CAR_Public/140507.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 90

                             Headlines


ALVAREZ PLAZA: Removed "Paez" FLSA-Violation Suit to S.D. Florida
AMN HEALTHCARE: Court Approved Wage & Hour Lawsuit Settlement
APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Firm Files Class Action in Arizona
AUTOZONE INC: Removed "Sanchez" Class Suit to Central California
AXESSTEL INC: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California

BARRICK GOLD: Faces $6-Bil. Shareholder Class Action
BAXTER INT'L: Provisionally Settled Suit for $64-Mil in Jan.
BP EXPLORATION: Removed "Karen's Seafood" Suit to S.D. Texas
BP PRODUCTS: Faces Consolidated Class Action Over Petroleum Coke
BRINK'S INC: Removed "Stafford" Class Suit to C.D. California

CARGILL INC: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
CHARLES SCHWAB: Drops Fight on Customer Class-Action Ban
CLEARVIEW CLEANING: Removed "Jean" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
COTY INC: Faces "Carey" Suit Over Initial Public Offering
CPG INT'L: "Glodo" Suit Transferred From Illinois to New Jersey

CVS PHARMACY: "Granzella" Discrimination Suit Moved to E.D. Cal.
DANIYAL ENTERPRISES: Sued for Violating FLSA and NJWHL
EAST COAST ASSEMBLERS: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Shad" Suit Says
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Roller" Suit Over Lidoderm Patch
ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Correction Officers Say

FAMILYMEDS GROUP: June 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FOREVER HARDSCAPE: Fails to Pay for OT Work , "Alvarez" Suit Says
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Removed "Rodoco" Suit to S.D. West Virginia
FRESH DEL MONTE: Court Affirmed Verdict Against Subsidiary
FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Complaint Appeal Remains Pending

GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Bethel Residents File Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bender" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Powell" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Gebremariam" Suit Over Defective Switches

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Detton" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "LaReine" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Fugate" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Elliott" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GNC HOLDINGS: Removed "Di Cillo" Suit to N.D. California
GOLDMAN SACHS: Energy Beverage et al. Sue Over Aluminum Prices
GOLDMAN SACHS: Direct Purchasers Amend Aluminum Antitrust Suit
HARTFORD, CT: Issues Notice on Relocation Assistance

HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Group Seeks Affirmative Action Plaintiffs
HYUNDAI MOTOR: "Gentry" Suit Added to Fuel Economy MDL in Cal.
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Non-FDA Approved Drugs
IOD INC: July 30 Final Settlement Hearing Set
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Helios Books Reserve Related to Class Action

LIFELOCK INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Arizona
LIFE TIME: Members File Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
LIME ENERGY: May 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LITHIA MOTORS INC: Accord Alaska Dealership Suit to Cost $6.2MM
MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in California Over Warranties

MB FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Complaint Over Taylor Capital Merger
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Class Claims
NCL CORP: Plaintiffs File Writ of Certiorari
NCL CORP: Defends Stayed Crew Members' Wage Deduction Complaint
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Murano's Defective Anchor Bracket

NONNI'S FOODS: Removed "Larsen" Class Suit to N.D. California
OMNICARE INC: Removed "Avilez" Class Suit to S.D. California
ONECHICAGO LLC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Class Action
PDC ENERGY: Merger Complaint Scheduled for Trial This Month
PEABODY ENERGY: Agrees to Dismiss Benefit Plans Lawsuit

PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Design of Lipitor
PFIZER INC: Faces "Brown" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Faces "Rayford" Suit Alleging Lipitor-Related Injury
PFIZER INC: Sued Over Alleged Injuries Caused by Lipitor Drug
POLYCOM INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in N.D. Cal. Shareholder Suit

SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Seeks to File 4th Amended Complaint
SANDISK CORP: Oral Argument Held Dec. 5 in Calif. Antitrust Suit
SNA SHEPHERD ENTERPRISES: Sued for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
T&T HART: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages Pursuant to FLSA
TARGET CORP: Faces "Noe" Suit in Oklahoma Over Security Breach

TOSHIBA AMERICA: Falsely Marketed LED TVs & LED HDTVs, Suit Says
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: Faces Class Actions Over Unsolicited Faxes
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Faces Securities Class Action Amid CFPB Probe

* Courts Resort to Cy Pres Awards Without Legislative Guidance
* New Arizona Law Allows Foreclosure Suits Against Home Builders


                            *********


ALVAREZ PLAZA: Removed "Paez" FLSA-Violation Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Paez v. Alvarez Plaza, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-01659 CC 26, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-21464-CMA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Giselle Jimenez Maranges, Esq.
          Marlene Quintana, Esq.
          GRAY ROBINSON, P.A.
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-6880
          Facsimile: (305) 416-6887
          E-mail: giselle.maranges@gray-robinson.com
                  marlene.quintana@gray-robinson.com


AMN HEALTHCARE: Court Approved Wage & Hour Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court in February 2014 granted final approval of the
settlement with the plaintiffs in a class action related to wage
and hour claims against AMN Healthcare Services, Inc., according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are subject to various claims and legal
actions in the ordinary course of our business. Some of these
matters relate to professional liability, tax, payroll, contract
and employee-related matters and include individual and
collective lawsuits, as well as inquiries and investigations by
governmental agencies regarding our employment practices. The
most significant matter of which we were the defendant was a
class action related to wage and hour claims. In the second
quarter of 2013, we reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in
such action (and a related action) for an immaterial amount. The
Court granted final approval of the settlement in February 2014.
At December 31, 2013, we had fully reserved for the settlement of
such action, which was included in accounts payable and accrued
expenses in the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2013.
We currently are not aware of any pending or threatened
litigation that we believe is reasonably possible to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position or liquidity."

AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (AMN Healthcare) is the healthcare
workforce solutions and staffing services to healthcare
facilities. The Company manages services programs, recruitment
process outsourcing, consulting services, and placement of
physicians, nurses and allied healthcare professionals into
temporary and permanent positions enable its clients to
successfully reduce complexity, increase efficiency and improve
patient outcomes within the rapidly evolving healthcare
environment. The Company's clients include acute and sub-acute
care hospitals, government facilities, community health centers
and clinics, physician practice groups, and several other
healthcare settings. The Company's number of hospital, healthcare
facility and other clients provides the Company with the
opportunity to offer clinical positions typically in all 50
states and in a variety of work environments and clinical
settings. In November 2013, it announced the acquisition of
ShiftWise.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Firm Files Class Action in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 24 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Apollo Education Group, Inc. and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, District of Arizona, and docketed under 2:14-at-
99904, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities
between
October 19, 2011 and April 1, 2014, both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Apollo securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 23, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Apollo is a publicly traded, for-profit education company
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.  Apollo employs approximately
15,000 non-faculty employees, and approximately 29,000 faculty
members, and enrolls over 250,000 students across its online and
in person course offerings.  The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers associate, bachelor, masters and doctorate
degrees to students around the world in over 100 fields. The
Company's largest reporting segment, The University of Phoenix,
generates more than $4 billion in revenue.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants
manipulated federal student loan and grant programs in order to
appear to be in compliance with new federal regulations enacted
in June 2011; (ii) defendants' predatory and deceptive recruiting
and enrollment practices violated federal regulations enacted
beginning in June 2011; and (iii) the Company engaged in a number
of practices, including loan forbearance programs, in order to
create the appearance that the Company was in compliance with
relevant government regulations.

On July 30, 2012, Senator Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, completed a two-year
investigation of the for-profit college industry, and issued a
report (the, "Harkin Report") containing troubling statistics and
findings regarding the for profit college industry, and
specifically about Apollo.

After the Harkin Report was published, the Company's shares fell
4.1% or $1.17, to close at $27.22 on July 30, 2012.

On April 1, 2014, the Company disclosed that the Department of
Education was conducting an investigation into the company, and
that the department had subpoenaed documents and communications
related to student recruitment, attendance, completion,
placement, defaults on loans, along with information on other
corporate and financial matters.

On this news, Apollo shares declined $3.10 per share, or over
8.8%, to close at $32.06 per share on April 2, 2014.

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


AUTOZONE INC: Removed "Sanchez" Class Suit to Central California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mark Sanchez v. AutoZone, Inc.,
et al., Case No. BC 456794, was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
01347-DDP-PLA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code.  The Plaintiff
contends that AutoZone violated state law by failing to timely
deliver all earned wages at separation.

AutoZone is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of
business and corporate headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          Joseph Steven Hoff, Esq.
          Michael Damon Coats, Esq.
          Neda Roshanian, Esq.
          Patrick Joseph Clifford, Esq.
          MARK YABLONOVICH LAW OFFICES
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          Telephone: (310) 286-0246
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5391
          E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com
                  joseph@yablonovichlaw.com
                  michael@yablonovichlaw.com
                  neda@yablonovichlaw.com
                  Patrick@Yablonovichlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Ronald D. Arena, Esq.
          ARENA HOFFMAN LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1414
          Facsimile: (415) 520-0446
          E-mail: mhoffman@arenahoffman.com
                  rarena@arenahoffman.com


AXESSTEL INC: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Axesstel,
Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of a class comprising all purchasers of Axesstel securities
between February 25, 2013 and March 31, 2014, inclusive.

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

Axesstel provides wireless voice, broadband access and connected
home solutions for the telecommunications market worldwide.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company was facing issues that were negatively
impacting the rollout of Axesstel's new Home Alert product line;
(2) certain aspects of sales to two customers in Africa in the
first quarter of 2013, including payment terms and market
allowances, were not finalized by the end of the quarter; (3) the
Company improperly recognized revenue from the foregoing sales to
the two customers in Africa, in violation of the Company's stated
revenue recognition policy; (4) as a result, the Company's
revenue and financial results were overstated, and the Company
misrepresented the progress of the rollout of the new Home Alert
product line, as well as the true demand for the new product
line; (5) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"); (6) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements and other statements about Axesstel's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move
the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or
contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at
(212) 682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com

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


BARRICK GOLD: Faces $6-Bil. Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that
Barrick Gold Corp. has been named in a proposed shareholders
class action lawsuit that seeks $6-billion in damages because the
company allegedly failed to make timely disclosure of problems at
its Pascua-Lama mine in South America.

"Barrick misrepresented the progress and feasibility for
development and production at the Pascua-Lama mine, repeatedly
through the class period," the plaintiffs allege in a notice of
action filed on April 24 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in Toronto.

Lawsuits in Ontario usually begin with the filing of a legal
document called a statement of claim. Filing a notice of action
officially launches the case, but also gives plaintiffs more time
to follow up with more detailed allegations in the statement of
claim.

The document filed on April 24 contains allegations that have not
been proven in court.  "The company is aware that a notice of
action has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Barrick disputes the allegations, and will defend itself against
any lawsuit vigorously," the company said in an emailed statement
late on April 24.

Plaintiffs have filed similar securities class actions against
Barrick over Pascua-Lama in the U.S. federal courts.  The company
has denied the allegations in the U.S. claims.

In an interview with the Financial Post on April 24, Barrick
chairman Peter Munk was asked what went wrong at Pascua-Lama.
His response: "Everything."

According to the document filed in the Ontario court, Barrick
said in 2009 that construction of the mine would cost between
$2.8-billion and $3-billion.  That estimate was increased several
times in the following years, eventually settling on a figure of
$8.5-billion in late 2012.

Costs weren't the only challenge at Pascua-Lama, a massive gold
deposit located underneath glaciers in the Andes mountains on the
border between Chile and Argentina.  The Chilean government
approved construction of the mine in 2006, but held Barrick to
hundreds of conditions regarding the environment.  On April 10,
2013, an appellate court in Chile ordered Barrick to halt
construction of the project due to environmental infractions.

Barrick announced at the end of June 2013 it would take an after-
tax writedown of up to $5.5-billion related to Pascua-Lama.
Then, on Oct. 31, the company said that it would suspend Pascua-
Lama indefinitely, and that it would revive the project only if
it found a cheaper way to proceed.

The court filing notes that immediately after Barrick announced
it would pull the plug on Pascua-Lama, the company announced a
$3-billion share offering and said the proceeds would be used to
pay down debt, strengthen the balance sheet, and pay for ongoing
operating and capital costs of its mines.  "In short," the
Ontario court filing alleges, "the costs of the Pascua-Lama
project had become so significant that Barrick was raising
capital from public markets."

The plaintiffs intend to make a standard legal argument that is
raised in securities class actions: The company allegedly made
misrepresentations that inflated the price of its securities
beyond the amount investors would have paid had they heard the
full story.

"Barrick owed a duty to class members to ensure the accuracy of
public statements," the filing alleges.  "The plaintiff and the
class members relied on the misrepresentations to their
detriment."

The suit, which has yet to be certified as a class action by an
Ontario court, would be open to investors who acquired Barrick
securities from May 7, 2009, which was the day the company
announced that it would begin construction of Pascua-Lama and
Nov. 1, 2013, which was the day after Barrick said it would
indefinitely suspend the project.

The lawsuit names as defendants the company and former chief
executive Aaron Regent, current CEO Jamie Sokalsky, chief
financial officer Ammar Al-Joundi and former chief operating
officer Peter Kinver.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kirk Baert and Celeste Poltak
-- cpoltak@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto and Jay
Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP in Windsor.


