, 2013 the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and entered a
Preliminary Approval Order. Class members have been given notice
and had until October 7, 2013 to submit claims. The claims period
is now closed. No objections were submitted. The settlement is
subject to final approval by the Court. The Court held a Fairness
Hearing on November 19, 2013. No written objections to the Class
Action Settlement were filed prior to the Fairness Hearing and
there were no objections raised at the Fairness Hearing.

Pursuant to the Court's Order of November 19, 2013, Class Counsel
informed the Court on January 13, 2014 that the parties have not
been contacted by any attorney general's office or any other
governmental entity pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on January 16, 2014, at
which time the Court approved all aspects of the Class Action
Settlement. On January 16, 2014, the Court entered a Final Order
of Judgment and Dismissal, thereby dismissing the case with
prejudice and without costs as to Plaintiff and all Settlement
Class Members. Accordingly, the settlement is now final and the
company will no longer be reporting on this matter. The matter
has settled within the reserved amount. In accordance with ASC
450, as of December 31, 2013, an appropriate reserve was set up
to cover the settlement. The amount of such reserve is not
material to the Company's financial statements.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Suit by O&R Construction in Formal Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Formal discovery has begun in the suit O&R Construction, LLC v.
Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV
02184 (USDC W.D. Wash.), according to The Dun & Bradstreet
Corporation's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against D&B and an unaffiliated
entity. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products
and allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of
damages and equitable relief. On February 18, 2013, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the
motion. The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and
retained the class action and deceptive practices allegations.
The Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motion
and granted it. Specifically, the Court dismissed a contract
claim with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims
without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for
negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under
Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies
in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability
against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for
practices relating to CreditBuilder. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the Company's
motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory brought against the Company.
The Court denied the motion with respect to the negligence,
defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the
Company answered the SAC. With regard to discovery, the parties
exchanged initial disclosures and completed the initial case
management process in March 2013. Formal discovery has begun. As
the Company recently filed its Answer to the SAC, this litigation
is still in the initial stage.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Suit by Die-Mension in Ohio Court Inactive
------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation et al., No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.) is not
currently active, according to The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation ("DBCC"), an
unaffiliated entity. Die-Mension purports to sue on behalf of a
putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in
the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may certify.

The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products.
As against the Company, the complaint alleges a violation of
Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation, and negligence.
The complaint alleges deceptive trade practices, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. The Company has
not yet been served with the complaint. This litigation is not
currently active in light of the absence of service. The Company
is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations.


EQUINIX INC: Court Dismisses Cement Masons Trust's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint in Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension
Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-11-1016-SC and dismissed
the case with prejudice, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons
& Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No.
CV-11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of
its officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 29, 2010
and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and
costs. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 7, 2011.
On March 2, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice and gave plaintiffs thirty days in which to
amend their complaint. Pursuant to stipulation and order of the
court entered on March 16, 2012, the parties agreed that
plaintiffs would have up to and through May 2, 2012 to file a
Second Amended Complaint. On May 2, 2012 plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint asserting the same basic allegations as
in the prior complaint. On June 15, 2012, defendants moved to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2012, the
Court took the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint off calendar and notified the parties
that it would make its decision on the pleadings. Subsequently,
on September 24, 2012 the Court requested the parties submit
supplemental briefing on or before October 9, 2012. The
supplemental briefing was submitted on October 9, 2012. On
December 5, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice and on January 15,
2013, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. On February
26, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint. On June 12, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and dismissed the case
with prejudice. On July 3, 2013, plaintiffs stipulated that they
will not appeal any prior orders issued by the Court in this
action, including the Court's June 12, 2013 order dismissing the
Third Amended Complaint with prejudice.


EQUINIX INC: Cal. Court Dismisses "Stopa" Shareholder Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
entered an order dismissing with prejudice the suit Stopa v.
Clontz, et al., No. CV-11-2467-SC, according to Equinix, Inc.'s
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On May 20, 2011, an alleged shareholder derivative action
entitled Stopa v. Clontz, et al., No. CV-11-2467-SC, was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of Equinix, naming Equinix (as a nominal
defendant) and the members of its board of directors as
defendants. The suit is based on allegations similar to those in
the federal securities class action and the state court
derivative action and asserts causes of action against the
individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of
corporate assets. On June 10, 2011, the Court signed an order
relating this case to the federal securities class action.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 14, 2011. By
agreement and order of the court, this case has been temporarily
stayed pending proceedings in the class action. On July 9, 2013,
the parties entered into a stipulation dismissing the case with
prejudice, and on July 10, 2013, the Court entered an order of
dismissal with prejudice.


FIBRIA CELULOSE: Defendants in ADR Holders' Suit Pay US$37.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fibria Celulose S.A. and the other co-defendants in a suit filed
on behalf of purchasers of American Depositary Receipt agreed
under judicial mediation to pay the full amount of US$37.5
million (equivalent to R$76.6 million) to all holders of ADRs,
Feb. 28, 2014, according to the company's Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In November 2008, a securities class action was filed against the
company and certain of the company's current and former officers
and directors on behalf of purchasers of the company's ADRs
between April 7 and October 2, 2008. The complaint asserts
alleged violations of the US Securities Exchange Act, alleging
that the company failed to disclose information in connection
with, and losses arising from, certain derivative transactions.

During the company's Board of Directors meeting in December 2012,
the company ratified, the agreement under judicial mediation,
where the company and the other co-defendants agreed to pay the
full amount of US$37.5 million (equivalent to R$76.6 million) to
all holders of ADRs, from April 7 to October 2, 2008. The company
has active insurance policy D&O (Directors and Officers), to
cover a significant amount of this disbursement, with no material
effect for the company.


FIRSTENERGY GENERATION: Cheremisinoff Expert Report Excluded
------------------------------------------------------------
Before the court are expert challenges in three cases
consolidated for discovery, Hartle v. FirstEnergy Generation
Corp. (No. 08-1019), Patrick v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (No.
08-1025), and Price v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (No. 08-
1030). These cases involve the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, a
coal-fired electric generating facility located along the Ohio
River in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. Bruce Mansfield is owned and
operated by defendant FirstEnergy Generation Corporation. The
plaintiffs allege harm from air pollution discharged by Bruce
Mansfield. The alleged pollution came in the form of "white
rain," a chronically discharged corrosive material, and "black
rain," a dark-colored sooty residue discharged on two occasions
in 2006 and 2007. The white rain and black rain were deposited on
the area surrounding Bruce Mansfield, allegedly causing property
damage and adverse health effects. The plaintiffs in Hartle are
two parents seeking damages for adverse health effects sustained
by their minor daughter. The named plaintiffs in Patrick are four
couples who make class-action claims for damages due to
diminution of property value and seek to enjoin the plant from
operating until it can prevent the white rain emissions. In
Price, 19 plaintiffs seek monetary damages for adverse health
effects and property damage and seek injunctive relief.

The parties conducted extensive fact and expert discovery in
these cases. Defendant filed motions to limit or preclude the
testimony of twelve of plaintiffs' experts.  Plaintiffs filed
motions to limit or preclude the testimony of seven of
defendant's experts.

On March 17, 2014, Chief District Judge Joy Flowers Conti issued
a memorandum opinion addressing the parties' air modeling experts
-- Ronald Petersen, PhD, Peter J. Drivas, PhD, and Nicholas
Cheremisinoff, PhD.  A copy of the memorandum opinion is
available at http://is.gd/OJSFWwfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Conti denied the motions to strike Petersen's 2014
supplemental expert report. The motions to exclude the expert
testimony of Petersen and Drivas also were denied. The motions to
exclude the expert testimony of Cheremisinoff were granted.

The cases are Hartle et al., Plaintiffs, v. FirstEnergy
Generation Corp., Defendant. Patrick et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., Defendant. Price et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NOS. 08-1019, 08-1025, 08-1030, (W.D. Penn.).

KENNETH J. BENSON, Special Master, represented by Kenneth J.
Benson, JUSTUS ADR Services.

GARY P. HUNT, Special Master, represented by Gary P. Hunt, Tucker
Arensberg.

MICHAEL HARTLE, Plaintiff, represented by David B. Kline,
Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C., Deanna K. Tanner, Villari,
Brandes & Kline, P.C., Paul D. Brandes, Villari, Brandes & Kline,
P.C., Peter M. Villari, Villari, Brandes & Kline & Douglas R.
Blazey, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C..

JESSICA HARTLE, Plaintiff, represented by David B. Kline,
Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C., Deanna K. Tanner, Villari,
Brandes & Kline, P.C., Paul D. Brandes, Villari, Brandes & Kline,
P.C., Peter M. Villari, Villari, Brandes & Kline & Douglas R.
Blazey, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C..

THOMAS T. FRAMPTON, Petitioner, represented by Thomas T. Frampton
-- tframpton@grblaw.com -- Goehring, Rutter & Boehm.

FIRSTENERGY GENERATION CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
Kathy K. Condo, Babst Calland Clements & Zomnir, Alana E. Fortna,
Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C., Christopher M. Helms,
Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. & Mark D. Shepard,
Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: To Settle Del., La. Suits Over MMR Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the settlement of the consolidated Delaware
action, In Re McMoRan Exploration Co. Stockholder Litigation, No.
8132-VCN, the Louisiana action Langley v. Moffett et al., No.
2012-11904 will be dismissed, according to Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Ten putative class actions challenging the MMR merger were filed
on behalf of MMR stockholders. Nine were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 25, 2013, the Court
of Chancery consolidated the actions into a single action, In Re
McMoRan Exploration Co. Stockholder Litigation, No. 8132-VCN. On
June 28, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement,
and on October 11, 2013, the court held a hearing to consider the
evidence in support of the proposed settlement. On October 16,
2013, the court entered an order approving the settlement, the
terms of which were not material to FCX. One action was also
filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans of
the State of Louisiana: Langley v. Moffett et al., No. 2012-
11904, filed December 19, 2012.

On April 19, 2013, the Louisiana Civil District Court granted
defendants' motion to stay the action pending the resolution of
the consolidated action brought by MMR stockholders in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. As a result of the settlement of the
consolidated Delaware action, the Louisiana action will be
dismissed. Each of the actions names some or all of the following
as defendants, in addition to MMR and its directors: FCX, two FCX
subsidiaries, the Gulf Coast Ultra Deep Royalty Trust and PXP.
The actions alleged that MMR's directors breached their fiduciary
duties because they, among other things, pursued their own
interests at the expense of stockholders and failed to maximize
stockholder value with respect to the merger, and that PXP, FCX,
or both, aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty by MMR's
directors. The Delaware action also asserted claims derivatively
on behalf of MMR. The actions sought, among other things,
injunctive relief barring or rescinding the MMR merger, damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Processing System Intrusion Lawsuit Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded
the case In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046 to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
for further proceedings, according to the company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 20, 2009, the Company publicly announced the discovery
of a criminal breach of its payment systems environment (the
"Processing System Intrusion"). The Processing System Intrusion
involved malicious software that appears to have been used to
collect in-transit, unencrypted payment card data while it was
being processed by the Company during the transaction
authorization process. The Company believes the breach did not
extend beyond 2008.

The company had several lawsuits filed against the company and
additional lawsuits may be filed. These include lawsuits which
assert claims against the company by banks that issued payment
cards to cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to
have been placed at risk in the course of the Processing System
Intrusion (including various putative class actions seeking to
represent all financial institutions that issued payment cards to
cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to have been
placed at risk in the course of the Processing System Intrusion),
seeking damages allegedly arising out of the Processing System
Intrusion and other related relief. The actions generally assert
various common-law claims such as claims for negligence and
breach of contract, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims
such as violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data
breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive
practices statutes. The putative financial institution class
actions seek compensatory damages, including recovery of the cost
of issuance of replacement cards and losses by reason of
unauthorized transactions, as well as injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The putative financial institution class actions filed against
the company through February 27, 2014 are:

Name of the Court: United States District Court for the District
                   of New Jersey

Date Filed:        February 6, 2009

Principal Parties: Lone Summit Bank v. Heartland Payment Systems,
                   Inc. et al., 3:09-cv-00581
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the District
        of New Jersey

Date Filed:        February 13, 2009

Principal Parties: TriCentury Bank et al. v. Heartland Payment
                   Systems, Inc. et al., 3:09-cv-00697
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the Southern
                   District of Texas

Date Filed:        February 16, 2009

Principal Parties: Lone Star National Bank v. Heartland Payment
                   Systems, Inc. et al., 7:09-cv-00064
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the District
        of New Jersey

Date Filed:        February 20, 2009

Principal Parties: Amalgamated Bank et al. v. Heartland Payment
                   Systems, Inc. et al., 3:09-cv-00776
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the Southern
                   District of Florida

Date Filed:        March 19, 2009

Principal Parties: First Bankers Trust Co., N.A. v. Heartland
                   Payment Systems, Inc. et al., 4:09-cv-00825
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the Southern
                   District of Florida

Date Filed:        March 31, 2009

Principal Parties: PBC Credit Union et al. v. Heartland Payment
                   Systems, Inc. et al., 9:09-cv-80481
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the
                   Southern District of Texas

Date Filed:        April 22, 2009

Principal Parties: Community West Credit Union, et al. v.
                   Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. et al.,
                   4:09-cv-01201
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the Southern
                   District of Texas

Date Filed:        April 22, 2009

Principal Parties: Eden Financial Corp. v. Heartland Payment
                   Systems, Inc. et al., 4:09-cv-01203
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the Southern
                   District of Texas

Date Filed:        April 28, 2009

Principal Parties: Heritage Trust Federal Credit Union v.
                   Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. et al.,
                   4:09-cv-01284
                   --------------------------
Name of the Court: United States District Court for the Southern
                   District of Texas

Date Filed:        May 1, 2009

Principal Parties: Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union v.
                   Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. et al.,
                   4:09-cv-01330

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the "JPML") entered an order centralizing the class action cases
for pre-trial proceedings before the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046. On August 24, 2009, the
court appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the
financial institution plaintiffs.

On September 23, 2009, the financial institution plaintiffs filed
a Master Complaint in the MDL proceedings, which the company
moved to dismiss on October 23, 2009. On December 1, 2011, the
Court entered an order granting in part the company's motion to
dismiss the financial institution plaintiffs' master complaint
against the company, but allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend
to re-plead certain claims. Plaintiffs elected not to file an
amended complaint. The parties then jointly moved for the entry
of final judgment on those claims in the master complaint that
the Court had dismissed. On August 16, 2012, the Court entered
final judgment on the dismissed claims and, on September 17,
2012, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that final
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. On September 12, 2012, Plaintiffs stipulated to
dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claims pending before
the District Court. Briefing on Plaintiffs' appeal was complete
on February 8, 2013. On September 3, 2013, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District
Court, holding that the economic loss doctrine under New Jersey
law does not preclude the financial institution plaintiffs'
negligence claim at the motion to dismiss stage, but declined to
address in the first instance Heartland's other arguments for
affirming the District Court. The Fifth Circuit remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings.


INDIANA: Clark County Court Sued Over Drug Treatment Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Destiny Hoffman, Nathan Clifford, Joshua Foley, Jesse Hash,
Ashleigh Santiago, James Bennett, Amy Bennett, Lee Spaulding,
Michael Campbell, Amy Tuttle, Amanda Campbell, Bobby Upton, Shane
Bratcher  (Formerly "Courtney Cowherd"), Justin Lanham, Trentney
Rhodes, Joanie Watson , On behalf of themselves and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Judge Jerome F. Jacobi, Susan
Knoebel, Jeremy Snelling, Henry Ford, Clark County Sheriff Danny
Rodden, Danielle Grissett, Stephen Mason, Josh Seybold Unknown
Clark County Work Release Employee(s)), Unknown Clark County
Circuit Court Clerk and Clark County Board of Commissioners, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00012-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 18, 2014) arises
from Clark County's alleged fundamentally ingrained and customary
policies and practices that have resulted in wholesale
constitutional violations against the Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated.