BAXTER INT'L: Provisionally Settled Suit for $64-Mil in Jan.
------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2014, Baxter International Inc., provisionally settled
with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64 million, in the
complaint alleging conspiracy to restrict output and artificially
increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain
of the company's current and former executive officers and its
board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of
the company and issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the
company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its
heparin product, and other quality issues. Plaintiffs allege
these actions damaged the company and its shareholders by
resulting in a decline in stock price in the second quarter of
2010, payment of excess compensation to the board of directors
and certain of the company's current and former executive
officers, and other damage to the company. In August 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reinstated a
consolidated derivative suit filed in the U.S.D.C. for the
Northern District of Illinois that had earlier been dismissed by
the district court in September 2012. In January 2014, an
independent special litigation committee was established by the
company's board of directors to determine whether it is in the
best interests of the company and its shareholders to pursue or
otherwise resolve the claims raised in and arising from this
matter. Two other derivative actions have been filed in state
court: one pending in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois
has been stayed pending the outcome of the federal action and
another, in Delaware Chancery Court, that Baxter has moved to
dismiss. In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is
pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois
against the company and certain of its current executive officers
seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock and the
parties are currently proceeding with discovery. In April 2013,
the company filed its opposition to the plaintiff's motion to
certify a class action.

The company is a defendant, along with others, in a number of
lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C.
for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and
certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and
artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since
2003. Some of the complaints attempt to state a claim for class
action relief and some cases demand treble damages. In January
2012, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss certain
federal claims brought by indirect purchasers and returned the
remaining indirect purchaser claims to the court of original
jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California)
in August 2012. The indirect purchaser complaint was amended to
remove class action allegations in May 2013. In January 2014, the
company provisionally settled with the direct purchaser
plaintiffs for $64 million, pending final approval of the
settlement by the court which is anticipated in the first half of
2014. As of December 31, 2013, the company has a litigation
reserve to cover the settlement.

Baxter International Inc. (Baxter,) is a global, diversified
healthcare company. Baxter, through its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives
of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases,
kidney disease, trauma, and other chronic and acute medical
conditions. The Company operated in two segments: BioScience and
Medication Delivery. It is engaged in the medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide. These products are used by hospitals,
kidney dialysis centers, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers,
doctors' offices, clinical and medical research laboratories, and
by patients at home under physician supervision. Baxter
manufactures products in 27 countries and sells the products in
more than 100 countries. In September 2013, Baxter International
Inc completed the acquisition of Gambro AB.


BP EXPLORATION: Removed "Karen's Seafood" Suit to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Karen's Seafood Market, et al. v. BP
Exploration & Production Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-76655, was
removed from the 295th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Houston).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:14-cv-00425 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs' petition states a claim under the federal Oil
Pollution Act of 1990.  The OPA-covered injuries for which the
Plaintiffs seek compensation include loss of profits or
impairment of earning capacity, loss of subsistence use of
natural resources, and damages for injury to, or economic losses
resulting from destruction of, real or personal property.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent Wayne Coon, Esq.
          BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES PC
          215 Orleans
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 835-2666
          Facsimile: (409) 833-4025
          E-mail: brent@bcoonlaw.com

The BP Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas W. Taylor, Esq.
          Georgia L. Lucier, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          600 Travis, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 220-4200
          Facsimile: (713) 220-4285
          E-mail: ttaylor@andrewskurth.com
                  glucier@andrewskurth.com

               - and -

          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          J. Andrew Langan, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: richard.godfrey@kirkland.com
                  andrew.langan@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Esq.
          Dominic E. Draye, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: jeffrey.clark@kirkland.com
                  dominic.draye@kirkland.com

The Transocean Defendants are represented by:

          John M. Elsley, Esq.
          ROYSTON RAYZOR
          711 Louisiana, Suite 500
          Houston, TX 77002-2716
          Telephone: (713) 224-8380
          Facsimile: (713) 225-9945
          E-mail: john.elsley@roystonlaw.com

Defendants Halliburton Energy Services and Sperry Drilling
Services are represented by:

          Donald Everett Godwin, Esq.
          GODWIN LEWIS PC
          1201 Elm St., Suite 1700
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Telephone: (214) 939-4400
          Facsimile: (214) 760-7332
          E-mail: Don.Godwin@GodwinLewis.com


BP PRODUCTS: Faces Consolidated Class Action Over Petroleum Coke
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellyn Fortino, writing for Progress Illinois, reports that as the
debate over petroleum coke stored on Chicago's Southeast Side
rages on, a consolidated class action lawsuit has been filed in
federal court against BP and various companies -- including three
connected to the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and
David Koch -- for failing to contain mounds of the gritty
material.

The class action complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on April 7, is consolidated with
two other lawsuits brought last year by Southeast Side Chicagoans
against BP, which produces petroleum coke, or petcoke, in its oil
refining process, as well as several companies that house the
powdery substance in the city.

The 10 Chicagoans named as plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit
brought the complaint on behalf of themselves and a class
estimated to be comprised of thousands of property owners located
near the large petcoke piles on the city's Southeast Side.

Petcoke, which can pollute the air and water, is being stored
outside along the banks of the Calumet River.  Residents who live
near the three Southeast Side petcoke storage facilities -- two
maintained by North Dakota-based KCBX Terminals Company and one
operated by Indiana-based Beemsterboer Slag Corp. -- say black
ash dust from the uncovered petcoke piles is blowing into their
communities and covering their homes.

"Petcoke is dangerous to property, as it is highly flammable and
explosive, and can be ignited by heat," the complaint reads.
"The expenditure of time and money washing and rinsing the
exterior and interior of homes, furnishings, vehicles and other
real and personal property has been required to prevent
potentially hazardous aggregations of petcoke."

The three suits were consolidated "because if this is going to be
resolved in any meaningful way, we needed to get every (company)
who was a major participant in the creating [of the] situation to
be at the table," said Robert Pavich with Pavich Law Group, P.C.,
one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case.

The defendants in the case are:

- BP Products North America, Inc

- Calumet Transload Railroad, LLC

- DTE Chicago Fuels Terminal, LLC

- George J. Beemsterboer, Inc.

- Beemsterboer Slag And Ballast Corporation

- KCBX Terminals Company

- KM Railways, LLC

- Koch Carbon, LLC

KCBX, KM Railways and Koch Carbon are subsidiaries of the
privately held Wichita, Kansas-based Koch Industries Inc., a
massive American multinational corporation run by the billionaire
Koch brothers.

The petcoke mounds piled along the banks of the Calumet River
were largely transported there from the BP refinery in Whiting,
Indiana, which is the same facility that malfunctioned last month
and spilled an estimated 39 barrels of oil into Lake Michigan.

According to the suit, BP generally stores the eqivalent of about
five days' production of petcoke at its Whiting refinery.  After
roughly five days, the petcoke produced at the refinery is
transported to the Chicago storage facilities, which also take in
petcoke from other sources, the complaint reads.

Another attorney representing the plaintiffs, Ian Levin, also
with the Pavich Law Group and a former U.S. magistrate judge,
noted that the stored petcoke often gets shipped to markets
overseas in places like China, India and Mexico.  The material is
commonly used as a fuel source in power plants and is a component
in the aluminum, steel and cement making process.

BP is named as one of the defendants in the case because, among
other reasons, it "knew or reasonably should have known that the
storage/distribution defendants were not taking, and would not
take, reasonable and adequate measures to ensure that petcoke
being stored at the storage facilities would not migrate into
surrounding communities and contaminate the properties of
plaintiffs and class members," the lawsuit states.

Mr. Levin said the plaintiffs are suing for punitive damages,
"which is to punish the wrongdoer and defer further wrongdoing."
The families are also seeking injunctive relief, including
barring the companies from distributing, storing and transporting
the material near the densely-populated residential area.

Mr. Pavich said the goal of the suit is to get some relief for
the people living on the city's Southeast Side, who for some time
now have said the petcoke dust is making their lives unbearable.


BRINK'S INC: Removed "Stafford" Class Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Miko Stafford v. Brink's
Incorporated, et al., Case No. BC532260, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
01352-MWF-PLA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL APC
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP APC
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
          Beth A. Gunn, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletreedeakins.com
                  beth.gunn@ogletreedeakins.com


CARGILL INC: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor M. Villasenor, as an individual, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cargill, Incorporated, a Delaware
Corporation; and Does 1 22 through 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-01328-
BRO-PJW (C.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is brought to recover
unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the California Business and Professions Code and the California
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 1-2001.

Based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, Cargill, Incorporated is a
multinational corporation and the largest privately held
corporation in the United States by revenue. Cargill owns and
operates various business enterprises, including businesses
specializing in asset management, agricultural commodities
trading, and industrial food processing.  Cargill has locations
all around the globe, with multiple locations throughout
California, including a facility in Vernon, California, where the
Plaintiff worked, that processes meat and produces vegetable
oils.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities
of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          BOREN OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
          5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 937-9900
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9910
          E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
                  fschmidt@bollaw.com

               - and -

          Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.
          Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq.
          BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
          1411 Marsh Street Suite 102
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 322-3412
          Facsimile: (805) 322-3413
          E-mail: hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com
                  efb@bbemploymentlaw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Drops Fight on Customer Class-Action Ban
--------------------------------------------------------
Jed Horowitz and Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Reuters, report
Charles Schwab Corp. has dropped a fight to require customers to
waive their rights to participate in class action lawsuits, the
company said on April 24.

Schwab, the San Francisco-based pioneer discount brokerage, has
agreed to pay $500,000 to the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority for violating the group's arbitration rules when it
barred clients in 2011 from joining class actions.  It had more
than 6.8 million clients then, and now has more than 9 million.

In 2013, a FINRA hearing panel said Schwab's class-action ban was
valid under the Federal Arbitration Act, even though the ban
violated the group's own rules.  On April 24, FINRA's board
overturned that finding, determining that the federal act does
not preclude FINRA from enforcing its rules.

"We are pleased to resolve this dispute with FINRA, and to put to
rest any client concerns on this issue," Schwab said in an e-
mailed statement that noted it has removed the waiver from its
account agreements.

"Over the last year, we heard clearly that a number of our
clients and members of the general public have strong feelings
about maintaining access to class-action lawsuits.  In a business
like ours where our reputation and public trust are key to our
success, we take perspectives like those very seriously."

Schwab could have fought the decision in court but decided it was
more expedient to settle, said people familiar with its decision.
It also failed to rally support from other companies in the
securities industry, despite their long-held opposition to
litigating in courts rather than in arbitration.

"We believed, and still believe, that FINRA arbitration is the
best means for investors to resolve disputes with their brokerage
firm, but we will maintain their access to class action lawsuits
should they prefer that option," Schwab said.

Plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer advocates, who have been waging
an unsuccessful fight against a range of class-action waiver
agreements in other types of consumer contracts, had rallied
support among Schwab clients.  They argued that arbitration cases
are often too expensive for small investors to bring on their
own, and that public court cases can shine light on abusive sales
practices while FINRA arbitrations are private.

"It's a huge victory for investors," said Christine Hines,
consumer and civil justice counsel at watchdog group Public
Citizen, which organized a public campaign to oppose the Schwab
waivers and mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.

"I think other brokerage firms will be deterred from including
class action waivers in their contracts," Ms. Hines said.

"Schwab overreached," said Joseph Peiffer, a lawyer in New
Orleans who represents investors.

The FINRA appeals panel also upheld the hearing panel's rejection
of Schwab's attempt to prohibit clients from participating in
group arbitrations.

Critics of class-action cases argue that are often frivolous, and
that settlements often yield very low sums to each plaintiff
while generating hefty fees for lawyers.

Schwab's attempt to ban customer class-action lawsuits followed
its $235 million settlement of a class action charging it misled
thousands of clients about its YieldPlus money-market fund, which
had huge losses during the financial crisis in 2008.


CLEARVIEW CLEANING: Removed "Jean" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jean v. Clearview Cleaning
Contractors of Broward County, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-14-
001835-03, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-60440-JAL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, Fl 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrea Rosenblum Bernstein, Esq.
          FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A.
          Northbridge Centre
          515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 2100
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 802-9044
          Facsimile: (561) 802-9976
          E-mail: abernstein@fowler-white.com


COTY INC: Faces "Carey" Suit Over Initial Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------
Norman C. Carey, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Coty Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01107 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb 21, 2014), alleges that the defendant filed false and
misleading registration statement filed with the SEC on Form S-
1/A and prospectus filed with the SEC on Form 424(b)(4), with
respect to the Company's initial public offering of 57,142,857
million shares of common stock at a price of $17.50 per share,
for proceeds of nearly $1 billion.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

Coty Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 350 Fifth Avenue,
New York, New York 10118.  Coty Inc. is a global beauty products
manufacturer founded in Paris, France in 1904.  Its main products
are fragrances, color cosmetics and skin & body care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CPG INT'L: "Glodo" Suit Transferred From Illinois to New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Glodo, et al. v. CPG
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00402, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Newark).  The New Jersey District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01135-KM-MCA to the proceeding.