Clark County Circuit Court 2 (formerly "Superior Court II"), by
and through individuals employed in this Court and by other
government employees, operated the Clark County Drug Treatment
Court Program.  In the course of said operation, these government
actors knowingly deprived multiple probationers and Drug Court
participants of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, among others, the
Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that the Defendants
intentionally planned and executed policies, broad in scope,
extended in time, and clearly illegal in nature, that caused the
systematic deprivation of these individuals' liberty without due
process of law guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Judge Jerome F. Jacobi is a state Circuit Court Judge and elected
official within the state of Indiana for Clark County Circuit
Court 2 and Clark County Drug Treatment Court.  The other
Defendants are employees of Clark County, Indiana.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James M. Bolus, Jr., Esq.
          Michael A. Augustus, Esq.
          Brennan Soergel, Esq.
          BOLUS LAW OFFICES
          600 West Main Street, Suite 500
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 584-1210
          Facsimile: (502) 584-1212
          E-mail: bo@boluslaw.com
                  mike@boluslaw.com
                  brennan@boluslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David A. Arthur, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          302 West Washington Street
          IGCS - 5th Floor
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 232-6286
          Facsimile: (317) 232-7979
          E-mail: David.Arthur@atg.in.gov

               - and -

          Rosemary L. Borek, Esq.
          Wayne E. Uhl, Esq.
          STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
          3077 E. 98th Street, Suite 240
          Indianapolis, IN 46280
          Telephone: (317) 844-3830
          Facsimile: (317) 573-4194
          E-mail: rborek@stephlaw.com
                  wuhl@stephlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Jeffrey Lowe, Esq.
          KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP*NEW ALBANY
          Bonterra Building
          3620 Blackiston Boulevard, Suite 200
          New Albany, IN 47150
          Telephone: (812) 949-2300
          Facsimile: (812) 949-8556
          E-mail: jlowe@k-glaw.com


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Settlement of Suit Over Bogalusa Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action against Temple-Inland over the
Bogalusa Incident was finally approved, according to
International Paper Company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Temple-Inland (or its affiliates) was a defendant in 28 civil
lawsuits in Louisiana and Mississippi related to the Bogalusa
Incident. Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana
state court shortly after the incident and were removed and
consolidated in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana along with a civil case
originally filed in that court. During August 2012, an additional
13 causes of action were filed in federal or state court in
Mississippi and Louisiana. In October 2012, International Paper
and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the group of attorneys
appointed by the Louisiana federal court to organize and
coordinate the efforts of all the plaintiffs in this litigation,
reached a tentative understanding on key structural terms and an
amount for resolution of the litigation. The court granted
preliminary approval for the proposed class action settlement on
December 26, 2012. There were no opt-outs and four objections
which were all later withdrawn. The Fairness Hearing was held
July 10, 2013, and the court issued its Final Order and Judgment
Approving Class Action Settlement the same day. Under the terms
of the settlement agreement, the class action settlement was
deemed final on August 9, 2013. The company funded the settlement
in September 2013. This settlement did not have a material effect
on the Company's consolidated financial statements.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Suits in Ill., Tenn. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company faces antitrust suits over
containerboard products in Illinois federal court and Tennessee
state court, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants
in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned
Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The
complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in August 2005
through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby
increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is
all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from
any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period August 2005 to the present. The complaint seeks to recover
an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's
fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints
were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of
Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was
named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke
County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated
Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the
prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs
in the state court action seek certification of a class of
Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages
and costs, including attorneys' fees.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Antitrust Suit in Pa. & Canada Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland faces antitrust suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in Canada related to
gypsum board, according to International Paper Company's Feb. 27,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum
board filed a number of purported class action complaints
alleging civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against
Temple-Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The
complaints were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers
conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of
gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2)
avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job
quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and limit order
fulfillment. The alleged classes are all persons who purchased
gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products directly or
indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek to recover
unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf
of the purported classes. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered transfer of all pending cases to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed their respective amended consolidated complaints in June
2013. The amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or
agreement beginning in or before September 2011. The Company
disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend
the consolidated actions. In addition, in September 2013,
purported class actions were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada
and Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of the
Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and injunctive
relief. The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and
to vigorously defend the litigation. Because the U.S. cases are
in the discovery phase and the Canadian cases are in a
preliminary stage, the company is unable to predict an outcome or
estimate the company's maximum reasonably possible loss. However,
it does not believe that any material loss is probable.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Dismissal of North Port Lawsuit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-
Inland Inc. filed a notice of appeal of the district court's
ruling dismissing the case, according to International Paper
Company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Temple-Inland was named as a defendant in a lawsuit captioned
North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in
November 2011 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit
alleges a class action against Temple-Inland and certain
individual defendants contending that Temple-Inland
misrepresented the financial condition of Guaranty Financial
Group during the period December 12, 2007 through August 24,
2009. On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the
district court granted Temple-Inland's and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. On April 26,
2013, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint that
asserted claims against the individual defendants, but did not
assert any claims against Temple-Inland. On July 30, 2013, the
district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint filed
against the individual defendants with prejudice, also noting
that since the plaintiff did not seek the court's leave to amend
its complaint with respect to the claims against Temple-Inland,
all claims against Temple-Inland were dismissed with prejudice.
On August 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
district court's ruling.

Certain of the individual defendants in the North Port litigation
have requested advancement of their costs of defense from Temple-
Inland and have asserted a right to indemnification by Temple-
Inland. The company believes that all or part of these defense
costs would be covered losses under Temple-Inland's directors and
officers insurance. The carriers under the applicable policies
have been notified of the claims and each has responded with a
reservations of rights letter.


JP MORGAN: Faces "DeJohnette" Suit Over Short Sale in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh DeJohnette and Nancy DeJohnette, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.;
Federal National Mortgage Association; and Does 1 through 50
inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-00302-RGK-DTB (C.D. Cal., February
18, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs were required to make an
out-of-pocket payment as a condition of the "short sale" of their
house, which condition is prohibited in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-5306
          Facsimile: (815) 377-8419
          E-mail: mzevin@aol.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          Scott A. Kitner, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 770
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
                  mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com
                  skitner@stanleylawgroup.com

Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank NA is represented by:

          Ian Ross, Esq.
          KEESAL YOUNG AND LOGAN
          450 Pacific Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 398-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 981-0136
          E-mail: ian.ross@kyl.com

Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association is represented
by:

          Drew Ann Robertson, Esq.
          Neal R. Marder, Esq.
          Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: darobertson@winston.com
                  nmarder@winston.com
                  sobi@winston.com


KFORCE INC: Cal. Grants Summary Judgment in Employees Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the Central District of California,
substantially granted summary judgment in favor of Kforce Inc.
with the exception of the plaintiff's claim for waiting time
penalties in a suit by former employees, 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 18, 2013, Kforce, along with other staffing firms, was
named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the
Orange County Superior Court of the State of California. The
plaintiff alleges that a class of current and former Kforce
employees working in California was denied compensation for the
time they spent interviewing with current and potential clients
of Kforce, over a period covering four years prior to the filing
of the complaint. The plaintiff seeks recovery in an unspecified
amount for this alleged unpaid compensation, the alleged failure
of Kforce to provide them with accurate wage statements, the
alleged improper use of debit cards as an employee payment
mechanism in certain circumstances, alleged unfair competition,
and statutory penalties, attorney's fees and other damages.

On August 30, 2013, Kforce moved the matter to the U.S. District
Court of the Central District of California, Case No. 8:13cv1356.
On January 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court of Central District
of California substantially granted summary judgment in favor of
Kforce with the exception of the plaintiff's claim for waiting
time penalties, which is an individual claim and not part of the
class action. The case has been remanded to Orange County
Superior Court. Absent a successful appeal of the class action
allegations by the plaintiff, this case does not present a
reasonable possibility of a material loss. At this stage of the
litigation for the individual claim, it is not reasonable to
estimate the outcome or a range of loss, should a loss occur.
Accordingly, no amounts have been provided for in Kforce's
Financial Statements.


LAS MARGARITAS: Faces Suit in New York Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Las Margaritas Rest. Corp., d/b/a Las Margaritas Restaurant;
and Milton Jara, Case No. 1:14-cv-01056-JBW-JMA (E.D.N.Y.,
February 18, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          John L. Russo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. RUSSO
          31-19 Newtown Avenue, Suite 500
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 777-1777
          Facsimile: (718) 777-2310
          E-mail: johnlawny@msn.com


LAS VEGAS: Briefing in Suit Over "Inadequate" Disclosure Deferred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The judge in a suit originally filed by Frank J. Fosbre, Jr.
against Las Vegas Sands Corp. agreed to the parties' stipulation
to defer briefing on the issue of expanding the class period
until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in the case of
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., according to the
company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21,
2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and
other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January
10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and
denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012,
the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing Defendants'
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Order dated
August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiff's
complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4
to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been
previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16,
2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to
dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on
November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court
granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to
dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been suspended.
On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On
July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to
dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7,
2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants
motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed
their answer to the second amended complaint. Discovery in the
matter has re-started. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion to expand the certified class period. On February 3, 2014,
the judge agreed to the parties' stipulation to defer briefing on
the issue of expanding the class period until the U.S. Supreme
Court issues a decision in the case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica
P. John Fund, Inc. This consolidated action is in a preliminary
stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to
date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the
outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss,
if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LENSCRAFTERS INC: Removed "Smith" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc., doing business as
LensCrafters, erroneously sued as Luxottica Retail North America,
LLC, and LensCrafters, Inc., removed the putative class action
captioned Smith v. LensCrafters, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-02013-
00074236-CU-MC-CTL, from the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00366-CAB-BGS to the proceeding.

On November 5, 2013, Rachel Smith filed the action in the
Superior Court.  The action is brought on behalf of "all
individuals who, within four years preceding the filing of th[e]
complaint, purchased eye examinations and/or eyewear at a
LensCrafters store after examination by an optometrist affiliated
with the LensCrafters store."  She alleges that the Defendants
"offer customers the ability to obtain both an eye examination
from an optometrist and eyewear from an optician in its retail
stores" in violation of California law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin I. Siminou, Esq.
          Kevin Frederick Quinn, Esq.
          THORSNES BARTLOTTA MCGUIRE
          2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 236-9363
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
          E-mail: siminou@tbmlawyers.com
                  quinn@tbmlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven D. Allison, Esq.
          Samrah Mahmoud, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614-8505
          Telephone: (949) 263-8400
          Facsimile: (949) 263-8414
          E-mail: sallison@crowell.com
                  smahmoud@crowell.com

               - and -

          Gregory D. Call, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-2800
          Facsimile: (415) 986-2827
          E-mail: gcall@crowell.com

               - and -

          Emily Kuwahara, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          515 South Flower St., 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-4750
          Facsimile: (213) 622-2690
          E-mail: ekuwahara@crowell.com


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: To Settle Rights-of-Way Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. is in the process of settling
lawsuits filed against it over its right to install fiber optic
cable network in railroad right-of-ways, 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 party to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network
in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In
general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its
networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed
its networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in
the purported class actions assert that they are the owners of
lands over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that
the railroads, utilities, and others who granted the Company the
right to construct and maintain its network did not have the
legal authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories
of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property,
as well as punitive damages. The Company has also received, and
may in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-
of-way issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be
based on similar or different legal theories. The Company has
defeated motions for class certification in a number of these
actions but expects that, absent settlement of these actions,
plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to seek
certification of statewide or multi-state classes. The only
lawsuit in which a class was certified against the Company,
absent an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v.
Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant
to a settlement reached in November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting
all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights
of way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks.
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however,
on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final
approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions. The settlements affecting current and
former landowners have received final federal court approval in
multiple states and the parties are engaged in the claims process
for those states. The settlement has also been presented to
federal courts in additional states and approval is pending.


LOUISIANA PACIFIC: Bares Updates on Hardboard Trim Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013,
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation provided updates on several
lawsuits filed against it related to non-treated hardboard trim
product.

The company was named in four putative class action lawsuits
filed against the company in United States District Courts during
the first quarter of 2012 related to non-treated hardboard trim
product formerly manufactured at the company's Roaring River,
North Carolina hardboard plant: Brown v. Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation., Case No. 4:12-CV-00102-RP-TJS (S.D. Iowa) (filed
March 8, 2012, as a state-wide putative class); Holbrook v.
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-00484-JGC
(N.D. Ohio) (filed February 28, 2012, as a state-wide putative
class); Bristol Village Inc. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:12-CV-00263 (W.D.N.Y.) (filed March 30, 2012, as
a state-wide putative class or, alternatively, as a nation-wide
putative class) and Prevett v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-
CV-348-ORL-18-KRS (M.D. Fla) (filed March 5, 2012, as a state-
wide putative class). A fifth lawsuit, Eugene Lipov v. Louisiana-
Pacific, Case 1:12-CV-00439- JTN (W.D. Mich) (filed May 3, 2012)
was filed as a statewide putative class action in the second
quarter of 2012. These lawsuits follow two state-wide putative
class action lawsuits previously filed against LP in United
States District Courts:; Hart, et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,
Case No. 2:08-CV-00047 (E.D.N.C.). and Ellis, et al. v.
Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Case No. 3:11-CV-191 (W.D.N.C.) The Hart
case was certified by the District Court as a class action on
July 15, 2011.

Plaintiffs moved to combine pretrial matters through a
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) motion, filed as In Re: Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation Trimboard Siding Marketing, Sales Practice
and Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2366 (U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation) seeking to transfer all cases
to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Louisiana-Pacific
objected to the MDL motion and on June 11, 2012, the MDL Panel
denied plaintiffs Motion to Transfer.

Subsequently, the Holbrook case was dismissed by the District
Court on August 29, 2012 and has been appealed by the plaintiffs
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The
Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal on all counts except the
express warranty. The Ellis case was dismissed in its entirity by
the District Court, and affirmed by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on November 2, 2012. The Prevett
v. Louisiana Pacific lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs on May 31, 2012. This lawsuit was replaced by Riley v.
Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-CV-00837-18 (M.D. Fla) (filed
June 4, 2012 as a state-wide putative class). The Riley matter
was voluntarily dismiss by the plaintiffs on December 17, 2013.
The Lipov case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on
November 27, 2013. On August 30, 2013, the District Court in the
Hart case decertified the class and granted summary judgment on
the claims brought by the individual plantiffs dismissing the
entire case. The plaintiff's have appealed the dismissal and
decertification to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. Hart was the only case out of the eight lawsuits
filed that was at one time certified as a class action.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits were seeking to certify classes
consisting of all persons that own structures within the
respective states in which the lawsuit were filed (or, in some
cases, within the United States) on which the hardboard trim in
question is installed. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
and injunctive and other relief under various state law theories,
including negligence, violations of consumer protection laws, and
breaches of implied and express warranties, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.


LOUISIANA PACIFIC: Decreases Settlement Reserves in Suit v. ABT
---------------------------------------------------------------
During 2012 and 2013, Louisiana-Pacific Corporation decreased its
reserves in connection with the settlement of the suit Foster, et
al. v. ABTco, Inc., ABT Building Products Corporation, Abitibi-
Price, Inc. and Abitibi-Price Corporation (No. CV95-151-M) due to
reductions in claims activity, according to LP's Feb. 27, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Between 1995 and 1999, ABT Building Products Corporation ("ABT"),
ABTco, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ABT ("ABTco" and,
together with ABT, the "ABT Entities"), Abitibi-Price Corporation
("Abitibi"), a predecessor of ABT, and certain affiliates of
Abitibi (the "Abitibi Affiliates" and, together with Abitibi, the
"Abitibi Entities") were named as defendants in numerous class
action and non-class action proceedings brought on behalf of
various persons or purported classes of persons (including
nationwide classes in the United States and Canada) who own or
have purchased or installed hardboard siding manufactured or sold
by the defendants. In general, the plaintiffs in these actions
have claimed unfair business practices, breach of warranty,
fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, and other theories related
to alleged defects, deterioration, or other failure of such
hardboard siding, and seek unspecified compensatory, punitive,
and other damages (including consequential damage to the
structures on which the siding was installed), attorneys' fees
and other relief.

LP acquired ABT in February 1999 and ABT was merged into LP in
January of 2001. On September 21, 2000, the Circuit Court of
Choctaw County, Alabama, under the caption Foster, et al. v.
ABTco, Inc., ABT Building Products Corporation, Abitibi-Price,
Inc. and Abitibi-Price Corporation (No. CV95-151-M), approved a
settlement agreement among the defendants and attorneys
representing a nationwide class composed of all persons who own
or formerly owned homes or, subject to limited exceptions, other
buildings or structures on which hardboard siding manufactured by
the defendants was installed between May 15, 1975 and May 15,
2000. Except for approximately 30 persons who timely opted out,
the settlement includes and binds all members of the settlement
class and resolves all claims asserted in the various
proceedings.