The case asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND GROVES SCHNELLER & STOLZE LLC
          300 N. Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com
                  scrompton@allfela.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

               - and -

          John R. Climaco, Esq.
          John A. Peca, Esq.
          CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI-CLEVELAND
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
          E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com
                  japeca@climacolaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Joseph Arsenault, Esq.
          NEBLETT, BEARD AND ARSENAULT
          P.O. Box 1190
          2220 Bonaventure Court
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Telephone: (318) 487-9874
          Facsimile: (318) 561-2591
          E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Troy A. Bozarth, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC - EDWARDSVILLE
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-0184
          Facsimile: (618) 656-1364
          E-mail: tbozarth@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Dalton
          BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          550 Broad Street, Suite 810
          Newark, NJ 07102-4599
          Telephone: (973) 273-9800
          Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
          E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com

               - and -

          Mackenzie A. Baird, Esq.
          BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          301 Grant Street
          One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
          Telephone: (412) 562-1825
          Facsimile: (412) 562-1041
          E-mail: mackenzie.baird@bipc.com

               - and -

          Holly P. Smith, Esq.
          Molly S. Carella, Esq.
          Paul A. Williams, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON, L.L.P
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: hpsmith@shb.com
                  mcarella@shb.com
                  pwilliams@shb.com

               - and -

          Russell K. Scott, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE PC - SWANSEA
          12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100
          Swansea, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 257-7308
          E-mail: rks@greensfelder.com

Interested Parties Mel Beucler, Michael Esposito, John Edmonds,
Kathleen Dalpiaz, Michael Fennell, Barbara Derwich, Daniel
Berkowitz, Kevin Mayhew and Dr. Adam Niedelman are represented
by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com


CVS PHARMACY: "Granzella" Discrimination Suit Moved to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Granzella, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy
Inc., et al., Case No. 34-02013-00156661, from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Sacramento).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-00518-KJM-DAD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges disability discrimination under California's
Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark P. Velez, Esq.
          Karen Asplund Velez, Esq.
          Kellen Michael Crowe, Esq.
          THE VELEZ LAW FIRM
          PO Box 433
          6940 Destiny Drive
          Rocklin, CA 95677
          Telephone: (916) 774-2720
          Facsimile: (916) 774-2730
          E-mail: velezlaw@live.com
                  karenesq@sbcglobal.net
                  kellen.crowe@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
          Johanna R. Carney, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com
                  jcarney@littler.com

               - and -

          Michael Gerald Leggieri, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 830-7244
          Facsimile: (916) 561-0828
          E-mail: mleggieri@littler.com


DANIYAL ENTERPRISES: Sued for Violating FLSA and NJWHL
------------------------------------------------------
Afzaal Ahmad v. Daniyal Enterprises LLC, et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01142 (D.N.J., February 21, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New Jersey State Wage and
Hour Law, N.J.S.A 34:11-56a et seq.

Daniyal Enterprises LLC, is a company that services vehicles for
gas stations located in Oradell, Bergen County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
     JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
     168 Franklin Corner Road
     Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
     Telephone: (201) 687-9977
     Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
     E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     James M. Turteltaub, Esq.
     CARLIN & WARS, P.C.
     25A Vreeland Road, 751
     Florham Park, NJ 07932
     Telephone: (973) 377-3350
     Facsimile: (973) 377-5626
     E-mail: turteltaub@carlinward.com


EAST COAST ASSEMBLERS: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Shad" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Shad, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v.
East Coast Assemblers, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01141 (E.D.N.Y. Feb
21, 2014) results from the Defendant's alleged breach to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA),that the employees including the
Plaintiff claimed that they are entitled to unpaid wages for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium
pay, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and cost.

East Coast Assemblers Inc. is a Foreign Profit Corporation
engaged in business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Telephone: (954) 318-0268
     Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
     E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Roller" Suit Over Lidoderm Patch
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Roller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.;
Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Watson
Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis PLC; Anda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
Anda, Inc., and Valmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00792-JSW (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is asserted on behalf of
all end-payors, who indirectly purchased, reimbursed, or
otherwise paid for the lidocaine 5% patch, sold by Endo under the
brand name Lidoderm in the United States.

Lidoderm is the brand name for the prescription drug lidocaine
patch 5% manufactured by Teikoku Seiyaku and marketed by Endo
Pharmaceuticals.  Lidoderm is a pain patch for the treatment of
pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia.  The Plaintiff
seeks overcharge damages and other relief for the Defendants'
alleged anticompetitive scheme of illegally delaying the
availability of less expensive generic versions of Lidoderm and
injunctive relief for the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct.

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania.  Endo markets and
sells Lidoderm in the United States.  The Defendants manufacture,
market or sell Lidoderm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Ryan J. McEwan, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
          Amanda M. Friedman, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com
                  afriedman@kkbs-law.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com
                  cdirksen@gbcslaw.com


ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Correction Officers Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Davis and Jeda Austin, individually, v. Essex County, Case
No. 2:14-cv-01122-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., February 21, 2014) alleges
that during relevant time periods, the Defendant willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees for all of
their overtime hours.

The Plaintiffs perform their duties as Correction Officers at the
Defendant's Essex County Juvenile Detention Center located in
Newark, New Jersey, which is the Defendant's county seat.

Essex County is a county located in the state of New Jersey.  The
County is charged with operation of the Juvenile Detention
Center.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Building 2, Suite 220
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Courtney M. Gaccione, Esq.
          ESSEX COUNTY COUNSEL
          Hall of Records-Room 535
          465 MLK Boulevard
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 621-2703
          E-mail: cgaccione@counsel.essexcountynj.org


FAMILYMEDS GROUP: June 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
DOCKET NO. CV-09-4045755-S
JUGAL K. TANEJA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

FAMILYMEDS GROUP, INC., ET AL,
Defendants.
SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
AT HARTFORD
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION
TO: ALL SHAREHOLDERS OF FAMILYMEDS GROUP, INC. STOCK AS OF
JANUARY 4, 2012. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ACTION DESCRIBED BELOW IS
NOT A "CLASS ACTION" AND FAMILYMEDS SHAREHOLDERS WILL NOT RECEIVE
PRO RATA COMPENSATION AS A RESULT OF THIS SETTLEMENT, WHICH IS
BEING SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL PURSUANT TO CONNECTICUT
GENERAL STATUTES Sec. 33-725.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties in the above-captioned
shareholder derivative action have entered into a Settlement
Agreement, dated February 21, 2014.  The terms of the proposed
settlement of the Action are set forth in the Agreement, and
accordingly, this Notice should be read in conjunction with, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the
Agreement.  You may review the Agreement, the complete Notice,
and related pleadings online via the following link:
https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6d628d61606daf9ea6

On June 9, 2014, at 11:30 a.m., a hearing will be held before the
Superior Court for the State of Connecticut, 95 Washington
Street, Hartford, CT 06103.

IF YOU WERE A SHAREHOLDER OF FAMILYMEDS STOCK AS OF JANUARY 4,
2012, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ACTION.
Any shareholder of Familymeds who objects to the settlement of
the Action shall have a right to appear and be heard at the
Settlement Hearing, provided that he or she was a shareholder of
record as of January 4, 2012.  No shareholder of Familymeds shall
be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than fourteen
(14) days before the Settlement Hearing, such shareholder has
filed with the Court and delivered to Plaintiffs' counsel,
counsel for the Company, and counsel for the individual
defendants, a written notice of objection, their grounds for
objecting to the Settlement, and proof of their status as a
shareholder.  Only shareholders who have filed and delivered
validly and timely written notices of objection will be entitled
to be heard at the Settlement Hearing.  Written notice of
objection to the Agreement should be served on counsel for all
parties to this action, whose addresses may be found in the
notice posted online at the link above.


FOREVER HARDSCAPE: Fails to Pay for OT Work , "Alvarez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Alvarez and Arturo Alvarez on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v.
Forever Hardscape, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-01327 (N.D. Ill.,
February 21, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to pay for overtime wages for all time work in excess of
40 hours in individual workweeks to the laborers, including the
Plaintiff.

Forever Hardscapes, Inc., is an Illinois corporation located in
Westpoint, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     David Erik Stevens, Esq.
     Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
     Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 419-1008
     Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
     E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             dstevens@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Removed "Rodoco" Suit to S.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Industries, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit titled
Rodoco, Inc, Almost Heaven Burgers, Inc., Hargis Unlimited, LLC,
Melanie Martin, Megan Spears, Syrra Salon LLC, Paul Kirk, v.
Freedom Industries, Inc., West Virginia American Water Company,
Case No. 14-C-97, from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-ap-02011 to the proceeding.

Freedom Industries filed a voluntary petition in the Court for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on January 17,
2014, as a result of an incident that occurred on January 9,
2014, involving one of its storage tanks located at its
Charleston facility.

The Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory damages for their
alleged bodily injuries and economic losses arising from the
Incident.  The Plaintiffs allege claims against Freedom based on
these theories: (i) negligence; (ii) medical monitoring; (iii)
nuisance; and (iv) trespass and battery.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael O. Callaghan, Esq.
          NEELY & CALLAGHAN
          159 Summers Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 343-6500
          Facsimile: (304) 343-6528
          E-mail: mcallaghan@neelycallaghan.com

               - and -

          Jana Eisinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JANA EISINGER, PLLC
          11 West Prospect Avenue
          Mount Vernon, NY 10550
          Telephone: (914) 418-4111
          E-mail: jeisinger@eisingerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Frank Petosa, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3018
          E-mail: fpetosa@forthepeople.com

The Defendant Freedom Industries, Inc. is represented by:

          Mark E. Freedlander, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          625 Liberty Ave, 23rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 667-7928
          Facsimile: (412) 667-7967
          E-mail: mfreedlander@mcguirewoods.com

Defendant West Virginia American Water Company is represented by:

          A. L. Emch, Esq.
          JACKSON & KELLY PLLC
          1600 Laidley Tower
          P.O. Box 553
          Charleston, WV 25322
          Telephone: (304) 340-1212
          E-mail: aemch@jacksonkelly.com


FRESH DEL MONTE: Court Affirmed Verdict Against Subsidiary
----------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Court of Appeals on January 2, 2014, affirmed the
judgments against a subsidiary of Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s
in a class action complaint for unpaid wages, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 27, 2013.

In December 2007, a class action complaint was filed against one
of our subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria
Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce
N.A., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. On
October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our
subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs
consistent with the jury verdict. On January 2, 2014, the Oregon
Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments. Our subsidiary is
appealing the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme
Court and has accrued $2.2 million in reserve pending the outcome
of the appeal.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (Fresh Del Monte) is a holding
company. The Company is a producer, marketer and distributor of
fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and distributor of
prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in
Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The Company markets its
products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. It sources its
fresh produce products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes,
grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries,
citrus, avocados, blueberries and kiwi) primarily from Central
and South America, Africa, the Philippines, North America and
Europe. The Company sources its prepared food products primarily
from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Its products are
sourced from company-owned operations, through joint venture
arrangements and through supply contracts with independent
producers. It distributes its products in North America, Europe,
Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Complaint Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in a Hawaii class action involving Fresh Del Monte
Produce Inc., is fully briefed and remains pending, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 27, 2013.

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain
of our U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in Hawaii.
On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our U.S.
subsidiaries named in the action without ties to Hawaii. At a
hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of our remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii,
holding that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-
barred. A final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and
terminating the action was entered on July 28, 2010. On August
24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is
fully briefed and remains pending.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. (Fresh Del Monte) is a holding
company. The Company is a producer, marketer and distributor of
fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and distributor of
prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in
Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The Company markets its
products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. It sources its
fresh produce products (bananas, pineapples, melons, tomatoes,
grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries,
citrus, avocados, blueberries and kiwi) primarily from Central
and South America, Africa, the Philippines, North America and
Europe. The Company sources its prepared food products primarily
from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Its products are
sourced from company-owned operations, through joint venture
arrangements and through supply contracts with independent
producers. It distributes its products in North America, Europe,
Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America.


GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Bethel Residents File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Suzanna Caldwell, writing for Alaska Dispatch, reports that four
Bethel residents have filed a class action suit against General
Communications Inc. contending that, among other things, the
company misrepresented the service it provides to customers in
rural Alaska.

The plaintiffs claim that the telecommunications company, known
in Alaska as GCI, sought to enroll thousands of new subscribers
in wireless, smartphone and data plan services through statewide
marketing campaigns, all of which fell short of advertised
promises.

The complaint, filed in Bethel court on April 22, contends that
thousands of customers in the region have suffered dropped calls,
an inability to connect in placing calls, unreceived calls, data
plans that are virtually useless and a "cumbersome" customer
service policy that requires subscribers to petition GCI for
credit each time an attempted communication fails.

The filing is the latest in what attorney David Henderson said is
a growing movement in the Bethel region.  He said hundreds of
people have been posting in Bethel groups on Facebook complaining
about cell phone service in the area.

"GCI is telling people when they sign up that they're going to
provide data, but 'by the way, just so you know, it's not going
to work,'" he said from Bethel on April 24.  "If a company went
out and sold a product that didn't work, it would be fraud."

He said when the company acquired United Utilities -- the
previous cell service provider in the region -- in 2008, the
infrastructure was set to accommodate 1,500 users.  Mr. Henderson
suspects that after GCI's purchase, 5,000 people were signed up
in the first year for wireless services in the region -- well
above what the system could handle, which contributed to the
problems.

More than 6,000 people live in Bethel, the hub community of the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, with another 56 smaller villages in the
region.

GCI spokesperson David Morris did not have specific numbers on
April 24 on how many people currently have service in the region,
or how many people the system can reasonably accommodate.

GCI's Mr. Morris couldn't speak directly to the lawsuit, since
the company had not yet been served with it as of April 24.  But
he said the company has invested heavily in rural Alaska,
building infrastructure literally from the ground up in most
cases.  In recent years GCI has spent $200 million connecting
satellite systems to terrestrial systems in Bethel, Nome and
Kotzebue to improve communications.