Under the settlement agreement, class members will have 25 years
after their siding was installed to file a claim.  The defendants
will be entitled to elect to make an offer of settlement to an
eligible claimant based on the information set forth in the claim
submitted by such claimant, and such claimant will be entitled to
accept or reject the offer. If an eligible claimant declines the
offer, or if no offer is made, such claimant will be entitled to
a payment based on an independent inspection. Such payments will
be based on a specified dollar amount (calculated on the basis of
statewide averages and ranging from $2.65 to $6.21, depending
upon the state) per square foot of covered siding that has
experienced specified types of damage, subject to reduction based
on the age of the damaged siding and any failure to paint the
damaged siding within stated intervals (except in the case of
damaged siding installed on mobile homes, as to which a uniform
50% reduction will apply in all circumstances). If applicable,
payments under the settlement will also be subject to reduction
to reflect any warranty payments or certain other payments
previously recovered by a claimant on account of the damaged
siding. Under the settlement agreement, LP (as a successor to
ABT) will be required to pay the expenses of administering the
settlement and certain other costs.

ABT and Abitibi were parties to an agreement of an allocation of
liability with respect to claims related to siding sold prior to
October 22, 1992. On June 13, 2001, in exchange for a cash
payment from Abitibi of approximately $19.0 million which was
received in July 2001, LPC, a wholly owned subsidiary of LP,
agreed to accept a transfer of all of Abitibi's rights and
obligations under the settlement agreement and the allocation
agreement; and LP and LPC agreed to indemnify and hold harmless
Abitibi from any cost or liability arising from its sale of
hardboard siding in the United States. From the date of the
agreement, Abitibi has no further rights, obligations or
liabilities under either the class action settlement agreement or
the allocation agreement. All such rights, obligations and
liabilities have been assigned to and accepted and assumed by
LPC.

During 2011, LP increased its reserves in connection with this
class action settlement. The additional reserves reflect revised
estimates of undiscounted future claim payments and related
administrative costs. During 2012 and 2013, LP decreased its
reserves in connection with this settlement due to reductions in
claims activity. LP believes that the reserve balance at December
31, 2013 will be adequate to cover future payments to claimants
and related administrative costs. However, it is possible that
additional charges may be required in the future.


MFA PETROLEUM: Obtains Favorable Ruling in False Advertising Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Greg Kays issued an order granting
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the lawsuit
captioned JOYCE A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MFA PETROLEUM COMPANY,
CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC., and QUIKTRIP CORPORATION,
Defendants, NO. 4:11-CV-00981-DGK, (W.D. Mo.).

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants used false advertising and material misrepresentations
in the sale of gasoline to Missouri consumers, in violation of
the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act (MMPA), Mo. Rev. Stat.
Section 407.020.  The Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.

Because Plaintiff's claims are expressly and impliedly preempted
by the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15
U.S.C. Section 2821-2824, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion. A copy of the District Court's March 28, 2014 order is
available at http://is.gd/nrB1BNfrom Leagle.com.

Joyce A Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan J. Donelon --
Brendan@donelonpc.com -- DONELON, P.C., Charles Jason Brown --
brown@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Associates, LLC, Daniel W.
Craig -- dcraig@dancraigpc.com -- Donelon, PC & Jayson A. Watkins
-- watkins@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Associates, LLC.

MFA Petroleum Company, Defendant, represented by Michael R Tripp
-- tripp@smithlewis.com -- Smith Lewis, LLP & Amanda Allen Miller
-- Miller@smithlewis.com -- Smith Lewis, LLP.

Casey's General Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Holly P.
Smith, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kathryn G Lee --
kathryn.lee@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP, Michael S.
Hargens -- michael.hargens@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell
LLP & Martin M. Loring -- martin.loring@huschblackwell.com --
Husch Blackwell LLP.

Quiktrip Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tristan L.
Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Holly P. Smith, Shook, Hardy
& Bacon, LLP.


MYLAN INC: Awaits Court Decision on Add'l Discovery & New Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court decision is pending on additional discovery and a new
trial on damages requested by Mylan Inc. in a case brought by
four health insurers who opted out of earlier class action
settlements agreed to by the Company in lawsuits over Lorazepam
and Clorazepate, 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 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, MPI,
and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the
amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has been accrued for
by the Company. The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants
willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state
antitrust laws in connection with API supply agreements entered
into between the Company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and
broker (Gyma) for two drugs, Lorazepam and Clorazepate, in 1997,
and subsequent price increases on these drugs in 1998. The case
was brought by four health insurers who opted out of earlier
class action settlements agreed to by the Company in 2001 and
represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to
Mylan's 1998 price increases for Lorazepam and Clorazepate.

Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as
a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss
two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict. On
December 20, 2006, the Company's motion for judgment as a matter
of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining
motions were denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial filings,
the plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and that
request was granted on January 24, 2008. On February 6, 2008, a
judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-defendants in the
total amount of approximately $69.0 million, which, in the case
of three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory
damages in the original verdict (approximately $11.0 million in
total) and, in the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their
amount of the compensatory damages in the original jury verdict
plus doubling this compensatory damage award as punitive damages
assessed against each of the defendants (approximately $58.0
million in total), some or all of which may be subject to
indemnification obligations by Mylan. Plaintiffs are also seeking
an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs in unspecified
amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately $8.0 million.
The Company and its co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and have challenged the verdict as
legally erroneous on multiple grounds. The appeals were held in
abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest,
which has been granted.

Mylan has contested this ruling along with the liability finding
and other damages awards as part of its appeal, which was filed
in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On January 18,
2011, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment remanding the case
to the District Court for further proceedings based on lack of
diversity with respect to certain plaintiffs. On June 13, 2011,
Mylan filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court
requesting review of the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. On October
3, 2011, the certiorari petition was denied. The case is now
proceeding before the District Court.

On January 14, 2013, following limited court-ordered
jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended
complaint containing additional factual averments with respect to
the diversity of citizenship of the parties, along with a motion
to voluntarily dismiss 755 (of 1,387), self-funded customers
whose presence would destroy the District Court's diversity
jurisdiction. The plaintiffs also moved for a remittitur
(reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages
award. Mylan's brief in response to the new factual averments in
the complaint was filed on February 13, 2013. In addition to
disputing the sufficiency of many of the plaintiffs'
jurisdictional averments, Mylan argues that the case should be
dismissed in its entirety, or that alternatively all of the self-
funded customer claims should be dismissed. Mylan also argues for
additional discovery and a new trial on damages. Briefing on
these issues is complete, and a decision is pending.

In connection with the Company's appeal of the judgment, the
Company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party
insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million in February
2008. On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of
the surety bond reduced to $66.6 million.


MYLAN INC: Accrues $64.1MM Due to Merck KGaA for Pricing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc. has accrued approximately $64.1 million in other
current liabilities, which represents its estimate of the
remaining amount of anticipated income tax benefits due to Merck
KGaA for any deductions of amounts paid for pricing litigation
brought by consumers and third-party payors, 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.

Dey L.P. (now known as Mylan Specialty L.P. and hereafter "Mylan
Specialty"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was named
as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and
third-party payors. Mylan Specialty reached a settlement of these
class actions, which was approved by the court and all claims
have been dismissed. Additionally, a complaint was filed under
seal by a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America
against Mylan Specialty in August 1997. In August 2006, the
Government filed its complaint-in-intervention and the case was
unsealed in September 2006. The Government asserted that Mylan
Specialty was jointly liable with a codefendant and sought
recovery of alleged overpayments, together with treble damages,
civil penalties and equitable relief. Mylan Specialty completed a
settlement of this action in December 2010. These cases all have
generally alleged that Mylan Specialty falsely reported certain
price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Mylan
Specialty, that Mylan Specialty caused false claims to be made to
Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Mylan Specialty caused
Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on those claims.

Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Merck KGaA, Mylan
is fully indemnified for the claims in the preceding paragraph
and Merck KGaA is entitled to any income tax benefit the Company
realizes for any deductions of amounts paid for such pricing
litigation. Under the indemnity, Merck KGaA is responsible for
all settlement and legal costs, and, as such, these settlements
had no impact on the Company's Consolidated Statements of
Operations. At December 31, 2013, the Company has accrued
approximately $64.1 million in other current liabilities, which
represents its estimate of the remaining amount of anticipated
income tax benefits due to Merck KGaA. Substantially all of Mylan
Specialty's known claims with respect to this pricing litigation
have been settled.