Last summer the company launched 3G data service in Dillingham, a
rural hub for the Bristol Bay region.  Mr. Morris said GCI is
planning to launch 3G service in Bethel and 10 surrounding
communities in the coming weeks.  It's also waiting for Federal
Communications Commission approval to expand 3G and 4G
capabilities to 48 rural and urban Alaska communities.

While the company understands the concerns of Bethel residents,
he said, it is working against trying to invest in rural Alaska
versus concentrated population centers that are easier to serve.
He said GCI has invested in rural Alaska during a time when
others have either scaled back or refused to expand at all.

"If service isn't where we would like it to be, it's just (that)
we're working on it," he said.  "It just takes time and money to
install some of this extremely advanced communication in rural
Alaska."


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bender" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Bender v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00134-TLS-
RBC (N.D. Ind., May 1, 2014) argues that in making the decision
to cover up the ignition switch defect in its vehicles for at
least a decade, GM consciously put millions of Americans' lives
at risk.

General Motors is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.  The Company manufactures and
distributes the alleged Defective Vehicles from its Michigan
manufacturing plants to consumers in Kentucky and throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          Marion E. Taylor Building
          312 South Fourth Street, 6th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Powell" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Powell v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00963-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, May 2, 2014) involves the Defendant's alleged
conscious decision to overlook, and in fact conceal, a deadly
design defect in vehicle ignition switches in millions of GM
vehicles placed on the road since 2003.

General Motors is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.  The Company manufactures and
distributes the alleged Defective Vehicles from its Michigan
manufacturing plants to consumers in Kentucky and throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle L. Kranz, Esq.
          ZOLL, KRANZ & BORGESS,LLC
          6620 W. Central Ave., Suite 100
          Toledo, OH 43617
          Telephone: (419) 841-9623
          Facsimile: (419) 841-9719
          E-mail: michelle@toledolaw.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          Marion E. Taylor Building
          312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip R. Arnold and Patrick C. Painter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC;
General Motors Holding, LLC; Delphi Automotive PLC; and DPH-DAS
LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02882
(N.D. Ill., April 22, 2014) alleges that an estimated 2.6 million
vehicles were sold in the United States, including many sold in
Illinois, equipped with the alleged defective ignition switches.

The Plaintiffs contend that there are also other vehicles sold in
the United States, including in Illinois, equipped with the
Ignition Switches that have not yet been disclosed by GM.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.  General Motors Corporation and its successor
in interest General Motors LLC were engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing,
warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing
automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout Illinois and all
of the United States.

Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom,
and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which
is headquartered in Troy, Michigan.  Delphi began as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was
launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          Kristofer S. Riddle, Esq.
          120 N. LaSalle, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com
                  ksr@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          G. Patrick Murphy, Esq.
          Patricia S. Murphy, Esq.
          3415 Office Park Drive, Suite D
          Marion, IL 62959
          Telephone: (618) 248-3236
          E-mail: gpatrick@murphymurphyllc.com
                  trisha@murphymurphyllc.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Gebremariam" Suit Over Defective Switches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesafint Gebremariam, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-
00627-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2014) alleges that since at
least model year 2013, GM has designed, manufactured, promoted,
marketed and sold defective vehicles throughout the United
States, including the state of California, that pose known and
significant dangers to unsuspecting drivers, passengers,
pedestrians, and the other motorists and cars on the road.

GM is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM was incorporated in 2009, and
on July 10, 2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed
certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary E. Alexander, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Fiore, Esq.
          MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4440
          Facsimile: (415) 433-5440
          E-mail: malexander@maryalexanderlaw.com
                  jiore@maryalexanderlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Detton" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah and Jeff Detton, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. General Motors LLC and Delphi Automotive
PLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00500-MJR-PMF (S.D. Ill., April 30, 2014)
alleges that GM, one of the largest automakers in the U.S., and
Delphi, one of GM's key parts suppliers, risked the lives of
millions of consumers by choosing to conceal a dangerous defect
in the design of the ignition switches installed in millions of
GM vehicles, all in an attempt to drive home profits.

General Motors LLC is incorporated in Delaware with its principal
executive offices located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM was
incorporated in 2009 and, on July 10, 2009, acquired
substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of Old
GM.  GM designed, manufactured, and marketed the Vehicles at
issue.

Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom
and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which
is headquartered in Troy, Michigan.  Delphi began as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Old GM until it was launched as an
independent publicly-held corporation in 1999.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Randy L. Gori, Esq.
          Jean Maguire, Esq.
          GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          156 N. Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  randy@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jmaguire@gorijulianlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick C. Cooper, Esq.
          WARD & WILSON LLC
          2100A Southbridge Parkway, Suite 580
          Birmingham, AL 35209


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "LaReine" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lianne LaReine, Marguerite Chandler, James Evans, Bonita Lagoe,
Lea Jordanides and Yvonne E. Rodriguez, individually and as class
representatives on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
General Motors LLC, and Delphi Automotive PLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03112-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2014) alleges that GM has sold
more than two million vehicles that have a serious safety defect.

Millions of GM vehicles have defective "ignition switch torque
performance," which means the vehicle's ignition switch may move
out of the "run" position, turning off the engine and most of the
electrical components on the vehicle and causing air bags not to
deploy depending on the time that the ignition moved out of the
"run" position, the Plaintiffs contend.

General Motors LLC is a foreign limited liability company formed
under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM was incorporated in 2009 and on
July 10, 2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed
certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation.

Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom,
and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which
is headquartered in Troy, Michigan.  Delphi began as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was
launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Lester L. Levy, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: llevy@wolfpopper.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Salazar III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Motors LLC; General Motors Company;
General Motors Holding, LLC; Delphi Automotive PLC; and DPH-DAS
LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00362-
FB (W.D. Tex., April 21, 2014) arises from the alleged defective
ignition switches manufactured by Delphi and installed in GM's
vehicles.

Because of defects in their design, the Ignition Switches
installed in the Class Vehicles are, by their nature, loose and
improperly positioned and are susceptible to failure during
normal and expected conditions, Mr. Salazar asserts.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.  General Motors Company is a
Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Detroit.  General
Motors Corporation and its successors in interest General Motors
LLC and General Motors Company were engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing,
warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing
automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United
States.

Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom,
and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which
is headquartered in Troy, Michigan.  Delphi began as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was
launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010-3027
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  csf@caddellchapman.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amberlynn I. Villa, Jack Cohen, Helen Bell, Caitlyn Armstrong,
and Frank Keenan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. General Motors, LLC, General Motors Corporation,
Delphi Automotive PLC, and DPH-DAS LLC (f/k/a Delphi Automotive
Systems, LLC), Case No. 2:14-cv-02548-JCJ (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2014)
arises from the manufacture and sale of millions of defective
vehicles that are unsafe to drive because:

   (a) the vehicles' ignition switches can spontaneously switch,
       or be inadvertently switched, into the "off" or
       "accessory" position during normal and expected vehicle
       operation, thereby, immediately turning off the engine;
       and

   (b) the vehicles' ignition lock cylinders can fail to secure
       the ignition key while the ignition switch is in the "on"
       position, resulting in key removal while the engine is
       running.

General Motors Corporation was a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.  The Corporation through its
various entities designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed
and sold Pontiac, Saturn, Chevrolet and other brand automobiles
in Pennsylvania and multiple other locations in the United States
and worldwide.  In 2009, General Motors Corporation filed for
bankruptcy, and substantially all of its assets were sold
pursuant to a Master Sales and Purchase Agreement to General
Motors, LLC.

General Motors, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with
its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.  At all relevant times,
General Motors Corporation and its successor in interest General
Motors, LLC, were engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting,
distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles,
including the Defective Vehicles, and other motor vehicles and
motor vehicle components throughout the United States.

Delphi Automotive, PLC, is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom,
and is the parent company of Defendant DPH-DAS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company formerly known as Delphi Automotive
Systems, LLC.  DPH-DAS, LLC, is headquartered in Troy, Michigan.
Delphi began as a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors
Corporation until it was launched as an independent publicly-held
corporation in 1999.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeanne A. Markey, Esq.
          Gary L. Azorsky, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          3 Logan Square
          1717 Arch St., Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 207-3477
          E-mail: jmarkey@cohenmilstein.com
                  gazorsky@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  kpierson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Diana L. Martin, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmartin@cohenmilstein.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Fugate" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jolene Fugate v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv-00071-ART
(E.D. Ky., May 2, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged
breach of its obligations and duties, including its failure to
disclose that, as a result of defective ignition switches, at
least 2.59 million GM vehicles (and almost certainly more) may
have the propensity to shut down during normal driving conditions
and create an extreme and unreasonable risk of accident, serious
bodily harm, and death.

Since at least 2003, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant has
sold millions of vehicles throughout the United States and
worldwide that have a safety defect causing the vehicle's
ignition switch to inadvertently move from the "run" position to
the "accessory" or "off" position during ordinary driving
conditions, resulting in a loss of power, vehicle speed control,
and braking, as well as a failure of the vehicle's airbags to
deploy.

General Motors is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.  The Company manufactures and
distributes the alleged Defective Vehicles from its Michigan
manufacturing plants to consumers in Kentucky and throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          Marion E. Taylor Building
          312 South Fourth Street, 6th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Elliott" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. General Motors LLC; General Motors Holding, LLC;
Delphi Automotive PLC; and DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive
Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-11982-WGY (D. Mass., May 1, 2014)
is brought on behalf of all similarly situated persons, who
purchased or leased certain vehicles manufactured, distributed,
or sold by GM with defective ignition switches manufactured by
Delphi.

General Motors Corporation and its successor in interest General
Motors LLC were engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting,
distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles,
including the Class Vehicles, and other motor vehicles and motor
vehicle components throughout the United States.

Delphi Automotive PLC is headquartered in Kent, United Kingdom,
and is the parent company of Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which
is headquartered in Troy, Michigan.  Delphi began as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was
launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in 1999.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Greene, Esq.
          Michael Tabb, Esq.
          GREENE LLP
          One Liberty Square, Suite 1200
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 261-0040
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6559
          E-mail: tgreene@greenellp.com
                  matabb@greenellp.com

               - and -

          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212)-558-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5466
          E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
                  jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Removed "Di Cillo" Suit to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. removed the purported class action lawsuit
titled Di Cillo v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-14-
536601, from the San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
00810-SI to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of all California
consumers, who purchased these creatine products from GNC: GNC
Pro Performance Creatine Monohydrate, GNC Pro Performance AMP
Amplified Creatine, GNC Pro Performance Hybrid Creatine Complex,
GNC Pro Performance Creatine Complex Chew and GNC Pro Performance
Creatine Plus.  The Plaintiff seeks "damages, restitution and
injunctive relief" on behalf of the putative class.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          William James Newsom, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  wnewsom@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gordon W. Schmidt, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15237
          Telephone: (412) 667-6000
          E-mail: gschmidt@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Laura E. Coombe, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          E-mail: lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Energy Beverage et al. Sue Over Aluminum Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Beverage Management, LLC; Goldring Gulf Distributing
Company, LLC; Gulf Distributing Co. of Mobile, LLC; and Allstate
Beverage Company, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., GS Power
Holdings Llc, Metro International Trade Services LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-00082-WS-C (S.D. Ala., February 21, 2014) arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to limit and restrain the availability of aluminum
and artificially inflate the price of aluminum, including the
Midwest Transaction Premium, during the period of at least
January 1, 2009, through the present in violation of state
antitrust laws and common law.

Aluminum is the second most widely used metal in the world.
Aluminum is essential in packaging materials (e.g., beverage
cans), transportation (e.g., cars) and building and construction
materials (e.g., door frames and exterior siding).

According to the complaint, beverage bottlers and distributors,
including the Plaintiffs, are the second largest industrial users
of aluminum with approximately 100 billion aluminum beverage cans
produced in North America each year.  All U.S.-made beverage cans
are aluminum, representing 20% of all of the aluminum produced in
the world.

New York-based Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm
that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial
and diversified client base.  Through December 2012, Goldman
Sachs was the largest London Metal Exchange principal.  GS Power
Holdings LLC is a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.

Romulus, Michigan-based Metro International Trade Services LLC is
a global warehouse operator, specializing in the storage of non-
ferrous metals, including aluminum, for the LME.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Martino, Esq.
          TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C.
          51 Saint Joseph Street
          Post Office Box 894
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Telephone: (251) 433-3131
          Facsimile: (251) 405-5080
          E-mail: stevemartino@taylormartino.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Crose, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 E. 7th Street
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186
          E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
                  mmoreland@becnellaw.com
                  jcrose@becnellaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 581-0735
          Facsimile: (205) 380-9135
          E-mail: wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Direct Purchasers Amend Aluminum Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re
Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 13 MD2481
(KBF), filed on April 28, 2014, with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York a second corrected consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The amended complaint relates to
Direct Purchaser Cases.

In violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and State laws, the
Defendants have, from May 1, 2009, combined, conspired or agreed
with one another and other persons to inflate aluminum prices,
restrain aluminum supplies in LME Detroit Warehousing, and
provide extremely inefficient, low quality load out and other
services, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs are Ampal, Inc., Admiral Beverage, Central
Aluminum Company, Claridge Products and Equipment, Inc., Custom
Aluminum Products, Inc., Extruded Aluminum Corporation,
International Extrusions, Inc., Talan Products Inc. and Thule,
Inc.  The Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of aluminum.