NJM INC: Has Deprived Workers of Lawfully Earned Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Boxer, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. N J M Inc. d/b/a Mid Island Car Service, Arthur Grover, and
Elaine J. Grover, Case No. 1:14-cv-01019-JBW-RER (E.D.N.Y.,
February 18, 2014) seeks to remedy the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's wage-and-hour
provisions, which have deprived the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated of their lawfully earned wages.

NJM is a corporation having its principal place of business in
Staten Island, New York.  NJM operates under the designated
business name, Mid Island Car Service, and offers transportation
services throughout New York and New Jersey.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, directors, and officers of NJM.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
          XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          401 Broadway, Suite 1009
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (917) 503-9590
          Facsimile: (212) 219-2275
          E-mail: benjaminxue@xuelaw.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Baham" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Baham, 62 Helen Drive, Madisonville, Louisiana 70447 v.
Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00373-MVL-DEK (E.D. La., February 18, 2014) is an
action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate
result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: Sherman@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


PFIZER INC: Has Mislabeled Lipitor Drug, "Hines" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Hines v. Pfizer, Inc., Delaware Corporation, Case No.
6:14-cv-00274-TC (D. Or., February 18, 2014) is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known
chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura B. Kalur, Esq.
          KALUR LAW OFFICE, PC
          5200 Meadows Rd., Suite 150
          Lake Oswego, OR 97035
          Telephone: (503) 726-5945
          Facsimile: (503) 726-5911
          E-mail: lkalur@kalurlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


PFIZER INC: Sued Over Injury Suffered From Use of Lipitor Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Fowler and Jonathan Fowler, Sr., 316 Kelly Road, Texarkana,
Texas 75501 v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00089-JRG (E.D.
Tex., February 18, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          Chris R. Johnson, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P.
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
          E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com
                  cjohnson@npraustin.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hunter K. Ahern, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP - HOUSTON
          600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
          Houston, TX 77002-2926
          Telephone: (713) 227-8008
          Facsimile: (713) 227-9508
          E-mail: hahern@shb.com


POOL CORP: Faces Antitrust Suits by Swimming Pool Products Buyers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pool Corporation is facing antitrust lawsuits by purchasers of
swimming pool products before the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation, 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 purported anti-trust class action suits were
filed against the company in various United States District
Courts. The cases were transferred and consolidated before the
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2328,
and are presently pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The plaintiffs include indirect purchaser plaintiffs, purporting
to represent indirect purchasers of swimming pool products in
Arizona, California, Florida and Missouri, and direct purchaser
plaintiffs, who are current or former customers. Three additional
defendants include Hayward Industries Inc., Pentair Water Pool
and Spa, Inc. and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs
and fees and other equitable relief.


RITE AID: "Flowers" Suit Transferred From California to Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Flowers, et al. v. Rite Aid
Corporation, Case No. 2:13-cv-07956, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00465-JFM to
the proceeding.

The case alleges that Rite Aid misrepresents its joint health
dietary supplements with promises that they help rebuild
cartilage and lubricate joints.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Miller, Esq.
          NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER LLP
          33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 563-5385
          E-mail: jonathan@nps-law.com
                  jennifer@nps-law.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: bsweet@dscslaw.com
                  ekilpela@dscslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          DENLEA AND CARTON LLP
          One N Broadway, Ste 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 920-7400
          Facsimile: (914) 761-1900
          E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com


SKECHERS USA: Court Approved $50MM Accord in Toning Shoes Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky has entered an order finally approving the $50 million
nationwide consumer class action settlement entered by Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. in lawsuits over its advertising for Shape-ups and
other toning shoe products, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

As the company disclosed in periodic Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, the Federal Trade Commission and Attorneys
General for 44 states and the District of Columbia ("SAGs") had
been reviewing the claims and advertising for Shape-ups and the
company's other toning shoe products. The company also disclosed
that the company had been named as a defendant in multiple
consumer class actions challenging the company's claims and
advertising for the company's toning shoe products, including
Shape-ups.

On May 16, 2012, the company announced that the company had
settled all domestic legal proceedings relating to advertising
claims made in connection with the marketing of the company's
toning shoe products. Under the terms of the global settlement --
without admitting any fault or liability, with no findings being
made that the company's company had violated any law, and with no
fines or penalties being imposed -- the company has made payments
in the aggregate amount of $50 million to settle and finally
resolve the domestic advertising class action lawsuits and
related claims brought by the FTC and the SAGs. The FTC
Stipulated Final Judgment was approved by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 12,
2012. Consent judgments in the 45 SAG actions have been approved
and entered by courts in those jurisdictions.

On May 13, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky entered an order finally approving the
nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for any
appeals from that final approval order has expired.


SKECHERS USA: "Grabowski" Accord to Resolve "Tomlinson" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No.
3:12-CV-00204 is expected entirely to resolve the class claims
brought by the plaintiff Patty Tomlinson, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against the
company's company in Circuit Court in Washington County,
Arkansas, Case No. CV11-121-7. The complaint alleges, on her
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that the
company's advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and
implied warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the
"Tomlinson action"). The complaint seeks certification of a
statewide class, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 18, 2011, the company
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, where it was pending as Patty
Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-05042 JLH. On March 21,
2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action back to Arkansas
state court, which motion the company opposed. On May 25, 2011,
the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state court and
denied the company's motion to dismiss or transfer as moot, but
stayed the remand pending completion of appellate review. On
September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and
remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County,
Arkansas. On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the
state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case. On August
13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
nationwide consumer class action settlement in Grabowski v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:12-CV-00205 (the
"Grabowski/Morga class actions"), and issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of the Tomlinson
action, among other cases. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving
the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for
any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson.


SKECHERS USA: "Grabowski" Accord to Resolve "Boatright" Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No.
3:12-CV-00204 is expected entirely to resolve the class claims
brought originally by plaintiff Elma Boatright, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The suit is Elma Boatright and Sharon White v. Skechers U.S.A.,
Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group.

On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a
lawsuit against the company's company in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No.
3:12-cv-87-S. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that the company's
advertising for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby
constituting a breach of contract, breach of implied and express
warranties, fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The
complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, compensatory
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 6, 2012, the
named plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action with
In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case
no. 11-md-02308-TBR. On August 13, 2012, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted
preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement
agreement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions, and issued a
preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of
this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the Grabowski/Morga
class actions entered an order finally approving the nationwide
consumer class action settlement, and the time for any appeals
therefrom has expired. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga
class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims
brought by the plaintiff in Boatright.


SKECHERS USA: Finalizing Deal in Canadian Shape-ups Footwear Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a suit filed on behalf of all residents of Canada
who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear are currently
finalizing the terms of a settlement agreement, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The suit is Jason Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc.  On April 12,
2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the bringing of a
class action in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal. Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class action on
behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the alternative, all
residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear.
Petitioner's motion alleges that the company marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide health
benefits to users. The motion requests the Court's authorization
to institute a class action seeking damages (including damages
for bodily injury), punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Petitioner's motion was formally presented to the Court on June
29, 2012. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Angell action (as
well as the Niras and Dedato actions) through authorization by
the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. The
parties are currently finalizing the terms of the settlement
agreement.


SKECHERS USA: Quebec Settlements to Resolve Alberta Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions
against Skechers USA, if finally approved, is expected entirely
to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in the suit
Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A, Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc., according to
the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in
the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear.
The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide fitness
benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages
(including damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief. On or about November 21, 2013, an
Amended Statement of Claim was filed to substitute a new
representative plaintiff, Kourtney Smith, in place of Ms. Davies
and to allege substantially the same claims as in the original
Statement of Claim with respect to all Skechers toning footwear
sold to residents of Canada. Skechers has not yet responded to
the Amended Statement of Claim. The settlement in the Angell,
Niras, and Dedato class actions, if finally approved by the Court
and affirmed on appeal in the event an appeal is taken, is
expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the
plaintiff in Davies/Smith. If the motion for approval of the
class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on
appeal, the company cannot predict the outcome of the
Davies/Smith action or a reasonable range of potential losses or
whether the outcome of the Davies/Smith action would have a
material adverse impact on the company's results of operations or
financial position in excess of the settlement.