The Defendants are The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., GS Power
Holdings LLC, MCEPF Metro I, Inc., Mitsi Holdings LLC, Metro
International Trade Services LLC, London Metal Exchange Limited,
LME Holdings Limited, Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing, Ltd.,
Glencore Xstrata, PLC, Pacorini Metals AG, Glencore Ltd.,
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Henry Bath & Son, Ltd., and Henry Bath LLC.
The Doe Defendants are other persons, who own warehouses, have
similar financial interests as the Defendants, are parties to the
contracts in restraint of trade as well as co-conspirators or
others who joined the combination, and have otherwise entered in
the agreement.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in New York.  Goldman Sachs is a leading global
investment banking, securities, and investment management firm
that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial
and diversified client base.  Goldman Sachs was a shareholder of
the LME during the Class Period, until the LME was acquired by
HMEx.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (212) 922-4851
          E-mail: ekallas@wdklaw.com
                  jwhatley@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          William T. Crowder, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer L. Crose, Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 W. Seventh St.
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (504) 756-4840
          Facsimile: (985) 536-1186
          E-mail: mmoreland@becnellaw.com
                  jcrose@becnellaw.com
                  mattmoreland@cox.net

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Craig M. Essenmacher, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          162 E. Main Street
          Northville, MI 48167
          Telephone: (248) 615-1752
          Facsimile: (248) 928-0909
          E-mail: cessenmacher@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Harold Z. Gurewitz, Esq.
          GUREWITZ & RABEN, PLC
          333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1400
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 628-4733
          Facsimile: (313) 628-4701
          E-mail: hgurewitz@grplc.com

               - and -

          James J. Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801-2599
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Alyson Louise Oliver, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW GROUP PC
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 200
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 327-6556
          Facsimile: (248) 436-3385
          E-mail: notifications@oliverlg.com

               - and -

          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          MILLER, FAUCHER AND CAFFERTY, L.L.P.
          30 North La Salle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Dean M. Googasian, Esq.
          Thomas H. Howlett, Esq.
          GOOGASIAN LAW FIRM
          6895 Telegraph Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138
          Telephone: (248) 540-3333
          Facsimile: (248) 540-7213
          E-mail: dgoogasian@googasian.com
                  thowlett@googasian.com

               - and -

          Joseph Richard Saveri, Esq.
          Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.
          505 Montgomery St. Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Martino, Esq.
          TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C.
          P.O. Box 894
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Telephone: (251) 433-3131
          Facsimile: (251) 433-4207
          E-mail: stevemartino@taylormartino.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
          BONSIGNORE, LLC
          193 Plummer Hill Road
          Belmont, NH 03220
          Telephone: (781) 856-7650
          E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER, LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: sbc@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          3550 IDS Center
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415)-956-1008
          E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Esq.
          Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
          Peter Dexter St. Philip, Jr., Esq.
          Raymond Peter Girnys, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: ghorn@lowey.com
                  glawrence@lowey.com
                  pstphillip@lowey.com
                  rgirnys@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com

               - and -

          Peter George Safirstein, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
          28 West 44th St., Suite 2001
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564-1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
          E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          John Paul Bjork, Esq.
          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 224-1500
          Facsimile: (312)-224-1510
          E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
                  jbjork@vaneklaw.com
                  jvanek@vaneklaw.com

The Goldman Sachs Defendants are represented by:

          Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq.
          Suhana S. Han, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP (NYC)
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-3493
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com
                  hans@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Mark Aaron Cunningham, Esq.
          JONES WALKER (NEW ORLEANS)
          Place St. Charles
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 5100
          New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
          Telephone: (504) 582-8536
          E-mail: mcunningham@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 581-0735
          Facsimile: (205) 380-9135
          E-mail: wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com

Defendant JP Morgan Chase & Co. is represented by:

          Robert D. Wick, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P. (DC)
          1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 662-5487
          Facsimile: (202) 778-5487
          E-mail: rwick@cov.com

Defendant London Metal Exchange Limited is represented by:

          William H. Horton, Esq.
          GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C.
          101 West Big Beaver Road, 10th Floor
          Troy, MI 48084-5280
          Telephone: (248) 457-7000
          Facsimile: (248) 457-7001
          E-mail: bhorton@gmhlaw.com


HARTFORD, CT: Issues Notice on Relocation Assistance
----------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 2014, the Housing Session of the Superior Court
in the Judicial District of Hartford Court approved a settlement
agreement in a class action lawsuit called Serrano et al. v.
Gaitor et al, CVH-519.  This notice is to inform your potential
rights under the agreement and Connecticut's Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 8-266 et seq.).

In order to qualify for this assistance, City of Hartford
officials must have informed you that you have to move out of
your apartment as a result of fire, damage to your building,
structural defects, or other emergency or safety related issues.
For some parts of the assistance, you must have lived in the
residence from which you are being displaced for 90 days or more.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if, on or after
April 10, 2012, you were ordered to leave your apartment by the
City of Hartford, or left as a direct result of code enforcement
activities by the City of Hartford, you may be eligible for
retroactive relocation assistance. You may also be eligible for
relocation assistance benefits if you are ordered to vacate your
apartment by City of Hartford officials now or in the future. The
following assistance may be available:

   * temporary emergency housing, paid for by the City of
Hartford;

   * help in finding permanent replacement housing;

   * actual reasonable moving costs and related expenses.  Or you
can choose to be paid fixed moving and dislocation expense
allowances, up to the statutory limits of $300.00 (moving
allowance) and $200.00 (dislocation allowance);

   * some rental assistance (including help with the security
deposit and/or the difference between the rent for a new
residence and the rent for the residence you were displaced from)
to a maximum of $4,000.

To receive this assistance, you must apply to the Hartford
Department of Health and Human Services, located at 131 Coventry
Street, Hartford, CT 06112.  You may need to provide the City of
Hartford with documents such as bills or a proof of a lease to
establish length of residency in the dwelling from which you were
displaced, as well as receipts and other evidence to establish
eligibility for other related expenses.

If, after applying with the City of Hartford, you feel that you
were treated unfairly please contact Statewide Legal Services at
(860) 344-0380, or (800) 453-3320.


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Group Seeks Affirmative Action Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Totenberg, writing for NPR.org, reports that a group opposed
to affirmative action in higher education is taking the
unprecedented step of looking for plaintiffs online.

The Project on Fair Representation is advertising for college
applicants willing to challenge Harvard University, the
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the University of
Wisconsin, Madison.

When the Supreme Court issued a ruling last spring that made
affirmative action programs more legally difficult to sustain,
project director Edward Blum promised that more "costly and
polarizing litigation" would soon be filed against university
affirmative action programs across the country.  But a year
later, the plaintiffs apparently had not materialized, and so the
project has now launched websites dedicated to finding
challengers.

The group promises to pay all expenses and notes that in its
previous litigation, no college applicant had to testify or "talk
to the media."

The group has litigated for more than a decade against what it
deems to be unconstitutional racial classifications.  Last year
it won two Supreme Court decisions: the partial victory in the
affirmative action case, and a total victory when the Supreme
Court struck down a key section of the landmark 1965 Voting
Rights Act.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: "Gentry" Suit Added to Fuel Economy MDL in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
class action lawsuit styled Gentry, et al. v. Hyundai Motor
America, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00030-NKM-RSB, from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Virginia to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01359-
GW-FFM to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to Judge George H. Wu for the purpose of
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation
known as In re: Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, Case No.
2:13-ml-02424-GW-FFM.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Ben Feinman, Esq.
          JAMES B. FEINMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          PO Box 697
          Lynthburg, VA 24505
          Telephone: (434) 846-7603
          Facsimile: (434) 846-0158
          E-mail: jb@jfeinman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Francis Neale, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Court Square Building
          310 Fourth Street NE, Suite 300
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288
          Telephone: (434) 977-2582
          Facsimile: (434) 980-2263
          E-mail: jneale@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          Joseph R. Ashby, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
                  josephashby@quinnemanuel.com


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Non-FDA Approved Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scot H. Atwood, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, Case
No. 1:14-cv-01123-NRB, seeks to put an end to the Company's
alleged unlawful practice of using drug products including
obeticholic acid (OCA) that is not approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for use in and promotion to humans.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New
York. The Company's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
      Shauna Kathleen Friedman, Esq.
      Tamar Batya Kaplan-Marans, Esq.
      WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (NYC)
      7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich St.
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 230-8800
      Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
      E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com
              shauna.friedman@wilmerhale.com
              tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com


IOD INC: July 30 Final Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss.
SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION PAUL MORAN, as an individual 13-4224-
BLS2 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. IOD INCORPORATED, Defendant.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND
HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ORDERED MEDICAL RECORDS FROM THE FOLLOWING
MASSACHUSETTS HOSPITALS: CARNEY HOSPITAL, DEDHAM MEDICAL
ASSOCIATES, FAIRLAWN REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, HARRINGTON
HOSPITAL, NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, UNION HOSPITAL, AND NORTH
SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, SALEM HOSPITAL AND WHO HAD THEIR MEDICAL
RECORDS REQUESTS PROCESSED BY SERVICE PROVIDER IOD INCORPORATED
AT ANY TIME FROM NOVEMBER 29, 2007 TO THE PRESENT (THE CLASS AND
EACH MEMBER THEREOF A CLASS MEMBER).

On November 29, 2013, Plaintiff Paul Moran filed the above-
captioned class action litigation against IOD, Inc. (IOD) on
behalf of all those who ordered medical records in Massachusetts
that were processed by IOD from November 29, 2007 to the present.
The lawsuit alleged violations of Massachusetts statute G.L.
chapter 111, section 70, including that IOD overcharged on
average $0.58 in postage when responding to certain medical
records requests made by Class Members of the Massachusetts
hospitals listed above.  The parties have agreed to settle the
litigation on the following terms.  Given the impracticality of
sending checks for approximately $0.58 to thousands of residents
and businesses, the parties agreed that IOD will pay the entire
amount of the calculated overcharge of $11,170.70 to Health Law
Advocates, a Massachusetts-based non-profit that provides
assistance to low income residents for health care access.
Additionally, IOD has affirmed that it does not and will not
charge amounts for postage in excess of that allowed by
Massachusetts statute G.L. chapter 111, section 70 when
processing and responding to medical records requests.  Lastly,
IOD has agreed to pay plaintiffs attorneys fees and expenses not
to exceed $45,000.  All such amounts will be paid by IOD and not
by the Class.  The Massachusetts Superior Court preliminarily
approved this settlement.

A final hearing will be held on [ ], 2014 at 2:00 p.m. (the
Settlement Hearing), before the Court in Courtroom 1017, Suffolk
County Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108,
at which the parties will ask the Court to: (i) determine
whether, for settlement purposes only, the Courts preliminary
certification of the non-opt-out Class, pursuant to Massachusetts
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, should be made final; (ii) determine
whether the Court should grant final approval of the proposed
Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Parties settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and in the best interest of the Class; (iii) determine whether
judgment should be entered dismissing the litigation with
prejudice; (iv) consider the application of Plaintiffs Counsel
for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (v) hear
and determine other matters relating to the proposed Settlement.

Any claims you might have against IOD for non-compliance with
Massachusetts statute G.L. chapter 111, section 70 in connection
with IODs processing of medical records requests at any time from
November 29, 2007 to the present, will be forever released and
dismissed as a result of this Settlement and the Courts approval
of it.  If you have any objection to this Settlement, you must
deliver it in writing to the lawyers involved and the Court by no
later than June 20, 2014 to the following three addresses: (1)
Civil Clerks Office, Massachusetts Superior Court, Three
Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108 (2) John R. Yasi, Yasi & Yasi,
P.C., Two Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970 (counsel for plaintiff);
and (3) Matthew C. Baltay, Foley Hoag LLP, 155 Seaport Blvd.,
Boston, MA 02210 (counsel for IOD Inc.).

Your written objection must include the following case name and
civil action number: Moran v. IOD Inc., 13-4224-BLS2, and must
state the details, including date, of your medical records
request that was processed by IOD and the basis of your
objection.

You are also invited to appear at the final settlement hearing on
July 30, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. before the Court in Courtroom 1017,
Suffolk County Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA
02108; please note, however, that in order to appear and be
heard, you must timely submit the written objection referenced
immediately above.

For the full details of the lawsuit, the claims that have been
asserted by Plaintiff, and the terms and conditions of the
Settlement, you may refer to the papers on file with the Court.
You or your attorney may examine the Courts files during regular
business hours of each business day at the office of the Clerk of
Court, Civil Clerks Office, 12th Floor, Suffolk County Superior
Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Helios Books Reserve Related to Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc., Helios High Income Fund,
Inc., Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc. and Helios
Strategic Income Fund, Inc. on April 30 disclosed that they have
each booked a reserve for potential costs and expenses related to
the class action lawsuit filed against the Funds by Lehman
Brothers Special Finance, Inc. ("LBSF"), styled Lehman Brothers
Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America National Ass'n, et
al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-
03537 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).  The Class Litigation is currently
pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York, with LBSF seeking to recover funds that it
alleges were inappropriately distributed to counter-parties upon
the termination of credit swap agreements based on the Lehman
Brothers bankruptcy.  The Class Litigation was originally filed
on
September 14, 2010, and the Funds were added as defendants in
September 2012.

The Class Litigation, as amended, names more than 270 defendants,
including the issuers of certain asset-backed securities, the
trustees for such securities, and certain of the investors in the
securities, such as the Funds.