SKECHERS USA: Finalizing Settlement of "Niras" Shape-up Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in George Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc. are currently
finalizing the terms of a settlement agreement, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents
of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runner, Shape-ups
Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide health benefits to users. The Statement seeks
damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Skechers has not yet responded to the Statement. At a mediation
held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Niras action (as well as the Angell
action and the Dedato action) through authorization by the Quebec
Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. The parties are
currently finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement. It is
anticipated that the agreement will provide for the voluntary
discontinuance (dismissal) of the Niras action upon approval of
the settlement by the Quebec Superior Court.


SKECHERS USA: Finalizing Settlement of "Dedato" Shape-up Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in Frank Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers
U.S.A. Canada, Inc. are currently finalizing the terms of a
settlement agreement, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of
Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups or
Resistance Runner footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief. Skechers has not yet responded to
the Statement of Claim. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Dedato action (as well as the Angell and Niras actions) through
authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class. The parties are currently finalizing the terms
of the settlement agreement. It is anticipated that the agreement
will provide for the voluntary discontinuance (dismissal) of the
Dedato action upon approval of the settlement by the Quebec
Superior Court.


SKECHERS USA: "Chavez" Labor Lawsuit Dismissed as Duplicate
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case Esteban Chavez v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was dismissed by
plaintiff's counsel as largely duplicative of another class
action claims, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On September 18, 2012, Esteban Chavez filed a class action
lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC492357,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, non-compliant wage
statements, and wages not timely paid upon termination. The
complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and
damages; general and special damages; civil, statutory and
waiting time penalties; restitution of unpaid wages; injunctive
relief; attorneys' fees and costs; pre-judgment interest on
unpaid compensation; and appointment of a receiver. On September
25, 2012, the Court issued an order staying the action until an
initial status conference that was held on December 19, 2012.
This case was dismissed on July 18, 2013 by plaintiff's counsel
as largely duplicative of the class action claims in Roneshia
Sayles v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.


SKECHERS USA: Enters Into Settlement in "Roneshia" Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the labor suit Roneshia Sayles v. Skechers U.S.A.,
Inc. entered into a Stipulation and Settlement of Class Action
Claims, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On October 2, 2012, Roneshia Sayles filed a class action lawsuit
against the company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC473067. The
complaint involves a wage and hour claim, alleging violations of
the California Labor Code, including unpaid time for certain
breaks and when retail employees' bags are checked upon leaving
the store at the ends of their shifts. The complaint seeks
actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages; general
and special damages; civil, statutory and waiting time penalties;
restitution of unpaid wages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees
and costs; pre-judgment interest on unpaid compensation. In
January 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement of Class Action Claims.  The Settlement still has to
be approved by the Court.


SOTHEBY'S INC: "Graham" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v.
Sotheby's, Inc. have appealed a ruling by the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California dismissing the action
Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. on the ground
that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the
U.S. Constitution, 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.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion
to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the
Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is
preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012,
the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to
dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss
on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order
dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act
violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The
plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. Sotheby's believes that
there are meritorious defenses to the appeal. It is currently not
possible to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable outcome of this matter.


STEVEN MADDEN: Cal. Court OKs Settlement of TCPA Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California finally approved a settlement reached in a suit filed
by Samantha Ellison against Steven Madden, Ltd. over alleged
unsolicited commercial text calls to wireless telephone numbers,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 19, 2011, an individual purporting to act on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals commenced a civil action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Samantha Ellison, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Steven Madden, Ltd.,
No. CV11-05935 (the "Ellison Action") asserting that the Company
made unsolicited commercial text calls to wireless telephone
numbers of the class members in violation of the Telephone
Consumers Protection Act (the "TCPA") and seeking, on behalf of
the class, an injunction requiring the Company to cease all
wireless text messages without prior written consent as required
by the TCPA, as well as the recovery of statutory damages to the
class members together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Company responded by challenging the suit on several grounds.
Settlement discussions  resulted in a settlement being reached on
July 30, 2012 for an aggregate gross settlement fund of $10
million, from which all of the Company's settlement obligations
were to be paid, including, but not limited to, valid claims,
claims administration fees, and the fees and costs of class
counsel.  Following a fairness hearing, on May 7, 2013, the court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement and
dismissing the Ellison Action on the merits and with prejudice.
The Company submitted an initial settlement payment of $5,000
into the settlement fund.  The Company's insurer covered 45% of
the initial settlement payment of $5,000, subject to the
Company's agreement to return, to the Company's insurer, its pro
rata share of any remaining amounts in the settlement fund.  The
claims administrator has paid all of the Company's settlement
obligations from the settlement fund.  Because of the number of
valid claims submitted to the claims administrator and other
factors, the settlement fund did not need to be replenished by
the Company with any additional amounts over and above the
initial settlement payment.  The residual funds from the
settlement fund, totaling approximately $1,717, have been
returned to the Company, of which 45% has been returned by the
Company to the Company's insurer.  Accordingly, the actual
expense to the Company for the Ellison Action was approximately
$1,800.


TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Chief Financial Officer Faces Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tarena International, Inc. chief financial officer Mr. Suhai Ji,
who was the chief financial officer of NQ Mobile Inc., is facing
securities suits in the U.S., according to Tarena's Feb. 27,
2014, Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

From November 2010 to September 2013, the company's chief
financial officer, Mr. Suhai Ji, was the chief financial officer
of NQ Mobile Inc., an NYSE-listed company. On October 24, 2013,
Muddy Waters LLC, a short-seller research company, published a
report alleging, among others things, that certain operating and
financial data reported by NQ Mobile were false. Since the date
of the report, NQ Mobile and many of its current and former
directors and executive officers have been named as defendants in
several putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States
alleging violations of federal securities laws. Mr. Ji is one of
the former executive officers named in the complaints. The case
is in its preliminary phase and, to the company's knowledge, all
of the defendants deny and are vigorously contesting the
allegations. None of the proceedings involves the company.


TAX DEFENSE: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, California Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tax Defense Network, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00233-
JLS-RNB (C.D. Cal., February 18, 2014) is brought for damages and
other remedies, resulting from the Company's illegal actions in
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy.

Tax Defense Network, Inc., is a Florida corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Vincent S. Green, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK
          11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 775-6511
          Facsimile: (310) 575-9720
          E-mail: vgreen@kdvlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Magistrate Judge's Report in "Evans" Suit Adopted
----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2008, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment for the
plaintiffs in a class action brought by Andrew and Kelly
Zimmerman against John and Richard Puccio and five corporate
entities owned and controlled by the Puccios. The basis for the
judgment was the court's finding that the Puccios had perpetrated
a scheme to defraud their customers while purporting to offer
them advice and guidance with their credit problems, in violation
of the Credit Repair Organization Act, and the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act.  After entering judgment against the
corporate defendants in the amount of $259,085,983, as well as
against the individual defendants in the amount of $256,527,000
plus costs and interest, the court appointed a receiver, Robb
Evans & Associates, LLC.

On July 19, 2012, Robb Evans, in his role as Receiver, brought an
action captioned ROB EVANS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, RECEIVER,
Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, C.A. NO.
12-CV-30130-MAP, (D. Mass.), seeking to recover on behalf of the
plaintiff class in Zimmerman over $9 million in taxes paid by the
Puccios and their corporations, based upon five years of income
they received through their fraudulent schemes.  In response to
the claim, the United States of America filed a motion to dismiss
and/or for judgment on the pleadings, which the court referred to
Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman for report and recommendation.
On November 20, 2013, Judge Neiman issued his memorandum,
recommending that Defendant's motion be denied to the extent that
it sought outright dismissal of the complaint, but allowed to the
extent that it sought to limit drastically the amount of
potential damages available to Plaintiff. Both parties filed
timely objections to the R&R.

Following a de novo review, District Judge Michael A. Ponsor
adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in its entirety
saying, "The scrupulous job done by Judge Neiman in his R&R
obviates the need for an extended recapitulation of his
reasoning."

Defendant's motion to dismiss was allowed in part, as to the
question of the scope of potential damages, but was otherwise
denied. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Neiman for a
pretrial scheduling conference.

A copy of the District Court's March 31, 2014 memorandum order is
available at http://is.gd/u0JBt3from Leagle.com


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Mass Associational Tracking Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Rand Paul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; P.O. Box 15643, Washington, D.C. 20003 and
Freedomworks, Inc., on behalf of itself, its members, and all
others similarly situated; 400 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite
765, Washington, D.C. 20001 v. Barack Hussein Obama, II, in his
official capacity as President of the United States; James R.
Clapper, in his official capacity as Director of National
Intelligence; Keith B. Alexander, in his official capacity as
Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central
Security Service; and James B. Comey, in his official capacity as
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00262-RJL (D.D.C., February 18, 2014) is brought on behalf of
American citizens or permanent residents, who are or have been
customers, users or subscribers of phone service in the United
States since 2006.

The lawsuit seeks relief against the Defendants' alleged mass,
suspicion-less, non-particularized collection, storage, retention
and search of telephone metadata related to every domestic or
international phone call made or received by the Plaintiffs and
class members, known as the Mass Associational Tracking Program,
in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Earl N. Mayfield, III, Esq.
          Michael P. Lewis, Esq.
          THE LEWIS FIRM PLLC
          901 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 450E
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 630-6006
          Facsimile: (888) 430-6695
          E-mail: tmayfield@lewis-firm.com
                  mlewis@lewis-firm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli, II, Esq.
          CUCCINELLI & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          10560 Main Street, #218
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (804) 286-2550
          E-mail: KCuccinelli@CuccinelliAndAssociates.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James J. Gilligan, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Room 5138
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 514-3358
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
          E-mail: james.gilligan@usdoj.gov


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PSI Faces Suit in Tenn. by Retirement System
--------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. Psychiatric
Solutions, Inc. is pending in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee, according to Universal
Health Services, 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 is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against PSI and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations
of federal securities laws. The company intends to defend the
case vigorously. Should the company be deemed liable in this
matter, it believes it would be entitled to commercial insurance
recoveries for amounts paid by the company, subject to certain
limitations and deductibles. Included in the company's
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, is
an estimated reserve (current liability) and corresponding
commercial insurance recovery (current asset) which did not have
a material impact on the company's financial statements. Although
the company believes the commercial insurance recoveries are
adequate to satisfy potential liability and related legal fees in
connection with this matter, it can provide no assurance that the
ultimate liability will not exceed the commercial insurance
recoveries which would make the company liable for the excess.


UNIVERSAL WELLNESS: Deceives Alkazone Water Consumers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Beard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Universal Wellness Group, Inc., a/k/a Better Health
Lab, Inc. d/b/a Alkazone, Case No. 1:14-cv-01045-BMC (E.D.N.Y.,
February 18, 2014) arises out of the Defendant's alleged false,
deceptive, and misleading statements on the packaging of Alkazone
bottled water and on the Company's Web site.

The Defendant claims that Alkazone water is a breakthrough
product "enhanced with essential minerals such as potassium,
calcium, magnesium and selenium to create a healthy 9.5 pH(+-)
balanced antioxidant water that helps restore the body and add
support for the immune system."

Universal Wellness Group Inc., also known as Better Health Lab,
Inc., doing business as Alkazone, is a New Jersey corporation
with its principal place of business in Hackensack, New Jersey.
The Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, and distributes
the "Alkazone" brand water.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          Grace E. Tersigni, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  gtersigni@kamberlaw.com


WAGENER EQUITIES: Bid for Leave to Appeal in "Chapman" Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In ARNOLD CHAPMAN and PALDO SIGN & DISPLAY COMPANY, individually
and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. WAGENER EQUITIES, INC. and DANIEL
WAGENER, Defendants-Petitioners, NO. 14-8004, the United States
Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, denied a petition for leave to
appeal the district court's order certifying the class.

The defendants in this class action suit under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, sought leave to
appeal from the district court's order certifying the class. The
suit charges the defendants with having paid a "fax blaster"
called Business to Business Solutions to send unsolicited fax
advertisements, in violation of the Act's "junk fax" prohibition,
47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C), to 10,145 persons. They are the
members of the class.

According to thr Seventh Circuit, a rapid resolution of the case
is in order. But as the proposed appeal has no merit, the
petition for leave to appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) is
denied.

A copy of the Circuit Court's March 31, 2014 ruling is available
at http://is.gd/HU0TNgfrom Leagle.com.


WATTS WATER: July Hearing Set on $23MM "Trabakoolas" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on a $23.0 million settlement reached in
Trabakoolas et al., v, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al. is
currently scheduled for July 16, 2014, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other
companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking to recover damages and
other relief based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors.
The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified
amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs. No class certification hearing has been scheduled and
the matter is currently in the discovery phase. On August 22,
2013, the Court stayed the action for 45 days, to allow the
parties to explore the possibility of settlement. On October 8,
2013, this stay was extended until November 7, 2013, in order to
allow the parties additional time to explore settlement. On
November 7, 2013, the Court extended the stay until December 12,
2013, in order to allow the parties additional time to explore
settlement.

On December 12, 2013, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims. The total settlement amount is
$23.0 million, of which the Company would be responsible for
$14.0 million after insurance proceeds of $9.0 million. The
settlement was subject to review by the Court at a preliminary
approval hearing held on February 12, 2014. The Court granted
preliminary approval on February 14, 2014. The settlement is
subject to final court approval after a fairness hearing
currently scheduled for July 16, 2014.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a
liability of $22.6 million related to the Trabakoolas matter, of
which $12.7 million was included in current liabilities and $9.9
million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.0
million receivable was recorded in current assets related to
insurance proceeds due under a separate settlement agreement if
the class action settlement is approved.


WEISS-ROHLIG USA: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Diaz and all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(b)
v. Weiss-Rohlig USA, LLC, a foreign corporation, Case No. 1:14-
cv-20598-JAL (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2014) is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Thomas Brady, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM BRADY, P.A.
          800 Brickell Avenue, Penthouse 2
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-7688
          Facsimile: (305) 358-4010
          E-mail: wbrady@wbradylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David B. Ritter, Esq.
          Douglas Oldham, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG
          One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 357-1313
          Facsimile: 715-4800
          E-mail: dritter@btlaw.com
                  doldham@btlaw.com

               - and -

          John Francis Meyers, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG
          3475 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 264-4017
          E-mail: john.meyers@btlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Klein, Esq.
          BALES SOMMERS & KLEIN
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1881
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-1200
          Facsimile: (305) 372-9008
          E-mail: jklein@bsklawyers.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Tosses Class Cert. Motion in "Gresser" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine C. Blake issued a memorandum denying
class certification in the lawsuit captioned ANNE GRESSER, ET AL.
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., CIVIL NO. CCB-12-987, (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs Anne Gresser, Gregory Lizzi, Karen Spicknall, and
Michael Zuck brought this action on behalf of a putative class of
bondholders alleging that, under an Indenture with failed sub-
prime mortgage lender KH Funding (KH), defendant Wells Fargo
breached its duties as Indenture Trustee. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification and to appoint class counsel.

According to Judge Blake, the plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that they have met each of the requirements of Rule
23 for class certification.  A copy of the District Court's March
31, 2014 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/N8eyRwfrom
Leagle.com.

Anne Gresser, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Richard S Gordon, Esq.
   Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
   Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chts.
   102 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 402
   Towson, MD 21204
   Telephone: (410) 825-2300
   Facsimile: (410) 825-0066

Adam E Polk -- aep@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Elizabeth
C Pritzker -- ecp@pritzker-law.com -- Pritzker Law, Jonathan K
Levine -- jkl@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP & Matthew A
Brinegar -- mab@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

Gregory Lizzi, Plaintiff, represented by Adam E Polk, Girard
Gibbs LLP & Jonathan K Levine, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Karen Spicknall, Plaintiff, represented by Adam E Polk, Girard
Gibbs LLP & Jonathan K Levine, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Michael Zuck, Plaintiff, represented by Adam E Polk, Girard Gibbs
LLP & Jonathan K Levine, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Defendant, represented by Brian A Troyer -
- brian.troyer@thompsonhine.com -- Thompson Hine LLP, C Dennis
Southard, IV -- dennis.southard@thompsonhine.com -- Thompson Hine
LLP, James L DeFeo -- jim.defeo@thompsonhine.com -- Thompson Hine
LLP, Jennifer Mingus Mountcastle --
Jennifer.Mountcastle@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine LLP,
Jennifer S Roach -- Jennifer.Roach@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson
Hine LLP & Stephanie Marie Chmiel --
stephanie.chmiel@thompsonhine.com -- Thompson Hine LLP.

Trigee Foundation, Interested Party, represented by John E
Tsikerdanos -- jetsikerdanos@lerchearly.com -- Lerch Early &
Brewer.


                             *********

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  * * *