The disputed payments for HAV, HIH, HMH and HSA, exclusive of any
interest (including pre-judgment interest) and expenses are
$2,009,959.09, $1,004,979.54, 2,009,959.09, and $1,004,979.54,
respectively.  Based on the current status of the litigation,
HAV, HIH, HMH and HSA have each booked a reserve that has
resulted in a reduction in net asset value per share of $0.17,
$0.11, $0.14 and $0.09, respectively.  There is no assurance that
the amount of the reserve booked for a Fund will be sufficient to
cover the ultimate costs of litigation for that Fund.

Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global alternative asset
manager with approximately $187 billion in assets under
management as of December 31, 2013.  Brookfield has over a 100-
year history of owning and operating assets with a focus on
property, renewable power, infrastructure and private equity.
The company offers a range of public and private investment
products and services,
which leverage its expertise and experience and provide it with a
competitive advantage in the markets where it operates.  On
behalf of its clients, Brookfield is also an active investor in
the public securities markets, where its experience extends over
30 years.  Over this time, the company has successfully developed
several investment operations and built expertise in the
management of institutional portfolios, retail mutual funds, and
structured product investments.

Brookfield's public market activities are conducted by Brookfield
Investment Management, a registered investment advisor.  These
activities complement Brookfield's core competencies and include
global listed real estate and infrastructure equities, corporate
high yield investments, opportunistic credit strategies and a
dedicated insurance asset management division.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Brookfield Investment Management
maintains offices and investment teams in Toronto, Chicago,
Boston and London and has over $10 billion of assets under
management as of December 31, 2013.  The Funds are managed by
Brookfield Investment Management.


LIFELOCK INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on April 24 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit against LifeLock, Inc. and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed on March 10,
2014, in the United States District Court, District of Arizona,
and docketed under 14-CV-0479, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
any securities of LifeLock between February 26, 2013 and February
19, 2014, both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you purchased LOCK securities during the Class Period, and
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you have until May 5, 2014, to
seek appointment by the Court.  To discuss the case or learn more
about becoming a lead plaintiff, please contact J. Elazar
Fruchter at jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com or call us toll free at
866.833.6245.

A copy of the complaint filed by Wohl & Fruchter LLP can be
obtained at:

          http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/lock

LifeLock is a self-proclaimed provider of proactive identity
theft protection services that it provides to consumers and
enterprises. In March 2010, LifeLock (and its Chairman and CEO,
Todd Davis) entered into a settlement order (Settlement Order)
with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) whereby LifeLock settled
allegations by the FTC that certain of LifeLock's advertising and
marketing practices constituted deceptive acts or practices in
violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act).  The
Settlement Order enjoined LifeLock from deceptive advertising and
marketing of its identity theft protection services, including
making any misrepresentations of "the means, methods, procedures,
effects, effectiveness, coverage, or scope of" its identity theft
protection services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's marketing
and advertising practices violated applicable government rules
and regulations, as well as the terms of the Settlement Order,
during the Class Period, and that as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

In its 2013 Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 19, 2014, LifeLock disclosed that it had
met with the FTC on January 17, 2014, regarding its compliance
with the terms of the Settlement Order, after a whistleblower had
discussed certain violations of the Settlement Order with the
FTC.

On this news shares of LOCK fell $2.29 per share, or nearly 10%,
over the course of four trading sessions, to close on February
25, 2014 at $20.00.

Subsequently, on March 17, 2014, LifeLock disclosed that it had
received a request from the FTC for documents and information
related to LifeLock's compliance with the Settlement Order. Since
that time, LOCK shares have fallen further to close at
$16.52/share on April 24, 2014.

Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.cois an
securities litigation firm representing plaintiffs in class
actions arising from securities fraud and fiduciary breaches, as
well as other complex litigation matters.


LIFE TIME: Members File Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Cassie Hart, writing for KSTP, reports that current and former
Life Time Fitness members have filed a class action lawsuit
against the company.

They're suing because they say Life Time sent spam text messages
to get them to sign up.

Federal rules ban companies from sending group text messages like
this.

The current and former members say these messages are expensive
when sent over and over again. They want Life Time to stop the
texts and pay a minimum of $500 for each text message sent.


LIME ENERGY: May 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the law firm of Pomerantz LLP
in Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co., No. 1:12-cv-05704 (N.D. Ill).

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Lime Energy Co. securities during the period from May 14, 2008
through December 27, 2012, both dates inclusive.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former
directors and officers of Lime during the Class Period, members
of their families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that a settlement of
the above-captioned class action has been proposed.  A hearing
will be held on May 13, 2014, at 12:30 p.m., before the Honorable
Sara L. Ellis, United States District Judge, at the courthouse
for the United States District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 1719, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, for the purpose of determining, among other things: (1)
whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of
the Settlement and whether Class Plaintiffs and their counsel
have adequately represented the Class Members; (2) whether the
proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants
for $2,500,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair,
just, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the Court should
permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or
relate to the subject matter of the Action; (5) whether the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants
as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the
Court; (6) whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (7)
whether the Lead Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of
costs and expenses should be granted.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lime Securities between
May 14, 2008, and December 27, 2012, both dates inclusive, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.
If you have not received the detailed Notice Of Proposed
Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And
Expenses, And Final Approval Hearing and Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting
the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Satterfield v. Lime Energy
Co., c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P. O. Box 8095, Faribault, MN
55021- 9495; by telephone at: 1-877-872-3809; or by visiting the
Settlement website www.LimeEnergySettlement.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
June 12, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  As
further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit
a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice by no
later than
April 29, 2014.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and
served in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice
no later than April 29, 2014.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Lead Counsel for the Class:

          Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq.
          Pomerantz LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: lsmollar@pomlaw.com

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S
OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED: January 28, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


LITHIA MOTORS INC: Accord Alaska Dealership Suit to Cost $6.2MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, Lithia Motors, Inc., estimated costs of
$6.2 million to settle all claims in the Alaska dealerships
complaints and to pay plaintiffs' legal fees, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "In December 2006, a class action suit was
filed against us (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of
Anchorage, Inc., et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI), and in April
2007, a second class action suit (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia
Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI)
was filed against us, in the Superior Court for the State of
Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage. These suits were
subsequently consolidated. In the consolidated suit, plaintiffs
alleged that we, through our Alaska dealerships, engaged in three
practices that purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection
laws: (i) charging customers dealer fees and costs (including
document preparation fees) not disclosed in the advertised price,
(ii) failing to disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident
history of used vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally
manufactured for sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in
deception, misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers
financing from third parties without disclosing that we receive a
fee or discount for placing that loan. The suit sought statutory
damages of $500 for each violation or three times plaintiff's
actual damages, whichever was greater, and attorney fees and
costs.

In June 2013, the parties agreed to mediate the claims. The
mediation resulted in a settlement agreement that received the
final approval of the Court on December 11, 2013.

The Company added, "Under the settlement agreement, we agreed to
reimburse plaintiffs' legal fees and to pay (i) $450 in the form
of cash and vouchers and (ii) $3,000 for each claim
representative. As of December 31, 2013, we estimated costs of
$6.2 million to settle all claims against us and to pay
plaintiffs' legal fees. The estimated costs are based on our
assumptions of the final number of approved claims and a voucher
redemption rate. We believe that these estimates are reasonable;
however, actual cost could differ materially. We recorded this
amount as a component of selling, general and administrative
expense in our Consolidated Statements of Operations and, as of
December 31, 2013, the amount was included as a component of
accrued liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets."

Lithia Motors, Inc., is an operator of automotive franchises and
a retailer of new and used vehicles and services. The Company
sells new and used cars and light trucks and replacement parts;
provides vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services; and arranges related financing, service contracts,
protection products and credit insurance. As of February 24,
2012, it offered 25 brands of new vehicles and all brands of used
vehicles in 86 stores in the United States and online at
Lithia.com. Its dealerships are primarily located throughout the
Western and Midwestern regions of the United States. In February
2014, the Company acquired Island Honda of Kahului, Hawaii. In
February 2014, Lithia Motors Inc acquired Hammer Lane Volkswagen
in Stockton, California. In March 2014, the Company acquired
Honolulu Buick GMC Cadillac and Honolulu Volkswagen in Honolulu,
Hawaii.


MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in California Over Warranties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Mazda Motor of America Inc. has been hit with a class action in a
California federal district court by consumers accusing the
company of failing to honor customer warranties by not repairing
defects in Mazda RX8 engines that cause them to flood.

Plaintiff Christina Paschal filed the complaint on April 16 in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of herself and others who purchased or leased a 2004-2008
Mazda RX8 vehicle manufactured, distributed, and sold by Mazda
and its subsidiaries.  She alleges that at least 50,000 vehicles
are a part of the class, and that Mazda has known about the
defects since 2004, if not earlier.

Ms. Paschal claims that due to defects in the design, manufacture
and assembly of the RX8 rotary engines they are susceptible to
engine flooding and fuel flooded spark plugs.  When the engine
floods, the cars won't start and costly repairs are needed.

Ms. Paschal also alleges that although Mazda issued a warranty
extension to owners and lessees of the class vehicles in order to
address complaints about the engine defect, Mazda has never come
up with an adequate remedy to eliminate the defect.  The company
also failed to pay for all repairs needed during the warranty
extension time period due to the engine defect, she said.

As a result of Mazda's misconduct, Ms. Paschal and class members
have been harmed by incurring out of pocket unreimbursed costs
and by not receiving full benefits of Mazda's extended engine
core warranty including new spark plugs as part of the repair.

The suit cites various state law violations by Mazda including
the California Secret Warranty Law because Mazda allegedly
refused to disclose to customers an adjustment program relating
to the engine defect.  The law requires in part that automakers
must notify consumers whenever they enact "any program or policy
that expands or extends the consumer's warranty beyond its stated
limit."


MB FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Complaint Over Taylor Capital Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on
October 24, 2013, against MB Financial, Inc., alleging that the
Taylor Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with the MB Financial Merger and that MB Financial aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty, according to MB
Financial's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

On July 26, 2013, an action captioned James Sullivan v. Taylor
Capital Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-CH17751 (the "Sullivan
Action") was commenced against Taylor Capital, the board of
directors of Taylor Capital (the "Taylor Capital Board"), and MB
Financial (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"), alleging that the Taylor
Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with
the pending MB Financial/Taylor Capital merger (the "Merger") and
that MB Financial aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary
duty. On August 8, 2013, a stockholder class action captioned
Dennis Panozzo v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et. al., Case No.
2013-CH-18546 (the "Panozzo Action") was commenced against the
Defendants in the Court making similar allegations in connection
with the Merger. Subsequently, on September 10, 2013, the
Sullivan Action and the Panozzo Action were consolidated pursuant
to Court order under the first-filed Sullivan Action, Case No.
2013-CH17751 (as so consolidated, the "Action").  On October 24,
2013, the plaintiffs in the Action (the "Plaintiffs") filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, alleging that the
Taylor Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger, including by making incomplete and misleading
disclosures concerning the Merger, and that MB Financial aided
and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.

MB Financial, Inc. (MB Financial), is a financial holding
company. The Company's primary market is the Chicago metropolitan
area, in which MB Financial operates approximately 87 banking
offices through its bank subsidiary, MB Financial Bank, N.A. (MB
Financial Bank). Through MB Financial Bank, the Company offers a
range of financial services primarily to small and middle market
businesses and individuals in the markets that it serves. Its
primary lines of business include commercial banking, retail
banking and wealth management. As of December 31, 2011, the
Company had total assets of $9.8 billion, deposits of $7.6
billion, stockholders' equity of $1.4 billion, and $3.6 billion
of client assets under administration in its Wealth Management
Group.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jordan, Sean Halbert and Dana Skelton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00787-WHO (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) seeks to stop the
Defendant's allged practice of making unsolicited phone calls to
the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place
of business located at in Lewisville, Texas.  Nationstar Mortgage
is mortgage lender and servicer and does business throughout the
United States and the state of California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Eisen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4100
          Facsimile: (213) 947-4251
          E-mail: meisen@edelson.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Megan Lindsey, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          999 West 18th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 357-4878
          Facsimile: (303) 446-9111
          E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com
                  mlindsey@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Alicia Hwang, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 589-6380
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  ahwang@edelson.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Abraham Joshua Colman, Esq.
          Felicia Yangru Yu, Esq.
          Jack J. Gindi, Esq.
          Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: acolman@reedsmith.com
                  fyu@reedsmith.com
                  jgindi@reedsmith.com
                  rkim@reedsmith.com


NCL CORP: Plaintiffs File Writ of Certiorari
--------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class action complaint against NCL (Bahamas)
Ltd., a subsidiary NCL Corporation Ltd., have filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court
seeking review of the appellate court's decision in October 2013,
affirming the Court's rulings as to the denial of Class
Certification and the trial verdict, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2013.

On July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits. In December 2010, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In February 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the
Court's Order on Class Certification which was denied. The Court
tried six individual plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012
awarded wages aggregating approximately $100,000 to such
plaintiffs. In October 2013, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings as to the
denial of Class Certification and the trial verdict. The
Plaintiffs' have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the
United States Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate
court's decision. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this
action and are not able at this time to estimate the impact of
these proceedings.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. is a global cruise line
operator, offering cruise experiences for travelers with a
variety of itineraries in North America (including Alaska and
Hawaii), the Mediterranean, the Baltic, Central America, Bermuda
and the Caribbean. The Company offers a variety of cruises
ranging from one day to three weeks. During the year ended
December 31, 2010, the Company docked at over 125 ports
worldwide, with itineraries originating from 17 ports of which
ten were in North America. In June 2010, the Company took
delivery of its largest cruise ship, Norwegian Epic (4,100
Berths), which offers 21 dining options.


NCL CORP: Defends Stayed Crew Members' Wage Deduction Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd., is defending a stayed class action
complaint alleging inappropriate deductions of crew members'
wages pursuant to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract. In July 2012,
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in
July 2009. We are vigorously defending this action and are not
able at this time to estimate the impact of these proceedings.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. is a global cruise line
operator, offering cruise experiences for travelers with a
variety of itineraries in North America (including Alaska and
Hawaii), the Mediterranean, the Baltic, Central America, Bermuda
and the Caribbean. The Company offers a variety of cruises
ranging from one day to three weeks. During the year ended
December 31, 2010, the Company docked at over 125 ports
worldwide, with itineraries originating from 17 ports of which
ten were in North America. In June 2010, the Company took
delivery of its largest cruise ship, Norwegian Epic (4,100
Berths), which offers 21 dining options.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Murano's Defective Anchor Bracket
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Luebke and Michael Luebke, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-00141-wmc (W.D. Wis., February 21, 2014) is brought on
behalf of similarly situated persons or entities, who purchased,
own or leased a Nissan Murano, model years 2003 through at least
2008, with a defective anchor bracket on the left rear side of
the driver's seat.

Nissan North America, Inc. is a foreign corporation incorporated
in California and headquartered in Tennessee.  NNA designs,
manufactures and sells automobiles and other vehicles under
several prominent brand names, including the Nissan Murano,
throughout the United States, including the state of Wisconsin.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Gingras, Esq.
          Heath P. Straka, Esq.
          AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP
          8150 Excelsior Drive
          Madison, WI 53717
          Telephone: (608) 833-2632
          E-mail: gingras@gcllawyers.com
                  straka@gcllawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Modl, Esq.
          John C. Mitby, Esq.
          GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE
          2 E. Mifflin Street, Ste. 200
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-5661
          E-mail: mmodl@axley.com
                  jmitby@axley.com


NONNI'S FOODS: Removed "Larsen" Class Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Larsen, et al. v. Nonni's Foods,
LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-12-522317, was removed from the
California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
00790-JCS to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  Each of the claims in the lawsuit is premised on an
allegation that the Defendants' "all natural" biscotti products
are mislabeled because they contain allegedly "synthetic"
ingredients.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kraves, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: wlison@fdpklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          C. Robert Boldt, Esq.
          Michael Shipley, Esq.
          Beth Marie Weinstein, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: robert.boldt@kirkland.com
                  beth.weinstein@kirkland.com
                  michael.shipley@kirkland.com


OMNICARE INC: Removed "Avilez" Class Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Avilez, et al. v. Omnicare, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 37-2014-00084453-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
00409-GPC-JMA to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul David Jackson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. JACKSON
          10951 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 1-G
          San Diego, CA 92121-1622
          Telephone: (858) 552-4900
          Facsimile: (858) 552-4904
          E-mail: paul@jacksonlaw.biz

               - and -

          Raul Cadena, Esq.
          CADENA CHURCHILL, LLP
          701 "B" Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 546-0888
          Facsimile: (619) 923-3208
          E-mail: rcadena@cadenachurchill.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad Daniel Bernard, Esq.
          John Paul Nordlund, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 573-4915
          Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
          E-mail: BernardC@jacksonlewis.com
                  John.Nordlund@jacksonlewis.com


ONECHICAGO LLC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Providence, Rhode Island and OneChicago, LLC jointly
announced that plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed OneChicago
from the securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
the retirement system for the City of Providence, Rhode Island.
The class action was filed on behalf of all investors who
purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States
between April 18, 2009 and the present on public stock exchanges
or alternate trading venues.

In dismissing the case, the City of Providence acknowledges that
OneChicago is not involved in the activity which is the subject
of the complaint, which charges the defendants with a scheme
whereby the national securities exchanges, together with a
defendant class comprised of the brokerage firms, are diverting
billions of dollars to themselves by electronic front-running,
rebate arbitrage, slow-market arbitrage, layering and
contemporaneous trading with their clients and scores of
sophisticated high frequency trading firms.

In contrast, OneChicago is an equity finance exchange providing a
marketplace for trading security futures, including single stock
futures (SSFs).  SSFs are a financing tool that allow market
participants to carry equity positions at more favorable
financing rates due to the competitively derived interest rate
which is embedded into the price.

OneChicago paid no amount for the dismissal of the claims.


PDC ENERGY: Merger Complaint Scheduled for Trial This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jury trial is scheduled for May 2014, on the class action against
PDC Energy, Inc., alleging that the disclosures in the proxy
statements issued in connection with the mergers were inadequate,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "In December 2011, the Company and its
wholly-owned merger subsidiary were served with an alleged class
action on behalf of certain former partnership unit holders,
related to its partnership repurchases completed by mergers in
2010 and 2011. The action was filed in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and is titled Schulein v.
Petroleum Development Corp. The complaint primarily alleges that
the disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with
the mergers were inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary
duty. In June 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. In January 2014, the plaintiffs were conditionally
certified as a class by the court. Jury trial is scheduled for
May 2014. We have not recorded a liability for claims pending
because we believe we have good legal defenses to the asserted
claims and it is not possible for management to reasonably
estimate monetary damages resulting from this claim."

PDC Energy, Inc. (PDC) doing business as PDC Energy, is a
domestic independent exploration and production company, which
acquires, develops, explores, and produces natural gas, natural
gas liquids (NGLs), and crude oil. Its Western Operating Region
is focused on development in the Wattenberg Field in Colorado,
particularly in the liquid-rich horizontal Niobrara play and on
the ongoing development of refractures and recompletions of its
Wattenberg wells. In its Eastern Operating Region, it is focused
on development activity in the liquid-rich portion of the Utica
Shale play in Ohio. The Company owns an interest in approximately
7,200 gross producing wells and maintained an average production
rate of 135.6 One million cubic feet of natural gas volume
(MMcfe) per day for the year ended December 31, 2012, which was
comprised of 65.3% natural gas, 10.2% NGLs and 24.5% crude oil.
On June 18, 2013, PDC Energy Inc announced that it has sold its
non-core Colorado natural gas assets.


PEABODY ENERGY: Agrees to Dismiss Benefit Plans Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation and the plaintiffs on December 20,
2013, filed a joint stipulation with the Court dismissing the
appeal as to the Company on the complaint requiring the
maintenance of certain Patriot benefit plans, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

On October 23, 2012, eight individual plaintiffs and the United
Mine Workers of America filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia against the Company, one of its subsidiaries and an
unrelated coal company (Lowe et al. v. Peabody Holding Company,
LLC, et al.). The lawsuit sought to have the court obligate the
defendants to maintain certain Patriot benefit plans at their
current levels and to find the defendants' actions in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On
January 7, 2013, the Company defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. The plaintiffs thereafter amended their complaint to
include new allegations and name two more individuals as
plaintiffs. The Company defendants updated their motion to
dismiss to respond to the new allegations and filed it with the
Court. On September 27, 2013, the Court granted the Company
defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. On December 20, 2013, after the effective date of the
settlement agreement, the parties filed a joint stipulation with
the Court dismissing the appeal as to the Company defendants with
prejudice.

Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody) is a private-sector coal
company. The Company owns interests in 28 active coal mining
operations located in the United States and Australia. The
Company has a majority interest in 27 of those coal operations
and a 50% equity interests in the Middlemount Mine in Australia.
The Company also owns a noncontrolling interest in a mining
operation in Venezuela. In addition to the Company's mining
operations, the Company markets and broker coals from its
operations and other coal producers, both as principal and agent,
and trade coal and freight-related contracts through trading and
business offices. The Company conducts business through four
principal segments: Western United States. Mining, Midwestern
U.S. Mining, Australian Mining and Trading and Brokerage. The
Company's fifth segment, Corporate and Other, includes mining and
export/transportation joint ventures, activities associated with
certain energy-related commercial matters, Btu Conversion.


PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Design of Lipitor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca J. Larimer and Daniel S. Larimer, 15240 Old McArthur
Road, Logan, Ohio 43138 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New
York, New York 10017, Case No. 2:14-cv-00192-MHW-NMK (S.D. Ohio,
February 21, 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:

          Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq.
          SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C.
          909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 578-4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578-4440
          E-mail: phendy@pschachter.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie A. Callsen, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-2286
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: julie.callsen@tuckerellis.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Brown" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara J. Brown, 643 Sotogrande Street, Grand Prairie, Texas
75057 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York
10017, Case No. 2:14-cv-00399-CJB-DEK (E.D. La., February 21,
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: Faces "Rayford" Suit Alleging Lipitor-Related Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Rayford, 222 Woodhills Boulevard, West Carrolton, Ohio 45449-
2401 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York
10017, Case No. 3:14-cv-00059-TMR (S.D. Ohio, February 21, 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:

          Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq.
          SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C.
          909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 578-4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578-4440
          E-mail: phendy@pschachter.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie A. Callsen, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-2286
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: julie.callsen@tuckerellis.com


PFIZER INC: Sued Over Alleged Injuries Caused by Lipitor Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manuela T. Castillo and Ramiro A. Castillo, 5516 South Mason
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60638 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd
Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 1:14-cv-01300 (N.D.
Ill., February 21, 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:

          Lawrence B. Finn, Esq.
          THE FINN LAW FIRM
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 962-0425
          Facsimile: (312) 332-3550
          E-mail: lfinn@finnlawassociates.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 -

          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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
          Thomas William Cushing, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          500 W Madison St., Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
          E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
                  thomascushing@quinnemanuel.com


POLYCOM INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in N.D. Cal. Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Court on December 13, 2013, appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel to a purported shareholder
class action suit against Polycom, Inc., alleging among others
things that the Company failed to disclose information regarding
its business, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action suit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Polycom and certain of its current
and former officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges that,
between July 24, 2012 and July 23, 2013, Polycom issued
materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose
information regarding Polycom's business, operational and
compliance policies, including with respect to its former Chief
Executive Officer's expense submissions and the Company's
internal controls, alleges that the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading, and alleges
violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief. On December 13, 2013, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison
counsel. Pursuant to the schedule entered by the Court, the lead
plaintiff was to file an amended consolidated complaint by
February 24, 2014.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of
reasonably possible loss relating to the action.

Polycom, Inc. is a provider of unified communications (UC)
solutions and a provider of telepresence, video, voice and
infrastructure solutions based on open standards. With Polycom
RealPresence video and voice solutions, from infrastructure to
endpoints, people all over the world can collaborate face-to-face
without being in the same physical location. The Company has
three operating segments: Americas, which consist of North,
Central and Latin Americas; Europe, Middle East and Africa, and
Asia Pacific. The products and solutions include Network
Infrastructure, UC Group Systems and UC Personal Devices, which
includes desktop video devices and wireless local area network
products. On March 21, 2011, the Company acquired Accordent
Technologies, Inc. On July 27, 2011, it acquired Hewlett-Packard
Company's (HP) Visual Collaboration (HPVC) business, including
the Halo Products and Managed Services business. Effective March
1, 2013, it acquired red Sentri Inc.


SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Seeks to File 4th Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ritz Camera & Image, LLC on December 17, 2013, sought leave to
file a fourth amended complaint alleging that SanDisk Corporation
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (the "District
Court"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law
by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash
memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC
v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be
on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by
the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from
June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the
Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently
obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by
allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On
September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission
to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of
the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to
dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process
antitrust claims.

On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed
the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's
petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the
District Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On
December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate
returning the case to the District Court. Discovery is now open
in the District Court.

On February 20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that Albert
Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be
substituted as the plaintiff in this case, which the District
Court granted on July 5, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the District
Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E.
Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On December 17, 2013, Ritz
sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which would add
a cause of action for attempted monopolization and add another
named plaintiff.

SanDisk Corporation designs, develops and manufactures data
storage solutions in a range of form factors using its flash
memory, controller and firmware technologies. The Company's
solutions include removable cards, embedded products, universal
serial bus (USB), drives, digital media players, wafers and
components. Its removable cards are used in a range of consumer
electronics devices, such as mobile phones, digital cameras,
gaming devices and laptop computers. Its embedded flash products
are used in mobile phones, tablets, ultrabooks, eReaders, global
positioning system (GPS), devices, gaming systems, imaging
devices and computing platforms. For computing platforms, it
provides storage solutions known as solid-state drives (SSDs)
that can be used in lieu of hard disk drives. In August 2013, the
Company announced that it has completed its acquisition of SMART
Storage Systems.


SANDISK CORP: Oral Argument Held Dec. 5 in Calif. Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument took place on December 5, 2013, on the appeal for
SanDisk Corporation's motion to dismiss a complaint alleging
various claims against the Company under federal antitrust law
pursuant, among others, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba,
and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law.
The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with
the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the
royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation
of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws,
which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices
for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by
reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America;
and SD-3C LLC. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have appealed. Briefing on the appeal was completed on
June 21, 2013. Oral argument took place on December 5, 2013.

SanDisk Corporation designs, develops and manufactures data
storage solutions in a range of form factors using its flash
memory, controller and firmware technologies. The Company's
solutions include removable cards, embedded products, universal
serial bus (USB), drives, digital media players, wafers and
components. Its removable cards are used in a range of consumer
electronics devices, such as mobile phones, digital cameras,
gaming devices and laptop computers. Its embedded flash products
are used in mobile phones, tablets, ultrabooks, eReaders, global
positioning system (GPS), devices, gaming systems, imaging
devices and computing platforms. For computing platforms, it
provides storage solutions known as solid-state drives (SSDs)
that can be used in lieu of hard disk drives. In August 2013, the
Company announced that it has completed its acquisition of SMART
Storage Systems.


SNA SHEPHERD ENTERPRISES: Sued for Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Branham on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SNA Shepherd Enterprises Company et al,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00439 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., specifically its failure
to pay employees, including the Plaintiff, the minimum wage for
all hours worked at the rate mandated and failure to pay the
correct rate for all hours worked over 40 in a week, in violation
of the over time provision.

SNA Shepherd Enterprises Company is a Texas corporation with
principal place of business at 7322 Southwest Freeway, Suite
1870, Houston, Texas 77074.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex Mabry, Esq.
      THE MABRY LAW FIRM, PLLC
      7155 Old Katy Road Ste N235
      Houston, TX 77024
      Telephone: (832) 350-8335
      Facsimile: (832) 350-8335
      E-mail: amabry@mabrylaw.com


T&T HART: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages Pursuant to FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Davis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
T&T Hart, Inc.; Anthony Lee Hart; and Tina Hart, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00525-RWS (N.D. Ga., February 21, 2014) is brought for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

T&T Hart, Inc. is a domestic Georgia corporation headquartered in
Douglasville, Georgia.  The Individual Defendants are directors
or officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Kerr, Esq.
          Winfield Murray, Esq.
          MAYS & KERR LLC
          235 Peachtree Street NE
          North Tower, Suite 202
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 410-7998
          Facsimile: (877) 813-1845
          E-mail: jeff@maysandkerr.com
                  winfield@maysandkerr.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alan Howard Garber, Esq.
          Marc N. Garber, Esq.
          THE GARBER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4994 Lower Roswell Road, NE, Suite 14
          Marietta, GA 30068
          Telephone: (678) 560-6685
          Facsimile: (678) 560-5067
          E-mail: ahgarber@garberlaw.net
                  mngarber@garberlaw.net


TARGET CORP: Faces "Noe" Suit in Oklahoma Over Security Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia S. Noe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota
Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00083-GKF-TLW (N.D. Okla.,
February 21, 2014) arises from the data security breach at Target
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE
          320 S Boston Ave., Suite 1130
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 588-3400
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com

               - and -

          William Bernard Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott Randall Rowland, Esq.
          GABLE & GOTWALS (TULSA)
          100 W 5th St., Suite 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
          Telephone: (918) 595-4800
          Facsimile: (918) 595-4990
          E-mail: srowland@gablelaw.com


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Falsely Marketed LED TVs & LED HDTVs, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Pierce-Nunes, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00796-DMR (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is
brought to recover damages and restitution in connection with the
purchase of Toshiba-brand televisions that were falsely marketed
and advertised by Toshiba as "LED TVs," "LED HDTVs" or "LED
televisions."

The televisions at issue are not "LED TVs," but instead are LCD
TVs that use light emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of cold cathode
fluorescent lights (CCFLs) to light the liquid crystal display
(LCD) panel that is present in each of the televisions at issue,
Ms. Pierce-Nunes contends.

Toshiba is a California corporation with its principal place of
business located in Irvine, California.  Toshiba distributes and
markets and directs the marketing of so called "LED TVs" within
this district, the State of California, and throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
          Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
          Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com
                  jzahid@zelle.com
                  pclayton@zelle.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
                  sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Hayward J. Kaiser, Esq.
          MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
          E-mail: hjk@msk.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
          Gregory R. Merz, Esq.
          Kathryn J. Bergstrom, Esq.
          Dean C. Eyler, Esq.
          GRAY PLANT & MOOTY
          500 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 632-3000
          Facsimile: (612) 632-4444
          E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
                  gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com
                  katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com
                  dean.eyler@gpmlaw.com


UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC: Faces Class Actions Over Unsolicited Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a local chiropractor
has filed two putative class action lawsuits, alleging he was
sent unsolicited faxes on his fax machine, costing him paper and
ink.

Dr. Robert L. Meinders filed suit April 3 in the St. Clair County
Circuit Court against UnitedHealthCare Inc., UnitedHealthCare of
Illinois Inc. and John Does 1-12.

The Record reported on the other case Meinders filed against The
Emery Corp., doing business as Sterling Management Systems.

In both cases, Meinders, who operates the Back Pain Clinic in
Belleville, says the unsolicited faxes violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

"Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients," the suits state.  "A
junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper and
ink toner.  An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable
time that would have been spent on something else."

Dr. Meinders claims he received the faxes on March 2, 2013, and
at various other times throughout 2013.  He says he was not the
only one to receive faxes.

Dr. Meinders is asking the judge to certify his complaints as
class action lawsuits and is seeking damages of $500 to $1,500
for each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  He
is also seeking an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
engaging in the statutory violations at issue, plus costs and
other relief the court deems just.  He is being represented by
Phillip A. Bock and James M. Smith of Bock and Hatch in Chicago
and Robert J. Sprague of Sprague and Urban in Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers 14-L-256, 14-L-255.


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Faces Securities Class Action Amid CFPB Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Beeson, writing for Law360, reports that World Acceptance
Corp., a top provider of short-term loans to low-income
borrowers, on April 23 was slapped with a securities class action
after the disclosure of a recent U.S. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau probe caused its stock to tumble.

Plaintiff Edna Selan Epstein also took aim at current and former
World Acceptance executives, including chief executive A.
Alexander Mclean III, accusing them of violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
about the company's lending practices and its compliance with
related federal laws.  Her complaint cites both corporate
disclosures and public comments made by World Acceptance
executives prior to the CFPB probe as evidence of her charges
"because defendants knew that World was non-compliant with
government regulations and guidance."

In March, the Greenville, S.C.-based lender said it had received
a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB and that the regulator
was investigating possible wrongdoing by finance companies and
others.  The agency made a broad request for World Acceptance
documents, the company added, and asked it to answer
interrogatories and provide written reports about its loans and
other aspects of its business.

"Negative reactions to the company's press release followed
shortly thereafter," Ms. Epstein said in her complaint, filed in
South Carolina federal court on behalf of herself and others.
The stock suffered a nearly 20 percent drop, falling to $78.25 on
March 13 -- the day it disclosed the probe -- from $97.32 a day
earlier.

Ms. Epstein maintains that the company downplayed any risks, with
the CEO allegedly telling investors on an earnings call that he
anticipated a CFPB visit at some point but expected no problems
to arise, according to the complaint.

The investor argued that the company and its executives should
not be able to rely on the statutory safe harbor given to
forward-looking statements because these would not apply to the
allegedly false statements the complaint describes.

The complaint also notes that the company's statements were made
against the backdrop of a May 2013 investigative report by
ProPublica. In it, the media outlet described how World
Acceptance's installment loans -- which are paid back over time -
- and other products effectively trapped many customers in a
cycle of spiraling debt.

"The investigative report by ProPublica further characterized
World as a predatory business, persuading customers to renew
loans and purchase unnecessary insurance so that World can reap
the lion's share of loan charges while keeping borrowers on the
hook for the majority of the principal amount, with borrowers
renewing several times," she wrote.

World Acceptance operates more than 1,200 locations in 13 states
and in Mexico and specializes in lending to people who may not
otherwise qualify for financing. A spokeswoman for the company
did not return a call seeking comment on Epstein's lawsuit. In
its statement about the CFPB request, the company said it
believes its marketing and lending practices are lawful.

Edna Selan Epstein and the prospective class are represented by
Badge Humphries of Motley Rice LLC; Joseph E. White III and
Lester R. Hooker of Saxena White PA; and Katherine M. Ryan and
Richard A. Maniskas of Ryan & Maniskas LLP.

Defense counsel was not immediately available for World
Acceptance Corp., CEO A. Alexander Mclean III, chief financial
officer and treasurer John L. Calmes Jr., former CFO and
treasurer Kelly M. Malson, and former president and chief
operating officer Mark Roland.

The case is Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., case
number 6:14-cv-01606, in the U.S. District Court of South
Carolina.


* Courts Resort to Cy Pres Awards Without Legislative Guidance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Santry, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that
courts are resorting to cy-pres awards without scrutinizing
lawyers' attempts to locate class members, a major study of
Canadian class action settlements has found.  This can result in
access to justice being "turned on its head," according to author
Jasminka Kalajdzic, an associate professor at the University of
Windsor's Faculty of Law.

Cy-pres awards allow class action settlements to be given to
charities when there is no practical way of distributing all the
funds to individual plaintiffs.

A draft paper by Ms. Kalajdzic, published on April 22, says:
"Courts have adopted cy-pres as a second best alternative to
direct compensation of class members, and have done so with only
occasional academic scrutiny and virtually no legislative
guidance."

Ms. Kalajdzic calls her study "the most comprehensive collection
of information regarding the nature and extent of cy-pres use in
Canada."  It reveals that, from 2001 to 2012, cy-pres was used in
at least 65 class actions.

Around $100 million of class funds were given to charitable
organizations via "fixed" cy-pres awards -- where the recipient,
and often the payment amount, is known when the settlement is
reached.  The amount paid through "residual" cy-pres awards --
where unclaimed settlement funds are paid to charities -- is
unknown.

The study found no evidence in the 65 class actions that courts
had seriously questioned parties' claims that money could not be
paid directly to class members.

Ms. Kalajdzic says: "This is money that in theory belongs to
class members who were wronged by defendants' conduct; the money
is given to charities or non-profit organizations because the
judge and lawyers have determined it is too difficult or
expensive to give the money directly to class members.

"In a sense, cy-pres is a form of privatized distributive
justice."

Most cy-pres awards are made in Ontario, where s. 24 and s. 26 of
the Class Proceedings Act are widely interpreted as authorizing
the distributions.

In a June 2013 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision,
Sorensen v. easyhome Ltd., Justice Paul Perell wrote: "As a
general rule, cy-pres distributions should not be approved where
direct compensation to class members is practicable."

But, highlights Ms. Kalajdzic's paper, there is no clear case law
on how "impracticability" should be defined.

"Judges accept, with little or any discussion, the submissions or
evidence that identifying class members is 'cost-prohibitive,'"
it states.  In contrast, U.S. courts are "increasingly vigilant
about counsel using cy-pres relief."

The paper recommends: "Judges must hold both plaintiff and
defense counsel's feet to the fire."

The report also claims many cy-pres distributions benefit causes
with little connection to the nature of the class action.  It
proposes courts ensure there is a proper "nexus" between the
members and the cy-pres recipient.

Where a portion of the settlement remains unclaimed, the paper
suggests this could be apportioned to successful claimants rather
than going to an "uninjured third party."

Koskie Minsky LLP partner Kirk Baert agrees cy-pres should have a
"proper evidentiary basis," but feels the system is working well
overall.

"I think that class counsel are in the best position to make that
assessment [on the feasibility of compensating class members] and
their recommendation should be given serious weight by the
judge," he says.

Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP partner Scott Kugler --
scott.kugler@gowlings.com -- said in a recent Canadian Lawyer
article that courts are becoming increasingly insistent that
settlement proceeds are actually paid to class members.


* New Arizona Law Allows Foreclosure Suits Against Home Builders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristena Hansen, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports
that starting Jan. 1, speculative home builders will no longer
find refuge under Arizona's anti-deficiency law.

On April 22, Gov. Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2018, which
enables lenders to sue builders that undergo foreclosure for
deficiency, or the difference between what's still owed on the
mortgage and the price at which the house was sold in
foreclosure.  HB 2018 -- sponsored by Rep. Phil Lovas, R-Peoria -
- applies to spec or custom home builders who obtain mortgages
for the purpose of constructing new homes for sale to another
person, but the homes are not completed or occupied at the time
of foreclosure.
Under current Arizona law, spec builders and traditional
homeowners cannot be sued for deficiency.

Arizona is among only 12 states with an anti-deficiency law, and
lenders have been in a knock-down, drag-out fight with real
estate professionals since the housing crash over its fairness.

Last year, for instance, Arizona lawmakers considered legislation
that would have expanded anti-deficiency protection to homeowners
undergoing a short sale.  The Arizona Association of Realtors
rallied for its passing, while the Arizona Bankers Association
lobbied hard against it.  The bill ultimately died at the
legislature.

This year, the political pendulum swung the other way, with HB
2018 actually narrowing who the law protects.

Another shift this year was the fact that the banker and Realtor
groups -- along with the Home Builders Association of Central
Arizona -- were in agreement over the changes.

"We drafted it together," said Paul Hickman, president and CEO of
the Arizona Bankers Association.

While HB 2018 doesn't go as far as Mr. Hickman wanted, it was a
compromise and still accomplishes his goal of shifting some of
the burden and risk away from lenders.

Nicole LaSlavic, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of
Realtors, agreed the bill was a compromise, one the association
supported largely because there won't be any impact to the
average homeowner.

"It maintains the anti-deficiency statutes as they were passed in
1971 and does not remove the protections (homeowners) would
have," Ms. LaSlavic said.

Mr. Hickman said spec and custom builders were targeted because
they have and can "cause irreparable harm" to the small-and
medium-sized banks they have often turned to for financing,
Mr. Hickman said.

"They were not intended to benefit from anti-deficiency
protection . . . they used it as a shield," Mr. Hickman said.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante,
Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *