CAR_Public/140508.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 91

                             Headlines


ABBVIE INC: Pending Suits Consolidated for Pre-Trial Proceedings
ABBVIE INC: Facing Three Healthcare Providers' Lawsuit
AK STEEL: To Transfer OPEB Obligations Owed to Butler Works Class
AK STEEL: To Transfer OPEB Obligations Owed to Zanesville Works
AK STEEL: Paid $4.4MM for Final Judgment in "Schumacher" Case

AK STEEL: Settled "Patrick" Class Action for $2.5-Mil
AK STEEL: Discovery in Price Conspiracy Complaints Proceeds
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Reverses MagSafe Class Action Settlement
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE: Plaintiffs Appealed Case Dismissal
AVIS BUDGET: Accord in 6 Zipcar Lawsuits Okayed in February

BARCLAYS PLC: 2nd Cir. Revives Libor Manipulation Class Action
BARRICK GOLD: Koskie Minsky, Sutts Strosberg File Class Action
BARRICK GOLD: Merchant Law Group Files Shareholder Class Action
BUFFALO SAV: Undeclared Soy Prompts Recall of Perogies
BURGER KING: Contesting Certification Bid in TCPA Class Suit

CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Power Modules
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Settled Advertising Suit Pending Court Approval
EBAY INC: Settles No-Poach Suits with State of California, DoJ
ELPIDA MEMORY: Settles DRAM Price Fixing Class Action
ELSIE MASON: Bedbug Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay

ENDO INT'L: Settles Vaginal Mesh Suits for $830 Million
FAIRWAY GROUP: Defendant in S.D.N.Y. Securities Complaint
FAIRWAY GROUP: Defendant in S.D.N.Y. Suit to Rescind Shares Sales
FAMILYMEDS GROUP: June 9 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
FANNIE MAE: Plaintiffs-Appellees Filed Motion to Dismiss Appeal

FANNIE MAE: Discovery Ongoing in Massachusetts Pension Suit
FANNIE MAE: Plaintiffs Seek Stay of Briefing in Dismissal Motion
FERNANDEZ CHILE: Recalls Chile Molido Puro and Chile Rojo
FRONTIER NATURAL: Organic Black Peppercorns Recalled
GOODMAN GLOBAL: Two Law Firms File Defective Aircon Class Action

GROUPON INC: Defending Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Bank Unit's Supreme Court Appeal Still Pending
H GROUP: 509 Units of Trader Giotto's Caesar Salad Recalled
INTUIT INC: "Smith" Case Resolved in January 2014
J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT: One Wage Lawsuit Scheduled for Trial in 2015

KORU PACIFIC: Recalls AH!LASKA(R) Non-Dairy Choco Mix
LISY CORPORATION: Recalls Lisy Sweet Basil (Albahaca) 6 Oz.
LORILLARD INC: 3 Groups of Engle Progeny Cases for Trial in 2015
LORILLARD INC: Flight Attendant Cases Not Scheduled for Trial
LORILLARD INC: Must Indemnify Loews for Loss in Pending Cases

MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: Sent Notice of Williams Settlement
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Zelle Hofmann Files Class Action in Minnesota
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Shariff Floyd Joins Class Action
NATURAL ORGANICS: Recall of Tea Tree Mouthwash Expanded
NATURE'S UNIVERSE: Thinogenics Products Recalled Worldwide

NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Defending Wage Deductions Complaints
NTS REALTY: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
OCEAN RIG UDW: Class Suit Over OceanFreight-Pelican Merger Closed
OLDFORD GROUP: Plaintiff Adds Son in PokerStars Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Constitutional Appeal in Brazil Suit Still Pending

PHILIP MORRIS: Court Rejected Brazil Public Prosecutor's Appeal
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit to Conclude in 2014
PHILIP MORRIS: Expects to Conclude Conseil Quebecois Suit in 2014
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions in Saskatchewan Action Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Semple" Case

PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Dorion" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Files Jurisdictional Challenges in "McDermid" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Filed Jurisdictional Challenges in "Bourassa" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Counsel to Take No Action in Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Oral Hearing on El-Roy Lawsuit Scheduled in Sept.

UNITED STATES: Reinstatement of Claims in 9/11 Case Sought
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Social Worker Leads Overtime Class Action
REVLON INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action
ROBERT ABADY: Salmonella Scare Prompts Cat Food Recall
SADER POWER: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Trade Practices

SPROUTS FARMERS: Recalls Organic Black Peppercorns
STATE STREET: Accrued $15-Mil. in Two ERISA Class Actions
STATE STREET: Faces Three Pending Shareholder Complaints
SWANSON HEALTH: Salmonella Scare Prompts Spectrum Cilantro Recall
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ordered to Change Terms in Arbitration Clause

VIM RECYCLING: Elkhart Residents Await Settlement Approval
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Organic Black Peppercorns
WHOLE FOODS: Chipotle Chicken Wraps Recalled in Northern Calif.
ZYNGA INC: Hearing on Motions to Dismiss Securities Suits Vacated
ZYNGA INC: Deadlines Stayed in "Reyes" Action

ZYNGA INC: Faces Amended Complaint Over Lock-Up Agreements

* 10 Listed Banks in China File Class Action v. Steel Traders
* FDA Issues Two Orders to Address Transvaginal Mesh Risks
* Group Seeks Right to Use Wiretaps in Suit v. Oil Companies
* Medical-Malpractice Claims Hit New Low in Ohio in 2012


                            *********


ABBVIE INC: Pending Suits Consolidated for Pre-Trial Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2013, all pending putative class action lawsuits
against AbbVie, Inc., alleging among other things, deceptive
trade practices and unjust enrichment laws, were centralized for
consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings, Form 10-K
filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Lawsuits have been filed against AbbVie and others generally
alleging that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving
Niaspan(R) entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a
company acquired by Abbott Laboratories in 2006 and presently a
subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates federal and
state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade
practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek
monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In
September 2013, all of these pending putative class action
lawsuits were centralized for consolidated or coordinated pre-
trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Multi-District
Litigation Rules as In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2460.

AbbVie Inc. (AbbVie) is a research-based pharmaceuticals company.
The Company discovers, develops, and commercializes advanced
therapies. AbbVie's portfolio of products include a line of adult
and pediatric pharmaceuticals, which includes HUMIRA,
metabolics/hormones products, virology products, endocrinology
products, dyslipidemia products and other products. AbbVie
products are used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis,
Crohn's disease, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), cystic
fibrosis complications, low testosterone, thyroid disease,
Parkinson's disease and complications associated with chronic
kidney disease, among other indications. In October 2012, AbbVie
initiated a comprehensive Phase III program for hepatitis C virus
(HCV) genotype one.


ABBVIE INC: Facing Three Healthcare Providers' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc., is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging, among other things, violations of federal RICO
statutes, 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 August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was
filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit
providers alleging violations of federal RICO statutes and state
deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in
connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from
1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable
relief and attorneys' fees.

AbbVie Inc. (AbbVie) is a research-based pharmaceuticals company.
The Company discovers, develops, and commercializes advanced
therapies. AbbVie's portfolio of products include a line of adult
and pediatric pharmaceuticals, which includes HUMIRA,
metabolics/hormones products, virology products, endocrinology
products, dyslipidemia products and other products. AbbVie
products are used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis,
Crohn's disease, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), cystic
fibrosis complications, low testosterone, thyroid disease,
Parkinson's disease and complications associated with chronic
kidney disease, among other indications. In October 2012, AbbVie
initiated a comprehensive Phase III program for hepatitis C virus
(HCV) genotype one.


AK STEEL: To Transfer OPEB Obligations Owed to Butler Works Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel Holding Corporation will
transfer to the VEBA trust all OPEB obligations owed to the
Butler Works class members under the Company's applicable health
and welfare 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.

In January 2011, the Company reached a final settlement agreement
(the "Butler Retiree Settlement") of a class action filed on
behalf of certain retirees from the Company's Butler Works
relating to the Company's OPEB obligations to such retirees.
Pursuant to the Butler Retiree Settlement, AK Steel agreed to
continue to provide company-paid health and life insurance to
class members through December 31, 2014, and has made combined
lump sum payments totaling $91.0 million to a VEBA trust and to
plaintiffs' counsel, with the final payment made in 2013.
Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA
trust all OPEB obligations owed to the class members under the
Company's applicable health and welfare plans and will have no
further liability for OPEB benefits after December 31, 2014. The
effect of the settlement on the Company's total OPEB liability
(prior to any funding of the VEBA trust) was an increase in that
liability of approximately $29.6 million in 2011. With respect to
this increase, a one-time, pre-tax charge of $14.2 million was
recorded in 2011 to reverse previous amortization of the prior
plan amendment. For accounting purposes, a settlement of the
Company's OPEB obligations will be deemed to have occurred when
the Company makes the final benefit payments in 2014.

AK Steel Holding Corporation is an integrated producer of flat-
rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular
products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation.  The Company's operations consist primarily of nine
steelmaking and finishing plants and tubular production
facilities located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: To Transfer OPEB Obligations Owed to Zanesville Works
---------------------------------------------------------------
Effective January 1, 2016, AK Steel Holding Corporation will
transfer to the VEBA trust all OPEB obligations owed to the
Zanesville Works class members under the Company's applicable
health and welfare 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.

In December 2012, the Company reached a final settlement
agreement of a class action filed on behalf of certain retirees
from the Company's Zanesville Works relating to the Company's
OPEB obligations to such retirees. Pursuant to the Zanesville
Retiree Settlement, AK Steel agreed to continue to provide
company-paid health and life insurance to class members through
December 31, 2015, and to make combined lump sum payments
totaling $10.6 million to a VEBA trust and to plaintiffs' counsel
over three years. The first payments of $4.4 million were made in
July 2013. Effective January 1, 2016, AK Steel will transfer to
the VEBA trust all OPEB obligations owed to the class members
under the Company's applicable health and welfare plans and will
have no further liability for any claims incurred by the class
members after December 31, 2015, relating to their OPEB
obligations. The effect of the settlement on the Company's total
OPEB liability (prior to any funding of the VEBA trust) was an
increase in that liability of approximately $3.0 million in 2012.
With respect to this increase, a one-time, pre-tax charge of $3.8
million was recorded in 2012 for legal fees and to reverse
previous amortization of the prior plan amendment.

AK Steel Holding Corporation is an integrated producer of flat-
rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular
products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation. The Company's operations consist primarily of nine
steelmaking and finishing plants and tubular production
facilities located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: Paid $4.4MM for Final Judgment in "Schumacher" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation on November 21, 2013, paid $4.4
million in accordance with the Court's final judgment in
connection with the William Schumacher class action, according to
the Court'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 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794. The
complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of
benefits to him and the other class members. The plaintiff and
the other individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff filed suit
were excluded by the Court in 2005 from similar litigation
previously reported and now resolved (the class action litigation
filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on previous releases
of claims they had executed in favor of the Company. There were a
total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the prior
litigation. On January 24, 2011, this case was certified as a
class action. On December 12, 2011, the Court entered a final
judgment in an amount slightly in excess of $3.0 million, which
included pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate through that
date. The defendants filed an appeal from that final judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the
plaintiff filed an appeal on the issue of how the pre-judgment
interest was calculated. On March 28, 2013, the Court of Appeals
issued an opinion in which it upheld the District Court's
decision with respect to liability and reversed and remanded the
District Court's decision with respect to pre-judgment interest.
On May 29, 2013, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for a
determination of the new rate for pre-judgment interest with
respect to the final judgment amount of $3.0 million. On November
13, 2013, the District Court entered final judgment in the amount
of $4.4 million, including pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, in accordance with its determination of the pre-
judgment interest issue. That judgment was paid on November 21,
2013 from the Company's pension trust. On October 14, 2013,
Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion requesting an award of
attorney fees of $1.3 million. The Company opposed that motion.
By order dated February 4, 2014, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the motion filed by Plaintiffs' counsel seeking an
award of fees. As part of the order, the Court directed the
defendants to pay to Plaintiffs' counsel statutory fees in the
amount of approximately $0.6 million. Because, like the final
judgment, any award of attorney fees will be paid out of the
Company's pension trust, the Company has not recorded an accrual
related to this matter. Upon payment of such fees (which is
expected to be in the first quarter of 2014), this matter will be
concluded as to the defendants.

AK Steel Holding Corporation is an integrated producer of flat-
rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular
products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation. The Company's operations consist primarily of nine
steelmaking and finishing plants and tubular production
facilities located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: Settled "Patrick" Class Action for $2.5-Mil
-----------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation made a total payment of $2.5 million
pursuant to the terms of a settlement, 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 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff
filed a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
1:05-cv-681. The complaint alleged that the defendants
incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving spouse benefits
due to be paid to the plaintiffs under an applicable pension
plan. The case subsequently was certified as a class action.
Pursuant to a settlement conference called by the District Court,
the parties reached a settlement of this matter in 2013, subject
to court approval after a fairness hearing. On July 1, 2013, the
parties filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Settlement. An order providing such preliminary approval was
entered on July 29, 2013. The District Court held a fairness
hearing on November 20, 2013, and on November 22, 2013, entered a
final order approving the class action settlement and an order
dismissing the litigation with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the named plaintiffs and
other participating class members were paid $1.7 million and $0.8
million was paid to plaintiffs' attorneys for fees and costs, for
a total payment of $2.5 million. The settlement payments set
forth above were made from the Company's pension plan trust in
the first quarter of 2014. Upon such payments, this matter was
concluded.

AK Steel Holding Corporation is an integrated producer of flat-
rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular
products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation. The Company's operations consist primarily of nine
steelmaking and finishing plants and tubular production
facilities located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


AK STEEL: Discovery in Price Conspiracy Complaints Proceeds
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, discovery in complaint against AK Steel
Holding Corporation alleging conspiracy to stabilize and maintain
artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the
United States, has proceeded only with respect to issues relating
to class certification, 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 September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against nine steel manufacturers,
including AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are
08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and
08CV6197. An additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed
in the same federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December
28, 2010 another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state
court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The
defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and filed
a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of
Illinois. That motion was granted on March 28, 2012.

The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which
claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as
January 2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel
producers have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to
restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain
artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the
United States. Discovery has commenced.

On May 24, 2012, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification. On February 28, 2013, the defendants
filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for class
certification and motions to exclude the opinions of the
plaintiffs' experts. The motion for class certification and the
motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs' experts are
set for an evidentiary hearing on March 15, 2014. No trial date
has been set. AK Holding intends to contest this matter
vigorously. To date, discovery in this action has proceeded only
with respect to issues relating to class certification.

The Company said it does not have adequate information available
to determine that a loss is probable or to reliably or accurately
estimate its potential loss in the event that the plaintiffs were
to prevail. Because the Company has been unable to determine that
the potential loss in this case is probable or estimable, it has
not recorded an accrual related to this matter. In the event that
the Company's assumptions used to evaluate whether a loss in this
matter is either probable or estimable prove to be incorrect or
change in future periods, the Company may be required to record a
liability for an adverse outcome.

AK Steel Holding Corporation is an integrated producer of flat-
rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular
products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation.  The Company's operations consist primarily of nine
steelmaking and finishing plants and tubular production
facilities located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Reverses MagSafe Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed a settlement of a class action against
Apple over defective MagSafe power adapters that would have paid
the lawyers who negotiated it $3 million but delivered less than
$1 million to their clients.

The three-judge panel also reversed U.S. District Judge James
Ware's order requiring the objectors, represented by attorney Ted
Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness, to post $15,000
bonds in order to pursue their appeal of the lopsided settlement.
The opinion was unpublished, meaning it has no precedential
value, but the judges criticized Ware for ignoring previous Ninth
Circuit decisions requiring judges to be "particularly vigilant"
in examining settlements for "self-dealing and implicit
collusion."

There was ample evidence of that in this case, since Judge Ware
approved several of the features that the Ninth has warned judges
to be suspicious of, including a "clear sailing" provision under
which Apple agreed not to challenge the fees of the plaintiff
lawyers suing it and stood to get back any funds that weren't
claimed by class members.

The lawyers at Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck claimed $1,986,362 in
fees, which Judge Ware increased 1.5 times to $3 million to
compensate them for the skill and risk involved in the case.
That risk was minimized, of course, by the clear-sailing
provision, and the skill is debatable: The Center for Class
Action Fairness, in its objection, noted that the settlement
seemed designed to discourage consumers from actually collecting
anything.  While Apple had electronic records of MacBook
purchasers who had replaced their power supplies and most of the
procedures were online, the lawyers required their clients to
submit refund forms in writing.

Out of 10 million class members, the Center reports, 340,000
visited the class action website, 61,000 downloaded claim forms,
and 12,000 submitted claims worth somewhere between $420,000 and
$948,000.  Such lopsided results, where the lawyers grab the
majority of the money they negotiated in the settlement, is also
a strong indication of collusion under the so-called Bluetooth
standards named after an infamous collusive settlement involving
headsets that the Ninth Circuit rejected in 2011.

By rubber-stamping the attorney's estimate of nearly $2 million
in billable hours, the appeals court panel said, "the court did
not explain why this figure is reasonable beyond a few
boilerplate recitations about the attorneys' skill and the risks
of proceeding with the litigation that never reference the
specific facts of this case."  The judges instructed Ware to
reassess the fees he wants to award to the plaintiff lawyers as
well as cross-checking them against what the settlement was
really worth.

The district court conducted the fairness hearing before the
claims-submission period closed, leaving us with no reliable way
of estimating how many valid claims were submitted or the total
amount that Apple intends to pay claimants under the refund
component of the settlement agreement.  On remand, the district
court may find it useful to elicit this information so that it
can compare the amount recovered by the class with the amount
claimed by class counsel.

Finally, the appeals court rejected the bonds Ware ordered the
objectors to post, saying there was nothing in California law to
justify them.  And it restored the objection of a plaintiff now
living in Ireland, who refused to fly to California to sit for a
deposition before the class-action lawyers.


ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE: Plaintiffs Appealed Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs on January 13, 2014, appealed the lower court's
decision dismissing a purported consumer class action complaint
against Arizona Public Service Company seeking damages as a
result of interruption of electrical service, 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 September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages
for loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of
interruption of electrical service. APS and Pinnacle West filed a
motion to dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.
On January 13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's
decision.

Arizona Public Service Company is a grand provider of energy in
the Grand Canyon state. Arizona Public Service, a subsidiary of
Pinnacle West Capital, distributes power to about 1.1 million
customers in 11 of 15 Arizona counties, making it the largest
electric utility in the state. It operates more than 5,900 miles
of transmission lines and more than 28,930 miles of distribution
lines; it generates 6,370 MW of capacity, mainly from fossil-
fueled and nuclear power plants. Arizona Public Service also
purchases power from other suppliers to supplement its company-
owned generation capacity.


AVIS BUDGET: Accord in 6 Zipcar Lawsuits Okayed in February
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group, Inc., in February 2014 obtained Court approval
to settle and dismiss six putative class actions that arose out
of the Company's acquisition of Zipcar, 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 January 2013, six putative class actions were filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court and two putative class actions were filed
in Massachusetts state court arising out of the acquisition of
Zipcar by the Company. The complaints all generally alleged that
Zipcar's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties of care
and loyalty by failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Zipcar for its public shareholders and that the Company aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties by Zipcar's board of
directors. The parties executed a stipulation of settlement in
October 2013, which the Delaware Chancery Court reviewed and
approved in February 2014, and which resulted in this matter
being fully dismissed.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. operates two brands in the global vehicle
rental industry through Avis and Budget. Avis is a rental car
supplier positioned to serve the commercial and leisure segments
of the travel industry and Budget is a rental car supplier
focused primarily on more value-conscious segments of the
industry. It operates in three segments: North America,
consisting of its Avis and Budget car rental operations in the
United States and its Avis and Budget vehicle rental operations
in Canada; International, consisting of its Avis and Budget
vehicle rental operations in Europe, the Middle East, Asia,
Africa, South America, central America, the Caribbean, Australia
and New Zealand, and Truck Rental, consisting of its Budget truck
rental operations in the United States. On October 3, 2011, the
Company acquired Avis Europe plc. In July 2013, Avis Budget Group
Inc acquired Payless Car Rental.


BARCLAYS PLC: 2nd Cir. Revives Libor Manipulation Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Beeson and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that a
Second Circuit panel on April 25 revived a putative class action
against Barclays PLC over its alleged manipulation of two key
interest rates when it ruled a lower court erred by tossing the
case prior to discovery.

The panel ruled that, counter to what a U.S. district court
found, the trio of pension funds suing the bank and its former
CEO Robert Diamond had adequately pled a cause of damages they
suffered when Barclays' alleged rigging of the London and Euro
interbank offered rates came to light in June 2012.

Specifically, the funds said they incurred stock market losses
shortly after Barclays reached a $450 million settlement with
U.S. and U.K. regulators over allegations it rigged its Libor and
Euribor submissions between August 2007 and January 2009.  In
their suit, the funds claimed the losses were directly caused by
the bank's misrepresentations and a related statement Diamond
made at the time.

"While expressing no view on the ultimate merits of plaintiffs'
theory of loss causation, we hold that the court below reached
these conclusions prematurely," U.S. District Court Judge Richard
M. Berman wrote in the decision for the panel.

Libor is set by the British Bankers' Association and based on the
rates major banks say they would pay to borrow from one another.
Since the financial crisis, regulators found that Barclays and
others lowballed their estimated rates, thus giving a false
impression of their financial health and undermining the
integrity of the benchmark rate.

Barclays was the first financial institution to face regulatory
sanction in the widening scandal over rate-rigging.  It soon was
followed by UBS AG, the Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Rabobank and
ICAP PLC, while individual bankers also have been hit with
charges.  Meanwhile, private party suits are stalking banks as
municipalities and others claim the manipulation cost them money
as well.

The April 25 ruling now plunges Barclays back into another
thicket of litigation it initially escaped last year.

However, the appeals court panel did grant Barclays one reprieve.
It said U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin was correct
to quash the funds' claim that Barclays made materially false
statements about its internal controls in U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings.  In her May 2013 ruling, Judge
Scheindlin dismissed the charge and called the statements mere
"puffery."

The funds, led by the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund of St. Louis,
appealed the judge's ruling, which led to oral arguments before
the appeals panel in February.  In pressing their case, the funds
said the 12 percent drop in Barclays share price on June 28,
2012, the day after the Libor settlement was announced, was
directly caused by its misrepresentations in its Libor
submissions.  The plaintiffs also pointed to a statement Diamond
made during a 2008 call with investment analysts in which he
"categorically" denied the bank was paying higher rates than its
competitors.

But to Judge Scheindlin, these alleged misrepresentations were
too far removed from the stock decline to have caused the funds'
losses.  In particular, she found it implausible that, three
years after the bank reportedly corrected its Libor submissions,
its share price would still reflect the phony submissions from
earlier.

The appeals panel, however, said the oral arguments it heard
indicated that such a delayed market correction was indeed
plausible, as the defendants conceded its alleged
misrepresentations were not public until 2012.

"We cannot conclude, as a matter of law and without discovery,
that any artificial inflation of Barclays's stock price after
January 2009 was resolved by an efficient market prior to June
27, 2012," the Second Circuit said.

With respect to the claim Barclays made misleading statements in
its SEC filings, the appeals panel said the plaintiffs cited no
filings from the bank specifically discussing its internal
controls over its Libor and Euribor submissions, leaving them
with no false statements in that regard.

The panel remanded the claim back to the district court.  In
response, an attorney for the funds said his clients are looking
forward to pressing onward.  "I think it's a very positive
outcome for the plaintiffs.  We're very happy with the decision,"
David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP said.

The panel comprised Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann, Circuit Judge
Jos‚ A. Cabranes and District Judge Richard M. Berman.

The plaintiffs are represented by Susan K. Alexander, Andrew S.
Love, Samuel H. Rudman and David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP and Joseph E. White III of Saxena White PA.

Barclays is represented by David H. Braff --
braffd@sullcrom.com -- Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com --
and Matthew J. Porpora -- porporam@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP and Jonathan D. Schiller -- jschiller@bsfllp.com --
and Michael Brille -- mbrille@bsfllp.com -- of Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP.

Robert Diamond is represented by Cheryl A. Krause of Dechert LLP.


BARRICK GOLD: Koskie Minsky, Sutts Strosberg File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 24, 2014, Koskie Minsky LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP
commenced a multi-billion dollar securities class action against
Barrick Gold Corporation and certain senior officers.

The claim is brought on behalf of purchasers of Barrick
securities from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013.  The plaintiff
alleges that throughout this period of time Barrick's public
disclosure misrepresented the progress and feasibility of its
Pascua-Lama project in Chile and Argentina and failed to disclose
key information about the project.  On April 10, 2013, a Chilean
appeals court ordered Barrick to halt construction at the Pascua-
Lama project citing environmental infractions.  Subsequently,
Barrick announced that it expected to take an after-tax
impairment charge of $4.5 to $5.5 billion and that it was
indefinitely suspending the Pascua-Lama project.  Investors are
alleged to have lost billions of dollars as a result of these
misrepresentations and failures to disclose.

"Full, true and plain disclosure is the lifeblood of our capital
markets and this action raises questions about Barrick's
disclosure practices regarding its massive Pascua-Lama project"
explains Jay Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP.

Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP states that "the plaintiff, on
behalf of Barrick's investors, seeks an explanation and
compensation for the significant losses he and other investors
suffered as the challenges regarding the Pascua-Lama project have
been revealed".


BARRICK GOLD: Merchant Law Group Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Lazenby, writing for miningweekly.com, reports that
Toronto-based Merchant Law Group on April 25 announced that its
law firm has started Canada-wide multibillion-dollar shareholder
class actions against the world's largest gold miner, Barrick
Gold, and three of its senior officers.

Merchant Law Group said that it had the class actions with the
Courts in Ontario and Alberta, seeking compensation for
purchasers of Barrick securities from May 7, 2009, to May 23,
2013.

The plaintiffs allege that throughout that time, Barrick's public
disclosures misrepresented the status of its roughly $8.5-billion
Pascua-Lama copper/gold project straddling the Argentine/Chilean
border.

In April 2013, the Copiapo Court of Appeals, in Chile, ordered
Barrick to halt construction at the Pascua-Lama mining project
citing environmental infractions.

The class actions allege that Barrick shareholders lost billions
of dollars as a result of Barrick's misrepresentations and
failures regarding the Pascua-Lama mine project.


BUFFALO SAV: Undeclared Soy Prompts Recall of Perogies
------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo SAV Inc of Buffalo, NY is recalling its 907 g (2 lb)
package of Potato and Bacon perogies Grandma's perogies brand
because it may contain undeclared soy protein allergen. People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to Soy protein run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The recalled "Potato and Bacon perogies Grandma's perogies" brand
was distributed to NY, OH, MI states by direct delivery and to CA
and IL by the trucking company to retail stores and distributors.

Product comes in a clear plastic 2 lb bag with pink color label
marked with expiration dates 040414 to 040415 identified on
bottom right hand corner.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The problem was discovered by a Canadian Food Safety Agency
inspector who noticed that the bacon bits ingredient contained
soy protein allergen. The soy protein was not identified as an
allergen on the packaging label for potato and bacon perogies
under the Grandma's perogies brand name.

Consumers who have purchased the product are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at (716) 895-1404, Monday-
Friday 8am-5pm ET.


BURGER KING: Contesting Certification Bid in TCPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Worldwide, Inc., is contesting liability and class
certification against a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act, 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.

Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation, Civ.
Action No. 8-13-CV-00662 (U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland). On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed against BKC in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The
complaint alleges that BKC and/or its agents sent unsolicited
advertisements by fax to thousands of consumers in Maryland and
elsewhere in the United States to promote its home delivery
program in violation of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act.
The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
BKC has filed a motion to dismiss. If BKC's motion to dismiss is
denied, it is anticipated that the parties will proceed with
discovery. BKC will vigorously contest liability and class
certification.

Burger King Worldwide, Inc. is a fast food hamburger restaurant,
under the Burger King brand. The Company generates revenues from
three sources: franchise revenues, consisting primarily of
royalties based on a percentage of sales reported by franchise
restaurants and fees paid by franchisees; property income from
properties that it leases or subleases to franchisees, and retail
sales at Company restaurants. In September 2012, it sold 41
Company-owned BURGER KING restaurants in Singapore to Rancak
Selera Sdn Bhd. As of December 31, 2012, it owned or franchised a
total of 12,997 restaurants in 86 countries and United States
territories. In April 2013, it announced the sale of Burger King
Restaurants of Canada (BKRC), including 94 Company owned BURGER
KING restaurants in the Canada market to Redberry Investments
Corp.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Power Modules
---------------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that further to reports of alleged
defects with the Chrysler Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM)
in 2011-2012 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Durangos and Dodge
Grand Caravans, a class action lawsuit has been filed, alleging
the alleged defective Chrysler TIPMs can cause numerous
electrical problems and serious safety risks.

According to the lawsuit, the associated TIPM problems range from
difficulty starting the vehicles to stalling to fuel pumps not
shutting off.  Additionally, the affected vehicles may experience
random activation of the built in alarm systems, windshield
wipers or horns, headlights going out.  The alleged defective
TIPMs are so common that the replacement parts are backordered
for weeks across the US.

The plaintiffs allege that to date, Chrysler has refused to
reimburse impacted affected owners for their rental car costs or
the cost of expensive repairs.  Further, Chrysler has to date
refused to issue a recall for the TIPM, despite being aware that
the defective TIPM pose serious safety risks to those who
continue to drive the impacted Chrysler vehicles.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Settled Advertising Suit Pending Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Church & Dwight Co., Inc., in January 2014 settled, subject to
court approval, the case alleging that the Company made false and
misleading advertising and marketing campaign, 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 has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of
ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant. Specifically, on March
9, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephen Trewin and Joseph Farhatt, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a
complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act and breach of implied warranty.

The original complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company uses a marketing and advertising campaign that is
centered around the claim that the ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS
Natural Deodorant is a "natural" product that contains "natural"
ingredients and provides "natural" protection.  The complaint
alleges that the advertising and marketing campaign is false and
misleading because the product contains artificial and synthetic
ingredients.  Among other things, the complaint seeks an order
certifying the case as a class action, appointing Plaintiffs as
class representatives and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to
represent the class. The complaint also seeks restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts obtained by the Company as a result
of the alleged misconduct; compensatory, actual, statutory and
other unspecified damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs and
the purported class; up to treble damages for alleged violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; punitive damages for
alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act;
an order requiring the Company to immediately cease its alleged
wrongful conduct; an order requiring the Company to engage in a
corrective notice campaign; an order requiring the Company to pay
to Plaintiffs and all members of the purported class the amounts
paid for ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant; statutory
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
original complaint. On December 10, 2012, the Court issued an
order granting the Company's motion and dismissed the original
complaint without prejudice. On January 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking relief similar to that sought in the
original complaint, but excluding the breach of implied warranty
claim.

In January 2014, the case was settled for an immaterial amount,
and the settlement is subject to Court approval. If the Court
fails to approve the settlement, the Company will continue to
vigorously defend itself in this matter. While it is not
currently possible to estimate the amount of any damages or
determine the impact of any equitable relief that may be granted
if the litigation continues and if there is an adverse outcome,
such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows.

Church & Dwight Co., Inc. develops, manufactures and markets a
range of household, personal care and specialty products. The
Company's brands include ARM & HAMMER, (used in multiple product
categories, such as baking soda, carpet deodorization and laundry
detergent), TROJAN Condoms, XTRA laundry detergent, OXICLEAN pre-
wash laundry additive, NAIR depilatories, FIRST RESPONSE home
pregnancy and ovulation test kits, ORAJEL oral analgesics and
SPINBRUSH battery-operated toothbrushes. The Company operates in
three segments: Consumer Domestic, Consumer International and
Specialty Products. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Consumer Domestic, Consumer International and Specialty Products
segments represented approximately 72%, 19% and 9%, respectively,
of the Company's net sales. On June 28, 2011, the Company
acquired the BATISTE dry shampoo brand from Vivalis, Limited. In
October 2012, it acquired Avid Health, Inc. (Avid).


EBAY INC: Settles No-Poach Suits with State of California, DoJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that EBay has
struck settlements with California and the U.S. Department of
Justice over its alleged pact with Intuit not to poach each
other's employees.

Under the federal settlement, eBay Inc. will be barred from
entering any agreement to restrict recruitment for five years,
the Department of Justice announced on May 1.  The eBay
investigation was the last of Main Justice's probes into "no
poach" conspiracies in the Valley. Adobe Systems Inc., Apple
Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc., Pixar and Lucasfilm
settled with the government as soon as civil suits against them
were filed, but eBay held out.

Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer, who heads the DOJ Antitrust
Division, said the May 1 settlement highlights the government's
commitment to enforcement in emerging markets.

"What we've done here is make it abundantly clear to high-tech
companies that the antitrust laws apply to them," Baer said in a
conference call with reporters.  "You can't innovate your way
around the antitrust laws."

In addition, the online auction house will pay $3.75 million in
restitution and civil penalties to resolve a suit filed by
California Attorney General Kamala Harris alleging the company's
pact with Intuit violated state and federal laws, Ms. Harris
announced on May 1.  Most of the money will go toward a
settlement fund to pay restitution to people who worked for eBay
or Intuit in California.  The state is earmarked $300,000 of the
pot, which marks the first time such a settlement has explicitly
compensated a state for harm to the economy, according to Harris'
office.

"No-poach agreements unfairly punish talented workers and stunt
our state's economic growth," Ms. Harris said in a statement.
"This settlement compensates employees, demands improved future
hiring practices, and refunds the state for economic harm."

Resolution in the eBay case comes on the heels of a sweeping
settlement to end civil litigation over the Valley no-poach
pacts. Last week, Apple, Adobe, Intel and Google reached a deal
with lawyers for a class of roughly 60,000 skilled employees to
resolve their claims for $325 million.

Though it has made peace with regulators, the San Jose-based
company, which is represented by Paul Hastings, continued to
defend the practices that got it in hot water.

"EBay continues to believe that the policy that prompted this
lawsuit was acceptable and legal, and led to no anticompetitive
effects in the talent market in which eBay competed," a company
spokeswoman wrote in an email.

From about 2006 to 2009, when the pact was in effect, eBay
steadfastly refused to interview Intuit employees, even for long-
standing openings, according to the complaint in United States v.
eBay, 12-5869.  The agreement rose to the highest rungs of the
companies.  In 2007, Meg Whitman, then eBay's CEO, complained in
an email to Intuit founder Scott Cook that his company was
soliciting her employees, though she was fulfilling her end of
the bargain.

"#@!%$#^&!!! Meg my apologies. I'll find out how this slip up
occurred again," Mr. Cook replied, according to the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila rejected eBay's bid to dismiss
the federal complaint in September.


ELPIDA MEMORY: Settles DRAM Price Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Dave Greenbaum, writing for Lifehacker, reports that if you owned
any electronic device that had DRAM in it, a price fixing class
action settlement could pay you at least $10.  Here's how to find
out if you qualify.

The settlement includes any individual or business that bought a
device with DRAM between 1998 and 2002.  The products included
are not just computers but other electronics such as graphic
cards, DVD players and MP3 players.  Filing a claim does not
require proof of purchase but "Large claims will likely be
required to supply proof of purchases." and "the Claims
Administrator may request it at a later time, so save any
documentation/proof that you may still have"

The details of how much the settlement pays out are tricky.  The
FAQ -- http://dramclaims.com/faq/-- indicate the payment minimum
is $10.  Larger claims could get a larger settlement.
Alternatively, if the number of small claimants exceed more than
5 million, smaller claims may not pay out.  The claim process --
http://dramclaims.com/file-a-claim/-- is simple: tell them how
many devices you had between 1998 and 2002, provide your contact
info, tell them you are being honest, and click submit.  Quick
and easy potential $10 or more (or nothing at all).

The deadline for filing a claim is August 1, 2014.  If per chance
you want to opt out of the settlement in case you want to file
suit directly, you only have until May 5th 2014.

The Defendants are:

Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc. ("Elpida");
Hitachi, Ltd. ("Hitachi");

Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.,
presently known as SK hynix Inc. and SK hynix America Inc.
("Hynix");

Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America
Corp. ("Infineon");

Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.
("Micron");

Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA,
Inc. ("Mitsubishi");

Mosel-Vitelic Corp., Mosel-Vitelic (USA), Inc. ("Mosel");

Nanya Technology Corp., Nanya Technology Corp. USA, Inc.
("Nanya");

NEC Electronics America, Inc., presently known as Renesas
Electronics America, Inc. ("NEC");

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
("Samsung");

Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
("Toshiba"); and

Winbond Electronics Corp., Winbond Electronics Corporation
America, Inc. ("Winbond")


ELSIE MASON: Bedbug Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Pratt, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports
that preliminary approval has been given for a $2.45 million
settlement in a four-year-old class-action lawsuit brought by
elderly and disabled bedbug-bitten residents of two downtown
Des Moines apartment buildings.

Payments to the estimated 300 current and former residents of
Elsie Mason Manor and Ligutti Tower could range from $200 to
$6,000, said Jeffrey Lipman, one of the attorneys who represented
the residents who filed the lawsuit in March 2010 seeking money
for back rent, lost property and other hardships.  Problems with
bedbugs began in 2007.

The lawsuit ended up at the Iowa Supreme Court, which had been
asked to decertify the class-action status.  The court
deadlocked, which meant a lower court's ruling allowing the
class-action status stood.  The case was settled before it went
to trial.

The settlement could have implications for similar cases,
officials said.

Residents of the two downtown towers have said they have been
stigmatized by the bedbug infestation, which is now under
control.

Residents of the two towers have said building managers were slow
to react to the infestation that left scars on their legs, arms
and necks from the wounds caused by the bedbugs.  Residents of
the two buildings recently met with attorneys about the
settlement.

Settlement money will come from three sources: $2 million will be
paid by the insurer of American Baptist Homes of the Midwest,
which previously owned the two buildings; $350,000 will come from
the development group that bought the properties in May 2013; and
$100,000 will come from the insurer of ABC Pest Control, Inc.,
which formerly serviced the buildings and is listed as a third-
party defendant.

In the preliminary settlement, the buildings' former owners make
no admissions related to negligent conduct, Mr. Lipman said.
However, "we've maintained our position that they were
negligent," Mr. Lipman said.

David Zwickey, CEO and president of American Baptist Homes of the
Midwest, said his organization is satisfied with the terms of the
preliminary approval.

Mr. Zwickey said his group was focused on providing services at
the other facilities it continues to operate across the region.
"This was a very unfortunate incident," Mr. Zwickey said.  He
declined to comment on steps management could have taken to
prevent infestation, saying "re-litigating at this point in time
would be pointless."

"Certainly we learned about remediation of bedbugs," Mr. Zwickey
said.

Developer Frank Levy took control of the property last year and
has started working on a laundry list of improvements, including
a new elevator and staff assigned to help reduce the presence of
bedbugs.

About 200 class members have completed claim forms since the
preliminary agreement was filed, Mr. Lipman said.

In the next few weeks, he and his colleagues will seek out others
who may be entitled to payment.

A judge has scheduled a three-day hearing to hear objections to
the proposed settlement. If the judge approves a final
settlement, Mr. Lipman and his colleagues will move toward
distributing residents money from a fund set up by the court.
"Claims are being based on a matrix that we've developed," Mr.
Lipman said.

He and representatives of two other Des Moines firms plan to ask
the judge for about $816,000, or one-third of the settlement.

"By the time that this is over and done with, we will have been
working on it five years," Mr. Lipman said.

Bill Battey, a resident of Ligutti Tower, said he's satisfied
with the proposed settlement.  "It's good, especially for the
people that have been here the longest," said Mr. Battey, who
spent money on supplies to prevent bedbugs.

The bedbug lawsuit was one of the first brought under Iowa's
consumer protection law, which went into effect in 2009.

Bill Brauch, consumer protection division director at the Iowa
attorney general's office, said consumer and business operators
should take note if a settlement is signed off on.

"Certainly the fact the action was filed and if there is a
settlement, that in and of itself should have some effect across
the state regarding anyone who operates a similar facility," he
said.

Mr. Brauch, who hadn't reviewed the preliminary settlement, said
the group used a 2009 state law called the "Private Right of
Action" law to make its case.  Iowa was the last state in the
U.S. to enact such a law, which allows consumers to sue
businesses that engage in deceptive practices, unfair practices,
or misrepresentation or that fail to disclose material facts.

The Iowa attorney general's office filed a brief in support of
the group's class certification during the legal battle.

"It very clearly was the first bedbug class-action (lawsuit)
under that law," Mr. Brauch said.

Past and current residents of Elsie Mason Manor and Ligutti Tower
and those authorized to act on behalf of them can contact lawyer
Jeff Lipman if they have questions about their status in the
class-action lawsuit.  The Lipman Law Firm is located at 8450
Hickman Road, Suite 16, Clive, Iowa 50325 or the phone number is
515-276-3411


ENDO INT'L: Settles Vaginal Mesh Suits for $830 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that transvaginal mesh device manufacturer Endo International PLC
has agreed to pay $830 million to settle thousands of lawsuits
alleging that its devices caused pain and bleeding in women.

The agreement in principle, announced on April 30, resolves "a
substantial majority" of the transvaginal mesh claims against its
Minneapolis subsidiary, American Medical Systems Inc. (AMS).  The
company estimated the settlement would resolve 20,000 claims,
although it was unclear whether that is the number of lawsuits
filed.

Endo, which previously reserved $520 million for vaginal mesh
claims, anticipated taking a $625 million pretax, noncash charge
during its first quarter 2014.  Its financials are due out on
May 1.

In a written statement, Endo said the settlement was "subject to
final documentation" and "not in any way an admission of
liability or fault." Plaintiffs firms must verify that their
clients had an AMS vaginal mesh product implanted and confirm
certain medical records.

Joseph Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- founding member of Motley
Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C., who negotiated with AMS on behalf
of the plaintiffs, said the settlement could be available to
6,000 women.

"This settlement has been the result of adversarial but
respectful and professional negotiation on the part of all of the
parties," he said in a prepared statement.

Endo is one of seven companies facing litigation alleging that
its transvaginal mesh products, inserted into women to treat
urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, caused bleeding
and pain and, in some cases, subsequent removal surgeries.

Including those that just settled, more than 40,000 cases are
pending, most before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in the
Southern District of West Virginia in Charleston.

On April 29, the last of a series of four bellwether cases
against another defendant, C.R. Bard Inc., settled.

The settlement, which was referenced in a court order on April
29, came in a case brought by Carolyn Jones, a Mississippi woman
who had one of Bard's Avaulta line of products implanted.  The
case, which was filed in 2010 and sought punitive damages, was
scheduled to go to trial on May 19.

"The court has been advised by counsel of the pending settlement
of this action," Judge Goodwin wrote in an order asking the
parties to file for dismissal within 60 days.

Plaintiffs attorney Henry Garrard III -- hgg@bbgbalaw.com -- of
Burlingame Burch Garrard & Ashley in Athens, Ga., did not respond
to a request for comment, nor did a Bard spokeswoman or the
company's attorney, Lori Cohen -- cohenl@gtlaw.com -- chairwoman
of the pharmaceutical, medical device & health care practice at
Greenberg Traurig in Atlanta.

More than 40,000 cases are pending, most before Judge Goodwin.
Last year, a jury in the first federal court bellwether trial
against Bard awarded $2 million.  Bard settled the second case.
The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the third.

In the case of Ms. Jones, Mr. Garrard sought a continuance of a
planned Jan. 10 trial after the wife of a witness was "urgently
hospitalized."  Bard, meanwhile, has been fighting subpoenas
against a former supplier of monofilaments used in its mesh
products.

Judge Goodwin has called for a new bellwether process that could
resolve hundreds of cases at a time.  Bard and lead plaintiffs
attorneys are selecting 200 cases for bellwether trials that
could begin next year.


FAIRWAY GROUP: Defendant in S.D.N.Y. Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities class action lawsuit was brought on
February 14, 2014, against Fairway Group Holdings Corp., alleging
untrue or misleading statements or omissions made in violation of
the federal securities laws pursuant to the Exchange Act,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated February 14, 2014,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 21, 2014.

The purported securities class action lawsuit was brought in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against Fairway Group Holdings Corp. (the "Company") and certain
of the Company's current and former executive officers (the
"Individual Defendants"). The lawsuit was brought by a purported
stockholder of the Company seeking to represent a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of the Company between April 16, 2013 and
February 6, 2014, or who acquired shares of the Company in
connection with its April 17, 2013 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover unspecified damages, as well
as interest, fees and costs, against the Company and the
Individual Defendants as a result of alleged untrue or misleading
statements or omissions made in violation of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and against the Individual
Defendants as a result of alleged untrue or misleading statements
or omissions made in violation of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that
additional complaints containing similar claims may be filed in
the same or other courts, naming the same or additional
defendants.

Fairway Group Holdings Corp. operates in the retail food
industry, selling fresh, natural and organic products, prepared
foods, and specialty and gourmet offerings along with a
assortment of conventional groceries.  It operates two stores on
the West Side of Manhattan, New York.


FAIRWAY GROUP: Defendant in S.D.N.Y. Suit to Rescind Shares Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported securities class action lawsuit was brought on
February 19, 2014, against Fairway Group Holdings Corp., seeking
rescission of sales of the Company's shares and such other
equitable or other injunctive relief as the court deems
appropriate, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated February
14, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 21, 2014.

The purported securities class action lawsuit was brought in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors
and certain of the Company's current and former executive
officers (the "D&O Defendants"), and the underwriters of the
Company's IPO (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants"). The
lawsuit was brought by a purported stockholder of the Company
seeking to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of
shares of the Company pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO
registration statement. The lawsuit seeks to recover unspecified
damages, as well as interest, fees and costs, against the
Company, the D&O Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants as a
result of alleged untrue or misleading statements or omissions
made in violation of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Section 11 of the Securities Act, and against the Company and the
D&O Defendants as a result of alleged untrue or misleading
statements or omissions made in violation of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act. In
addition, the lawsuit seeks rescission of sales of the Company's
shares and such other equitable or other injunctive relief as the
court deems appropriate.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that
additional complaints containing similar claims may be filed in
the same or other courts, naming the same or additional
defendants.

Fairway Group Holdings Corp. operates in the retail food
industry, selling fresh, natural and organic products, prepared
foods, and specialty and gourmet offerings along with a
assortment of conventional groceries. It operates two stores on
the West Side of Manhattan, New York.


FAMILYMEDS GROUP: June 9 Class Action Settlement 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.


FANNIE MAE: Plaintiffs-Appellees Filed Motion to Dismiss Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-appellees on February 6, 2014, moved to dismiss an
individual purported class member's appeal to the settlement in
the Securities litigation against Fannie Mae, 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.

Fannie Mae was a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit
initially filed in 2004 that was pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.  The Company disclosed that:
"In the consolidated complaint filed in 2005, lead plaintiffs
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio alleged that we and certain former
officers, as well as our former outside auditor, made materially
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs contended that Fannie
Mae's accounting statements were inconsistent with GAAP
requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of
premiums and discounts, and sought unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees and costs. On January 7,
2008, the court defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae
common stock and call options and all sellers of publicly traded
Fannie Mae put options during the period from April 17, 2001
through December 22, 2004. On October 17, 2008, FHFA, as
conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case. In September
and December 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports claiming
damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging
cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion. In 2011, the
parties filed various motions for summary judgment. On September
20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant
Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's former Chief Executive Officer,
on all claims against him. On October 16, 2012, the court granted
summary judgment to defendant J. Timothy Howard, Fannie Mae's
former Chief Financial Officer, on all claims against him. On
November 20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to
defendant Leanne Spencer, Fannie Mae's former Controller, on all
claims against her.

"On April 10, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this litigation, subject to court approval. On May 7,
2013, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the
court. On June 7, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, approved the form and manner of notice to the
class, stayed non-settlement related proceedings, and set certain
other deadlines related to the settlement. On October 31, 2013,
the court held a hearing to evaluate the fairness of the
settlement to the class, and on December 5, 2013, granted final
approval of the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice,
and entered an order and judgment effecting the settlement.
Fannie Mae's contribution to the settlement did not have a
material impact on our results of operations or financial
condition.

"On January 9, 2014, Rinis Travel Service, Inc. Profit Sharing
Trust U.A. 61-1989, a purported class member, appealed the
court's approval order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. On January 17, 2014, plaintiffs-appellees
filed a motion to dismiss the Rinis appeal for lack of standing
and for sanctions. On February 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals
issued an order requiring Rinis to show cause why its appeal
should not be dismissed. On January 29, 2014, an individual
purported class member also appealed the settlement approval, and
plaintiffs-appellees moved to dismiss this appeal on February 6,
2014."

Federal National Mortgage Association is a government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE) chartered by the United States Congress to
support liquidity and stability in the secondary mortgage market,
where mortgage-related assets are purchased and sold. The
Company's activities include providing market liquidity by
securitizing mortgage loans originated by lenders in the primary
mortgage market into Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities
(Fannie Mae MBS), and purchasing mortgage loans and mortgage-
related securities in the secondary market for its mortgage
portfolio. Fannie Mae operates in three business segments:
Single-Family business, Multifamily Business (formerly Housing
and Community Development (HCD)) and Capital Markets group. Its
Single-Family Credit Guaranty and Multifamily businesses work
with its lender customers to purchase and securitize mortgage
loans customers deliver to the Company into Fannie Mae MBS.


FANNIE MAE: Discovery Ongoing in Massachusetts Pension Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act, according to Fannie Mae'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 a consolidated amended complaint filed on
June 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for
common shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System
(for preferred shareholders) allege that we, certain of our
former officers, and certain of our underwriters violated
Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Lead
plaintiffs also allege that we, certain of our former officers,
and our outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Lead plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including
rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts'
fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief. On October 13,
2009, the court entered an order allowing FHFA to intervene.

"In 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims as to all defendants. In 2010, the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims. As a result of the
partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims
remained pending against us and certain of our former officers.
Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated complaint on
December 31, 2010.

"Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class
action complaint on March 2, 2012, renewing the remaining claims
and adding FHFA as a defendant. On August 30, 2012, the court
denied defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint, allowing plaintiffs' Securities Exchange Act claims
premised on Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A disclosures to
proceed along with plaintiffs' claims premised on Fannie Mae's
risk management disclosures. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the
second amended complaint on October 29, 2012. Discovery is
ongoing.

"Given the stage of this lawsuit, the substantial and novel legal
questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, the Company
is currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss arising from this litigation.

Federal National Mortgage Association is a government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE) chartered by the United States Congress to
support liquidity and stability in the secondary mortgage market,
where mortgage-related assets are purchased and sold. The
Company's activities include providing market liquidity by
securitizing mortgage loans originated by lenders in the primary
mortgage market into Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities
(Fannie Mae MBS), and purchasing mortgage loans and mortgage-
related securities in the secondary market for its mortgage
portfolio. Fannie Mae operates in three business segments:
Single-Family business, Multifamily Business (formerly Housing
and Community Development (HCD)) and Capital Markets group. Its
Single-Family Credit Guaranty and Multifamily businesses work
with its lender customers to purchase and securitize mortgage
loans customers deliver to the Company into Fannie Mae MBS.


FANNIE MAE: Plaintiffs Seek Stay of Briefing in Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain plaintiffs on February 12, 2014, requested a stay of
briefing on Federal National Mortgage Association's motions to
dismiss both the class action and non-class action suits against
the Company, 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.

Fannie Mae states: "A number of putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, Treasury and
Freddie Mac from July through September 2013 by shareholders of
Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012
amendment to each company's senior preferred stock purchase
agreement with Treasury. These lawsuits were consolidated and, on
December 3, 2013, plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders
of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, Treasury and
Freddie Mac ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations"). The preferred
shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012 amendments to
the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreements
providing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay dividends
equal to their entire net worth (minus a specified capital
reserve amount) ("the net worth sweep provisions") nullified
certain of the shareholders' rights, particularly the right to
receive dividends. The common shareholder plaintiffs allege that
the August 2012 amendment constituted a taking of their property
by requiring that all future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac are paid to Treasury. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of
contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim
against FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim
derivatively on our and Freddie Mac's behalf against FHFA and
Treasury. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of
preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie
Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August
2012 amendment. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

"A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie
Mae, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against
us, FHFA as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his
official capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in
his official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims
for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and
claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against
the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net worth
sweep provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred
shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends.
Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On January 17, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss both
the class action and non-class action suits pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. On February 12,
2014, certain plaintiffs filed a motion seeking discovery from
Treasury and FHFA related to the Administrative Procedure Act and
fiduciary duty claims against those agencies, and requesting a
stay of briefing on defendants' motions to dismiss until after
the discovery issue is resolved.

"Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel
legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are
currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss arising from this litigation."

Federal National Mortgage Association is a government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE) chartered by the United States Congress to
support liquidity and stability in the secondary mortgage market,
where mortgage-related assets are purchased and sold. The
Company's activities include providing market liquidity by
securitizing mortgage loans originated by lenders in the primary
mortgage market into Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities
(Fannie Mae MBS), and purchasing mortgage loans and mortgage-
related securities in the secondary market for its mortgage
portfolio. Fannie Mae operates in three business segments:
Single-Family business, Multifamily Business (formerly Housing
and Community Development (HCD)) and Capital Markets group. Its
Single-Family Credit Guaranty and Multifamily businesses work
with its lender customers to purchase and securitize mortgage
loans customers deliver to the Company into Fannie Mae MBS.


FERNANDEZ CHILE: Recalls Chile Molido Puro and Chile Rojo
---------------------------------------------------------
Fernandez Chile Company Inc of Alamosa, Colorado is recalling 4oz
Chile Molido Puro UPC code 77601-10011 and 6oz Chile Rojo UPC
code 77601-10053 because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections, endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled 4oz Chile Molido Puro UPC code 77601-10011 and 6oz
Chile Rojo UPC code 77601-10053 was distributed in Colorado, New
Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and California. King Soopers,
Safeway, City Market and various independent grocers received
these products.

The 4oz Chile Molido Puro UPC code 77601-10011 comes in a clear
plastic bag marked with an expiration of 01 2017 on the back. The
6oz Chile Rojo UPC code 77601-10053 comes in a clear plastic bag
marked with an expiration 02 2017 on the back.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
by an independent lab revealed the presence of Salmonella in some
of the 4oz Chile Molido Puro and 6oz Chile Rojo.

These products are being recalled and taken out of production
while the company and the FDA continue their investigation into
the source of the contamination.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact Blair Fernandez at Fernandez Chile Company
Inc. at 719-589-6043 Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 5:00pm MDT


FRONTIER NATURAL: Organic Black Peppercorns Recalled
----------------------------------------------------
Frontier Natural Products Co-op is voluntarily recalling several
of its products manufactured with organic black peppercorns that
were sold under its Frontier and Simply Organic brands, Whole
Foods Market 365 Everyday Value, Nature's Place and others due to
potential Salmonella contamination. To date, no illnesses have
been associated with these products.

While the product in question was steam pasteurized at the source
and tested negative for Salmonella by Frontier Natural Products
Co-op, there is a small risk that Salmonella may still be present
based on a positive, random test that was recently conducted.
Frontier Natural Products Co-op is immediately initiating added
precautions to the safety of the supply chain to mitigate any
future occurrence.

Consumption of products containing Salmonella can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms)
endocarditic and arthritis.

Recalled products were sold in all 50 states and in some parts of
Canada to distributors, retailers and consumers.  Below is the
list of products containing the organic black peppercorn:

   Brand   Full Product Name  Size/Weight  UPC Code     Lot Code
   -----   -----------------  -----------  --------     --------
Frontier   Peppercorns Black     2.12oz   0-89836-18435-1  3246,
           Whole Black Organic                             3288
Frontier   Peppercorns Black    25 lbs     0-89836-82603-9 3226,
           Whole Black Organic                             3288
Frontier   Peppercorns Black    16oz     0-89836-02603-3   3256
           Whole Black Organic
Nature's   Black Peppercorn     2.26oz   7-25439-95273-6   3232
  Place    Whole Organic
Meijer     Peppercorns Black    2.26oz   7-13733-78173-2   3233,
           Organic                                         3280
Sprouts    Peppercorns Black    2.12oz   8-74875-00425-4   3246,
           Whole Organic                                   3287
Whole      365 Organic          2.12oz   0-99482-44563-8   3246,
  Foods    Peppercorns,                                    3287
  365      Black Whole
Whole      365 Organic          1.87oz   0-99482-44497-6   3287
  Foods    Peppercorns,
  365      Black Whole
Whole      365 Value Size       8.08oz   0-99482-44511-9   3260,
  Foods    Peppercorns,                                    3267
  365      Black Whole
Whole      365 Organic Black    2.12oz   0-99482-73914-0   3247
  Foods    Peppercorns
  365
Simply     Black Pepper         75grams  0-89836-19218-9   3260
  Organic  Grinder
Simply     Black Peppercorns    75grams  0-89836-19210-3   3221,
  Organic  Organic                                         3262,
                                                           3294
Simply     Black Pepper         2.65oz   0-89836-18524-2   3221,
  Organic  Whole Organic                                   3262
Simply     Daily Grind,         2.65oz   0-89836-18263-0   3261
  Organic  Certified Organic

On foil bulk packages, the lot codes will be found on the front
label directly above the UPC code. On bottled glass and plastic
items, the lot codes can be found on the bottom of the bottle.

Frontier Natural Products Co-op is initiating recall notices to
our accounts who received any of the above recalled products with
instructions for returning or destroying the recalled products
and for notifying their customers of the recall. Consumers should
not consume these products.

Please contact Frontier with any questions or to inquire about
replacement or reimbursement at 1-800- 669-3275 Monday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central time.

Images of the products above can be seen by going to the
following link: http://www.frontiercoop.com/recall


GOODMAN GLOBAL: Two Law Firms File Defective Aircon Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Whitfield Bryson &
Mason LLP on April 25 have filed a class action lawsuit against
Goodman Global, Inc., and certain affiliated companies, alleging
that central air conditioning units and heat pumps sold under the
Goodman(R) and Amana(R) brands since 2007 are defective.  In
particular, the plaintiff contends in his lawsuit that these
units have defective evaporator coils.

Evaporator coils are generally located inside a consumer's home
and they are essential to the proper functioning of any central
air conditioning system or heat pump.  According to the lawsuit,
Goodman and Amana central air conditioning and heat pump systems
contain defective evaporator coils that improperly and
prematurely leak refrigerant (a.k.a. Freon(R)).  The defect
allegedly renders the systems inoperable because the cooling
cycle will not work without refrigerant.

Although Goodman sells these units with a warranty, that warranty
is limited in a way that provides insignificant protection to
owners of the units.  In particular, the Goodman warranty, by its
terms, covers replacement parts, but not the labor costs
associated with the replacement.  According to the lawsuit, the
result is that, when a defective evaporator coil fails, Goodman
provides the owner with a replacement coil, but does not pay to
have the old coil removed or the replacement coil installed.  As
alleged in the lawsuit, those labor costs typically run in the
hundreds of dollars, and in some cases, thousands of dollars.
Thus, in at least some instances, the owner is forced to spend as
much or more to replace the defective evaporator coil as the cost
to purchase a new Goodman unit.

The complaint also alleges that Goodman has known that its units
sold since 2007 contained defective evaporator coils, but the
company failed to inform consumers about the problem or issue a
recall.  Indeed, according to the lawsuit, Goodman continued to
tout the quality of its air conditioning systems -- claiming they
were durable, dependable, and long lasting -- even though it was
aware that the defective evaporator coils would cause the units
to fail prematurely and at rates far above the industry average.

The lead plaintiff in the case acquired his Goodman unit when he
purchased his new house in September 2011.  According to the
lawsuit, in or about July 2013, after only one summer of use, the
unit stopped cooling the plaintiff's home.  A service technician
allegedly found that the unit was low on refrigerant and added
four pounds of refrigerant, which immediately leaked out of the
system.  After observing this, the technician determined that the
evaporator coil was leaking and needed to be replaced.  According
to the complaint, the service technician returned the old
defective evaporator and replaced it with a new one, charging
plaintiff approximately $650 for this service.

The civil action was filed in North Carolina state court on
behalf of all consumers in North Carolina that purchased a
central air conditioning unit or heat pump bearing the trade
names Goodman(R) and Amana(R) from 2007 to the present.  This
lawsuit is one of several that have been filed against Goodman in
other states making the same or similar allegations.

The lawsuit is captioned Whitaker v. Goodman Global, Inc., et al.
and a copy of the complaint can be found at the website of Tycko
& Zavareei LLP -- http://www.tzlegal.com/ Consumers with similar
issues, or other people with information about defects in the
Goodman evaporator coils, are encouraged to contact attorney
Lorenzo Cellini at Tycko & Zavareei LLP.


GROUPON INC: Defending Consolidated Amended Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc., is a defendant in a consolidated amended class
action complaint alleging, among other things, that the Company
issued inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011, 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.

Specifically, the Company is currently a defendant in a
proceeding pursuant to which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed against the Company,
certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters that
participated in the initial public offering of the Company's
Class A common stock. Originally filed in April 2012, the case is
currently pending before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegations in the
consolidated amended complaint include that the Company and its
officers and directors made untrue statements or omissions of
material fact by issuing inaccurate financial statements for the
fiscal quarter and the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and
by failing to disclose information about the Company's financial
controls in the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's initial public offering of Class A common stock and in
the Company's subsequently-issued financial statements. The
putative class action lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of
monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in
connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and
various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on January 18, 2013, which the Court denied on
September 19, 2013. Defendants' answered the consolidated amended
class action complaint on December 6, 2013. Plaintiff filed an
amended motion for class certification on December 4, 2013. The
defendants had until March 6, 2014 to file their response briefs
in opposition to the amended motion for class certification, and
lead plaintiff had until April 21, 2014 to file a reply brief.

Groupon, Inc. is a local e-commerce marketplace that connects
merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a
discount. Each day the Company e-mails its subscribers discounted
offers for goods and services that are targeted by location and
personal preferences. Consumers also access its deals directly
through its Websites and mobile applications.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Bank Unit's Supreme Court Appeal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed in March 2011 in the
First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of American Savings Holdings, Inc., a unit of Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc., had improperly charged overdraft fees
on debit card transactions. The lawsuit is still in its
preliminary stage. ASB filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on
the basis that as a bank chartered under federal law, ASB
believes its business practices are governed by federal
regulations established for federal savings banks and not by
state law.

In July 2011, the Circuit Court denied ASB's motion and ASB
appealed that decision. ASB's appeal is currently pending before
the Hawaii Supreme Court, according to Hawaiian Electric
Industries' 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 probable outcome and range of reasonably
possible loss remains indeterminable at this time.

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (HEI) is a holding company
with its principal subsidiaries engaged in electric utility and
banking businesses operating primarily in the State of Hawaii.
The principal communities served include Honolulu (on Oahu), Hilo
and Kona (on Hawaii) and Wailuku and Kahului (on Maui). The
service areas also include numerous suburban communities,
resorts, the United States Armed Forces installations and
agricultural operations. The Company's electric subsidiary
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (HECO), and its operating utility
subsidiaries, Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO) and
Maui Electric Company, Limited (MECO), are regulated electric
public utilities. HECO also owns all the common securities of
HECO Capital Trust III. As of December 31, 2011, HEI owned
directly or indirectly subsidiaries, which include American
Savings Holdings, Inc. (ASHI) and its subsidiary, American
Savings Bank, F.S.B. (ASB) and HEI Properties, Inc. (HEIPI).


H GROUP: 509 Units of Trader Giotto's Caesar Salad Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------
H Group, Inc. of Framingham, MA is voluntarily recalling 509
units of Trader Giotto's Caesar Salad with Caesar Dressing (SKU
05161) sold in the refrigeration section. These 509 individual
salads are marked with the following date codes: "Sell By
04/6/14, 04/7/14 and 04/8/14." These items are being recalled
because they may not list wheat, soy, egg and fish (anchovy) in
the ingredients. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to these allergens run the risk of serious or life-threatening
reaction if they consume this product. No illnesses have been
reported to date.

The product being recalled is packaged in an 8.5 oz. clear
plastic clamshell container and the "Sell By" date is printed on
the front of the package in the left hand corner. The 509
possibly affected salads were distributed only to Trader Joe's
stores located in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Northern Virginia, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C.

The voluntary recall was initiated by H Group, Inc. after Trader
Joe's discovered affected packages for the Caesar Salad with
Caesar Dressing did not declare wheat, soy, egg and fish
(anchovy) on the label. Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in H Group's
packaging processes in which a different salad label was affixed
to the bottom of some of the packages. The issue has been
corrected.

Customers who have purchased Trader Giotto's Caesar Salad with
Caesar Dressing may return it to Trader Joe's for a full refund
or dispose of it. Customers with questions may contact H Group,
Inc. at (508) 361-1518 from 8:00A.M.-4:00P.M. EST, Monday-Friday.


INTUIT INC: "Smith" Case Resolved in January 2014
-------------------------------------------------
The so-called Smith case against Intuit Inc., was resolved in
January 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On January 13, 2012, two putative class
actions were filed against Intuit Inc. in connection with our
TurboTax income tax preparation software: Smith v. Intuit Inc.
(U.S. District Court, Northern District of California) and
Quildon v. Intuit Inc. (California Superior Court, Santa Clara
County). The plaintiffs in both cases had asserted that the fees
charged for the refund processing service offered within TurboTax
are "refund anticipation loans" and the disclosures about those
fees do not comply with California and federal laws. The Smith
case was brought in federal court on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class and subclasses; the Quildon case was brought in
state court on behalf of a proposed California class and
subclasses. In January 2013, for the purposes of settlement and
without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, Intuit reached
an agreement in principle to resolve all claims raised in the
Smith and Quildon matters for an amount that is not material to
our consolidated financial statements. We accrued that amount in
the second quarter of fiscal 2013. In October 2013, the U.S.
District Court granted final approval to the settlement of the
Smith case. An objector lodged a notice of appeal of that order
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In January
2014, that appeal was dismissed and the Smith case was resolved.
The parties have agreed to seek dismissal of the Quildon case. We
currently believe that the likelihood of a material change to the
proposed settlement amount is remote."

Intuit Inc. (Intuit) is a provider of business and financial
management solutions for small businesses, consumers, accounting
professionals and financial institutions.


J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT: One Wage Lawsuit Scheduled for Trial in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial date for one of the class-action lawsuits alleging
unpaid wages filed against J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., is
currently scheduled for the first quarter of 2015, 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 a defendant in certain class-action
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are current and former
California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items. A
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with regard to the meal and
rest break claims was granted in our favor in the fourth quarter
of 2013. A Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to other
remaining claims was heard in January of 2014. We are currently
awaiting a decision on our Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial
date for one of the class-action lawsuits is currently scheduled
for the first quarter of 2015. We cannot reasonably estimate at
this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may
arise from these lawsuits."

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. (JBHT) is a holding company
and together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, operates as a
surface transportation and delivery services to a diverse group
of customers and consumers throughout the continental United
States, Canada and Mexico. The Company operates in four segments:
Intermodal (JBI), Dedicated Contract Services (DCS), Integrated
Capacity Solutions (ICS), and full-load dry-van (JBT).The
Company's service offerings include transportation of full-
truckload containerized freight, which the Company directly
transports utilizing its company-controlled revenue equipment and
company drivers or independent contractors. The Company also
provides customized freight movement, revenue equipment, labor,
systems and delivery services that are tailored to meet
individual customers' requirements and typically involve long-
term contracts.


KORU PACIFIC: Recalls AH!LASKA(R) Non-Dairy Choco Mix
-----------------------------------------------------
Tracy, CA-based KORU Pacific Packaging, on April 3 issued a
voluntary recall of AH!LASKA(R), because one lot (LOT# 3280 BEST
BY APR/2015) of the product may contain milk, which is not
labeled in the ingredients. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious or life threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The powdered mix is packaged in a canister containing 12 oz.,with
the product name AH!LASKA Organic Cocoa Non-Dairy Chocolate,12
oz, UPC# 7-60519-10028-7. One LOT# is affected: LOT# 3280 BEST BY
APR/2015, which appears on the shipping case sticker and on the
metal canister bottom. ONLY this Best By date is being recalled.

The product was distributed to retailers nationwide.

The recall was initiated when lab testing confirmed the presence
of milk allergen in the finished product. While milk is not
listed in the ingredients, the label does include the allergen
advisory statement "Made in a facility that also processes
peanuts, sesame, dairy, eggs, fish, and soy."

This action is being taken as a precaution. No illnesses have
been reported to date for milk allergen in association with this
product.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled product can return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions can contact the company at phone number, Monday -
Friday, 8am to 5pm PST.


LISY CORPORATION: Recalls Lisy Sweet Basil (Albahaca) 6 Oz.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisy Corporation of Miami, FL is voluntarily recalling Lisy Sweet
Basil (Albahaca), 6 oz jar, Item #1132, Lot #'s A013 0518 & A014
0518, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e. infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
recall.

Lisy Sweet Basil- 6oz, bottle, UPC Code 0 96786 30032 8 began
distribution on 01/15/2014 in retail stores in the states of New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland.

The voluntary recall was initiated by Lisy after a routine
sampling by the FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in the
Lisy Sweet Basil (Albahaca), 6 oz., Lot #'s A013 0518 & A014
0518.

Any consumers that have purchased Lisy Sweet Basil (Albahaca), 6
oz., from Jan 15, 2014 to present are urged not to eat the
product, and dispose of it or return product to the place of
purchase for a replacement or for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-305-836-6001 ext. 233.

Consumers with questions may contact Henry Rosen at 305-836-6001
ext. 233 from 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday through Friday.


LORILLARD INC: 3 Groups of Engle Progeny Cases for Trial in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Lorillard, Inc.'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, Judge William G. Young of
the District of Massachusetts on January 17, 2014, issued an
order calling for an additional three groups of cases in the
Engle Progeny cases to be prepared for trial in 2015.

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in Engle v.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., that had been certified as a
class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of
Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical
conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. During a
three-phase trial, a Florida jury awarded compensatory damages to
three individuals and approximately $145 billion in punitive
damages to the certified class. In its 2006 decision, the Florida
Supreme Court vacated the punitive damages award, determined that
the case could not proceed further as a class action and ordered
decertification of the class. The Florida Supreme Court also
reinstated the compensatory damages awards to two of the three
individuals whose claims were heard during the first phase of the
Engle trial. These two awards totaled $7 million, and both
verdicts were paid in February 2008. Lorillard Tobacco's payment
to these two individuals, including interest, totaled
approximately $3 million.

The Florida Supreme Court's 2006 ruling also permitted Engle
class members to file individual actions, including claims for
punitive damages. The court further held that these individuals
are entitled to rely on a number of the jury's findings in favor
of the plaintiffs in the first phase of the Engle trial. The time
period for filing Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and
no additional cases may be filed. In 2009, the Florida Supreme
Court rejected a petition that sought to extend the time for
purported class members to file an additional lawsuit.

Engle Progeny Cases are pending in various Florida state and
federal courts. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs. Various courts have entered orders
severing the cases filed by multiple plaintiffs into separate
actions. In 2009, one Florida federal court entered orders that
severed the claims of approximately 4,400 Engle Progeny
plaintiffs, initially asserted in a small number of multi-
plaintiff actions, into separate lawsuits. In some cases, spouses
or children of alleged former class members have also brought
derivative claims. In 2011, approximately 500 cases that were
among the 4,400 cases severed into separate lawsuits in 2009,
filed by family members of alleged former class members, were
combined with the cases filed by the smoker from which the family
members' claims purportedly derived.

On August 1, 2013, Judge Young took over responsibility for the
Engle cases in the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville
Division. Judge Young issued an order that day that called for
three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the following
schedule: approximately 50 cases to be made trial ready by
January 2, 2014, approximately 107 cases to be made trial ready
by May 2014, and approximately 120 cases to be made trial ready
by September 2, 2014. Since the issuance of this order, 45 of the
cases to be prepared for trial have been dismissed in their
entirety, and Lorillard Tobacco has been dismissed from an
additional three cases involving other defendants. These cases
have either been voluntarily dismissed or resolved.

On January 17, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an
additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the
following schedule: approximately 200 cases to be made trial
ready by January 2, 2015, approximately 150 cases to be made
trial ready by April 1, 2015, and approximately 150 cases to be
made trial ready by July 1, 2015.

Lorillard, Inc. is the manufacturer of cigarettes in the United
States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium cigarette
brand. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names.


LORILLARD INC: Flight Attendant Cases Not Scheduled for Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc., disclosed that as of February 14, 2014, none of
the Flight Attendant Cases were scheduled for trial, 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.

Lorillard Tobacco and three other cigarette manufacturers are the
defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases.
Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases. These
suits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the
parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in Broin v. Philip Morris
Companies, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on
behalf of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The settlement
agreement, among other things, permitted the plaintiff class
members to file these individual suits. These individuals may not
seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior to January
15, 1997. The period for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in
2000 and no additional cases in this category may be filed.

The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried
have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit
Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The October 2000 order has
been construed by these judges as holding that the flight
attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability
elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and
breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages. The court
further ruled that the trials of these suits are to address
whether the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by their
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of
damages to be awarded.

Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight Flight
Attendant Cases in which verdicts have been returned. Defendants
have prevailed in seven of the eight trials. In one of the seven
cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for a new trial and, following appeal, the
case has been returned to the trial court for a second trial. The
six remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned are
concluded. In the single trial decided for the plaintiff, French
v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., the jury awarded $5.5
million in damages. The court, however, reduced this award to
$500,000. This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was
affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award.
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the judgment in this matter,
including interest, was approximately $60,000.

Lorillard, Inc. is the manufacturer of cigarettes in the United
States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium cigarette
brand.  In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names.


LORILLARD INC: Must Indemnify Loews for Loss in Pending Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc., is required to indemnify Loews for the amount of
any losses and any legal or other fees with respect to three
pending product liability cases, each of which are purported
Class Action Cases pursuant to their Separation Agreement,
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 connection with the Separation, Lorillard entered into a
separation agreement with Loews and agreed to indemnify Loews and
its officers, directors, employees and agents against all costs
and expenses arising out of third party claims (including,
without limitation, attorneys' fees, interest, penalties and
costs of investigation or preparation for defense), judgments,
fines, losses, claims, damages, liabilities, taxes, demands,
assessments and amounts paid in settlement based on, arising out
of or resulting from, among other things, Loews's ownership of or
the operation of Lorillard and its assets and properties, and its
operation or conduct of its businesses at any time prior to or
following the Separation (including with respect to any product
liability claims).

Loews is a defendant in three pending product liability cases,
each of which are purported Class Action Cases. Pursuant to the
Separation Agreement, Lorillard is required to indemnify Loews
for the amount of any losses and any legal or other fees with
respect to such cases.

Lorillard, Inc. is the manufacturer of cigarettes in the United
States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium cigarette
brand.  In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: Sent Notice of Williams Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartments, L.P., has sent to all Settlement Class
members, notice of the Settlement in the Williams Litigation and
preliminary approval, 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 19, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama captioned Williams v.
Colonial Properties Trust, et al., No. 01-CV-2013-902416.00 (the
"Williams Litigation"), seeking, among other things, to enjoin
the previously announced combination of MAA and Colonial in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated June 3, 2013, by and among MAA, the Operating Partnership,
Martha Merger Sub, LP, Colonial and Colonial LP. The complaint
names as defendants Colonial, the ten members of Colonial's board
of trustees, Colonial LP, MAA, the Operating Partnership and OP
Merger Sub. The original complaint contained two counts: The
first alleges that Colonial's trustees breached their fiduciary
duties of care and loyalty in agreeing to the proposed merger
because, among other things, they engaged in an unfair process,
failed to maximize the Colonial shareholders' consideration, and
agreed to preclusive deal protection devices. The second count,
against Colonial LP, MAA, the Operating Partnership and OP Merger
Sub, alleges that those parties "aided and abetted" the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Colonial's trustees. In addition
to the injunction of the merger, the complaint seeks, among other
things, to recover Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, but it
does not make a claim for monetary damages. On August 2, 2013,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that re-asserted Plaintiff's
earlier claims and added a new claim that the Colonial trustees
breached their duty of candor by not providing Colonial
shareholders full and complete disclosures regarding the merger.

On August 14, 2013, the parties to the Williams Litigation
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Williams
Litigation, in which (a) defendants agreed to make certain
additional disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
related to the merger, and (b) the parties agreed that they would
use their best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the
court a stipulation of settlement which would, among other
things, (i) provide for the conditional certification of a non-
opt out settlement class pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) consisting generally of all record
and beneficial holders of the common stock of Colonial from June
3, 2013 through and including the date of the closing of the
parent merger (the "Settlement Class") (ii) release all claims
that members of the Settlement Class may have that were alleged
in the Williams Litigation or otherwise arising out of or
relating in any manner to the merger and (iii) dismiss the
Williams Litigation with prejudice. The proposed settlement,
including the payment by Colonial (or its successors) of
Plaintiff's attorneys' fees awarded by the Court, is subject to,
among other things, confirmatory discovery, agreement to a
stipulation of settlement, and final court approval following
notice to the Settlement Class.

Based on the terms of the agreement in principle reached in the
Williams Litigation, the Company will not pay any monetary
damages to the Settlement Class and the only monetary obligation
will be the payment of Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, to the extent
approved by the Court, up to an immaterial amount agreed to by
the parties.

On December 3, 2013, following the confirmatory discovery
contemplated in the agreement in principle reached on August 14,
2013, the parties to the Williams Litigation executed a
Stipulation of Settlement. On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed
an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement ("Motion for Preliminary Approval"), which attached as
an exhibit the executed Stipulation of Settlement. On December
13, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval and preliminarily approved the Settlement
and issued an Order for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing on
Settlement ("Order").

In the Order, the Court set the final Settlement approval hearing
for March 6, 2014 and also directed that notice of the Settlement
and preliminary approval be sent to all Settlement Class members
within ten business days.  The notice was sent out to Settlement
Class members as set forth in the Order.

Mid-America Apartments, L.P., is a subsidiary of Mid-America
Apartment Communities, Inc., which is a self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company
focuses on acquiring, owning and operating apartment communities
in the Sunbelt region of the United States. The Company's
segments include Large market same store communities, Secondary
market same store communities and Non same store communities and
other . As of December 31, 2012, the Company owned 100% of 160
properties representing 47,809 apartment units. Four properties
include retail components with approximately 108,000 square feet
of gross leasable area. As of December 31, 2012 , the Company
also had 33.33% ownership interests in Mid-America Multifamily
Fund I, LLC, or Fund I, and Mid-America Multifamily Fund II, LLC,
or Fund II, which owned two properties containing 626 apartment
units and four properties containing 1,156 apartment units,
respectively. These apartment communities were located across 13
states.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Zelle Hofmann Files Class Action in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP filed a class
action lawsuit on April 25 against the National Collegiate
Athletic Association and its member institutions that participate
in Division I football ("FBS") and Division I men's and women's
basketball challenging the anticompetitive rules of the NCAA and
those conferences limiting the grant-in-aid ("GIAs") money
eligible to its full-scholarship athletes.

This is the first such case that addresses both men's and women's
sports and the first that includes a female class representative,
Ashley Holliday (Kennesaw State University basketball).  Other
plaintiffs are Sharrif Floyd (University of Florida Gators
football); Kyle Theret (University of Minnesota Gophers
football); Duane Bennett (University of Minnesota Gophers
football); Chris Stone (Arkansas State University football); John
Bohannon (University of Texas - El Paso Miners basketball); and
Chris Davenport (University of North Florida basketball).

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleges that GIAs provided to full-scholarship
athletes fail to cover the entire cost of attending college.
GIAs only cover tuition, required institutional fees, room and
board, and required course-related books.  Though the NCAA's
Bylaws define "Cost of Attendance" as including not only those
items covered by the GIAs, but also supplies, transportation and
"other expenses related to attendance at the institution," the
GIAs leave full-scholarship athletes with a significant
shortfall.

The complaint further alleges that the rules restrict those
athletes from earning any compensation to cover the shortfalls.
Various studies have shown individual athletes are shorted $3,000
to over $5,000 every year, totaling hundreds of millions of
dollars per year for all full-scholarship athletes.  Yet, the
NCAA and its conferences are receiving billions of dollars every
year from the blood, sweat and tears of these players in the form
of television rights, marketing, clothing sales, among other
means of revenue, but they deny athletes the compensation they
would otherwise receive for their services in a competitive
market.

The complaint also alleges that defendants' rules effect group
boycotts of any institution or player that refuses to comply,
resulting in athletes being unable to market their services as
football and men's and women's basketball players at competitive
rates, resulting in substantial economic harm to them.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed at http://is.gd/RcndWs

Further information can be provided by Richard M. Hagstrom --
rhagstrom@zelle.com -- of Zelle Hofmann. Plaintiffs and the class
are also represented by Daniel S. Mason, a partner at Zelle
Hofmann, as well as Zelle Hofmann attorneys Shawn D. Stuckey and
Lee A. Hutton, III (both of whom who are former NCAA
footballers), and by the law firm of Gustafson Gluek PLCC.

                        About Zelle Hofmann

Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP is a national litigation and
dispute resolution law firm with offices in Boston, Dallas,
London, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Washington, DC.  The Firm
excels at handling insurance, antitrust and other complex
litigation on both a national and global scale.  The Firm also
has an affiliate office in Beijing, People's Republic of China.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Shariff Floyd Joins Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports that on the same day
college football players at Northwestern cast ballots regarding
whether they want to unionize, the latest lawsuit attacking not
just one school but the entire system landed in federal court in
Minnesota.

Vikings defensive tackle Sharrif Floyd, who played college
football at the University of Florida, is one of seven named
plaintiffs in a class action filed against the NCAA and 11 major
conferences on behalf of all football, men's basketball, and
women's basketball players.  The complaint describes the NCAA and
its school as an "illegal cartel" that restrains trade by fixing
the cost of athletes at scholarships plus room and board.

Mr. Floyd's lawsuit contains allegations similar to the lawsuit
crafted recently by Jeffrey Kessler, long-time NFLPA outside
counsel who is now attacking the NCAA not with a school-by-school
effort to elect unions but with a kill shot to the cranium of the
NCAA.

The factual allegations are fairly simple.  As the NCAA and its
member institutions have grown, the system has generated
billions.  With the costs of labor capped at whatever it actually
costs a school to allow the athlete to come to class (or, as the
case may be, to not come to class) and to house and to feed the
athlete, the extra money gets devoted to other forms of
competition for the players to choose, and to remain at, a given
school.

"Flush with cash and unable to compete for athletes on the basis
of financial remuneration, colleges have directed their resources
and competitive efforts to, among other things, the hiring of
head coaches, instead of players," Mr. Kessler writes in his
lawsuit.  "For example, upon information and belief, more than
half of the head football coaches in the Power Conferences are
paid at least $2 million annually, and several head coaches are
paid in excess of $4 million annually, excluding endorsement
revenue and other income, which can also be quite substantial."

Mr. Floyd's lawsuit adds that, while not able to compete for
players by offering them money, NCAA member institutions "compete
for players by pouring millions of dollars into their stadiums
and arenas, building state-of-the-art training facilities and
luxury locker rooms, and offering players deluxe dorm rooms and
extensive tutoring services."

Mr. Kessler's complaint also focuses on the high-stakes trend of
conference relocation, all driven by an effort to generate more
money -- more money that won't be shared with athletes.

"A raft of conference shifts has taken place in the past few
years," Mr. Kessler writes, "with teams often now located nowhere
near the geographical locations of their fellow conference
members, helping to generate television revenues but disregarding
the welfare of athletes who have to travel thousands of miles in
the service of creating income for their schools.  For example,
West Virginia University is at least 800 miles from every other
schools in its conference, the Big 12."


NATURAL ORGANICS: Recall of Tea Tree Mouthwash Expanded
-------------------------------------------------------
Natural Organics, Inc. on April 15, 2014 expanded its April 3
recall of distributed Thursday Plantation Tea Tree Mouthwash to
Lot 10952 after they were notified by its contract manufacturer
INTEGRIA Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd. that this second lot of
Tea Tree Mouthwash failed microbial contamination testing due to
potential bacterial contamination.

This bacterial contaminant, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, could pose a
health risk to consumers. While a health hazard is unlikely, we
have initiated this recall because Pseudomonas can cause serious
illness in immune compromised individuals. For more information
on Pseudomonas, please visit the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's Website at http://www.cdc.gov

The mouthwash was distributed nationwide to retail stores and to
the following foreign country: United Kingdom.

The mouthwash is packaged in clear plastic bottles with green and
white labeling bearing the following product code and lot number
printed on the back panel of the product label: Thursday
Plantation, Tea Tree Mouthwash, 8.45 fl oz/ 250ml e, Product No.
6710, Lot 10952

There have been no reported incidents of illness or adverse
effects in connection with this product.

No other Nature's Plus products distributed by Natural Organics,
Inc. are involved in this recall.

This voluntary expanded recall is announced in accord with FDA
guidelines.

Consumers who may have purchased affected Thursday Plantation,
Tea Tree Mouthwash are advised to return them to the place of
purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-
800-645-9500 Monday- Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm (EST).

                           *     *     *

In the original recall, Natural Organics said the mouthwash was
distributed nationwide to retail stores and to the following
foreign countries: Trinidad; Philippines.

The mouthwash is packaged in clear plastic bottles with green and
white labeling bearing the following product code and lot number
printed on the back panel of the product label:

Thursday Plantation, Tea Tree Mouthwash, 8.45 fl oz./ 250mL e,
Product No. 6710, Lot 9810

There have been no reported incidents of illness or adverse
effects in connection with this product.

No other lots of Thursday Plantation Tea Tree Mouthwash or any
other Natures Plus products distributed by Natural Organics, Inc.
are involved in this recall.


NATURE'S UNIVERSE: Thinogenics Products Recalled Worldwide
----------------------------------------------------------
Nature's Universe is voluntarily recalling all lots of old
Thinogenics product (product sold prior to February 6, 2014,
hereinafter the "Old Product") to the user level after FDA
analysis revealed that the Old Product contained undeclared
sibutramine. Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was
withdrawn from the U.S. market in October 2010 (due to increased
risk of seizures, heart attacks, arrhythmia and strokes). This
ingredient made the Old Product an unapproved drug for which
safety and efficacy have not been established and, therefore,
subject to recall. Nature's Universe was advised that the FDA
received seven complaints about the Old Product. Nature's
Universe was completely unaware that the Old Product contained
sibutramine. Beginning February 13, 2014, as a result of
notification from the FDA, Nature's Universe began selling a new,
reformulated Thinogenics that does not contain sibutramine
(hereinafter referred to as the "New Product").

These products are used as weight loss aids and are packaged as
capsules in bottles. The New Product (which is not being
recalled) can be identified because each bottle contains 45
capsules, where the Old Product contains 30 capsules per bottle.
Any of the remaining Old Product sold prior to February 6, 2014
is being recalled. Nature's Universe distributed these products
worldwide to customers via internet sales through their website
at www.shopnaturesuniverse.com and www.easy2loseweight.com

Nature's Universe is notifying its customers by letter. Customers
are advised to immediately discontinue use of the Thinogenics Old
Product purchased prior to February 6, 2014 and should return the
product immediately to Nature's Universe, 2817 West End Avenue,
Nashville, Tennessee 37203 for the new, replacement product which
has been reformulated and does not contain sibutramine.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall should contact
Nature's Universe customer service at 1-800-405-7817 Monday -
Friday 8am to 6pm CT or via e-mail at naturesuniverse@gmail.com
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider
if they have experienced any problems that may be related to
taking or using this product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

    Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
(http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm)

    Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm
(http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm)or call 1-800-332-
1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the
address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-
0178.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Defending Wage Deductions Complaints
------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., is defending a class action
complaint alleging inappropriate deductions of crew members'
wages pursuant to the Seaman's Wage Act, 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 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," the Company said.

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," the Company
added.

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.


NTS REALTY: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 2014, NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership,
together with the other defendants in the class action lawsuit
described below, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release with the plaintiffs in the
class action captioned, Stephen J. Dannis, et al. v. J.D.
Nichols, et al., Case No. 13-CI-00452, pending in Jefferson
County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky against the
Company, NTS Realty Capital, Inc., the Company's managing general
partner, each of the members of the board of directors of Realty
Capital, NTS Realty Partners, LLC and NTS Merger Parent, LLC.  On
February 5, 2014, the Court signed an order granting its
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, subject to a
final fairness settlement hearing.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the full and complete
compromise, settlement, release and dismissal of the Kentucky
Action as well as the class action lawsuit pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery under the consolidated case caption of
In re NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership Unitholders
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 8302-VCP.

Under the Settlement Agreement: (1) NTS Merger Sub, LLC will
merge with and into the Company pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 25, 2014 among the
Company, Parent, Merger Sub and Realty Capital; and (2) as
consideration for the settlement and release of the claims
asserted in the Actions, at the closing of the merger, our
limited partnership units (each a "Unit"), other than those Units
owned by the Company's founder and the Chairman of Realty
Capital, J.D. Nichols, the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Realty Capital, Brian F. Lavin, and certain of their
affiliates, will be canceled and converted automatically into the
right to receive a cash payment equal to (i) $7.50 per Unit plus
(ii) a pro rata share of a settlement fund of $7,401,487
(representing $1.75 per Unit) less fees (aggregating $2,220,446
or approximately $0.53 per Unit) and expenses awarded to
plaintiffs' counsel (aggregating $123,930 or approximately $0.03
per Unit) and an incentive award payable to the named plaintiffs
in the case (aggregating $50,000 or approximately $0.01 per
Unit), as described below.  Therefore, the cash payment due as
merger consideration will be equal to $8.68 per Unit.

On April 24, 2014, the Court held the Final Settlement Hearing.
At such Final Settlement Hearing, no objections to the Settlement
Agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby were made, and
the Court entered its Order and Final Judgment, pursuant to which
the Court:

   -- permanently certified a non-opt out class pursuant to
Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and designated plaintiffs in
the Kentucky Action as the class representatives with plaintiffs'
counsel as class counsel;

   -- determined that the requirements of the rules of the Court
and due process have been satisfied;

   -- determined that settlement of the Actions on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the class
and approved the settlement;

   -- dismissed with prejudice in its entirety the Kentucky
Action;

   -- approved the grant of various releases among the
plaintiffs, class members and the defendants and their respective
affiliates;

   -- permanently barred and enjoined plaintiffs and all members
of the class from instituting, commencing or prosecuting any of
the settled claims against any of the parties that are released
pursuant to the Releases; and

   -- granted plaintiffs' counsel's petition for fees
(aggregating $2,220,446 or approximately $0.53 per Unit) and
reimbursement of expenses (aggregating $123,930 or approximately
$0.03 per Unit) and an incentive award to the named plaintiffs in
the Actions (aggregating $50,000 or approximately $0.01 per
Unit).

In addition to dismissing the Kentucky Action with prejudice, the
Settlement Agreement provides that an order dismissing the
Delaware Action with prejudice will be entered.  Generally, if
there are no appeals filed to the Order and Final Judgment or to
any orders dismissing the Actions, then each such order will
become final and no longer be subject to appeal after expiration
of thirty (30) days following the date of entry of each
respective order.  Assuming no appeal of the Order and Final
Judgment or any orders dismissing the Actions is filed, the
Company expects to satisfy the conditions to closing of the
Merger Agreement and to close the merger in June 2014, although
there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so.

         About NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership

The Company currently owns, wholly, as a tenant in common with
unaffiliated co-owners, or through joint venture investments with
affiliated and unaffiliated third parties, twenty-four properties
comprised of fifteen multifamily properties, seven office
buildings and business centers and two retail properties.  The
properties are located in and around Louisville and Lexington,
Kentucky, Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee, Richmond, Virginia,
Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Florida, Indianapolis, Indiana and
Atlanta, Georgia.  The Company's limited partnership units are
listed on the NYSE MKT platform under the trading symbol of
"NLP."


OCEAN RIG UDW: Class Suit Over OceanFreight-Pelican Merger Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed against Ocean
Rig UDW Inc., in connection with OceanFreight's agreement to
merge with Pelican Stockholdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company is now closed, according to Ocean Rig UDW's Form
20-F filed on February 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On October 13, 2011, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
entitled Litwin v. OceanFreight, Inc. et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against OceanFreight, DryShips, the Company, Pelican
Stockholdings Inc. and certain current and former directors of
OceanFreight, or collectively, the Defendants (Case No. 1:11-cv-
7218). The complaint was then amended on October 14, 2011. The
plaintiff alleged violations of certain provisions of the
Exchange Act and the regulations thereunder, as well as breaches
of fiduciary duties owed to OceanFreight by its directors,
purportedly aided and abetted by the other Defendants, in
connection with OceanFreight's agreement to merge with Pelican
Stockholdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

The amended complaint sought to rescind the agreement to merge
and enjoin the merger, as well as an award of actual and punitive
damages. The plaintiff made a motion for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction to delay the OceanFreight
merger, which motion was denied on November 2, 2011. The
plaintiff did not appeal the denial of her motion. On January 10,
2012, she voluntarily dismissed all her claims alleged in the
amended complaint, with prejudice, as to all Defendants,
including the Company. The case is now closed.

Ocean Rig UDW Inc. is a Marshall Islands-registered international
offshore drilling contractor. The Company provides oilfield
services for offshore oil and gas exploration, development and
production drilling. It specializes in the ultra-deepwater and
harsh-environment segment of the offshore drilling industry.
Ocean Rig owns and operates two ultra-deepwater semi-submersible
offshore drilling rigs, the Leiv Eiriksson and the Eirik Raude,
both based on the Company's Bingo 9000 design. In addition, in
January 2011, the Company took delivery of the new build
drillship Ocean Rig Corcovado from Samsung Heavy Industries in
Korea. As of December 22, 2010, Ocean Rig UDW Inc. was majority
owned by DryShips Inc., which held a 78% stake in the Company.


OLDFORD GROUP: Plaintiff Adds Son in PokerStars Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a second amended complaint has been
filed in a class action against the online poker site PokerStars
for recovery of gambling losses.  In the second amended
complaint, which was filed April 14 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, Casey Sonnenberg, Kelly
Sonnenberg's son, is now listed as a plaintiff in the class
action.

Previously, Kelly Sonnenberg was the only plaintiff in the
lawsuit, suing on behalf of others similarly situated.

The defendants in the class action are now Oldford Group Ltd.,
Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. and "Unknown Defendants."
Previous defendants Isai Scheinberg, Paul Tate, Nelson Burtnick,
Pyr Software Ltd., Stelekram ltd. and Sphene International Ltd.
have been removed.

In three counts in the amended complaint, Kelly Sonnenberg brings
her action individually and on behalf of Illinois residents that
lost money on PokerStars pursuant to the Illinois Loss Recovery
Act.  In the remaining nine counts, Casey Sonnenberg brings his
action to recover money he lost on PokerStars.  He represents a
class of similarly situated Illinois residents who gambled and
lost money on PokerStars.

On March 14, one count was dismissed in the class action, and
Kelly Sonnenberg was given until April 12 to file an amended
complaint that agrees with the memorandum and order.  In his
March 14 ruling, District Judge David R. Herndon said that
PokerStars is "more akin to a third party service provider that
provides a forum for others to play the game and does not have a
stake in how the game is decided."

In June, the chairman of PokerStars, Mark Scheinberg, agreed to
pay $50 million to federal prosecutors connected to a 2011 money
laundering lawsuit in which PokerStars agreed to pay $731 million
to settle.

Congress passed legislation in 2006 that banned online gambling,
but it was largely unenforced until April 15, 2011, when federal
prosecutors arrested executives and investors of several Internet
poker sites.

Kelly Sonnenberg claimed Illinois residents were targeted by the
defendants, navigated to the PokerStars website, opened accounts
and deposited their own funds into those accounts.  Ms.
Sonnenberg claimed her son incurred a loss.  Ms. Sonnenberg
sought to recover gambling losses of PokerStars' Illinois players
under the Illinois Loss Recovery Act, which allows individuals to
collect losses on behalf of third parties, provided those third
parties fail to make their own claim within six months of losing
the wager.

However, Illinois courts have held that the winner, and not the
"keeper of the house," is liable to the loser, unless the keeper
of the house also risks money in the gambling activity (Holmes v.
Brickey), according to an Ifrah Law press release.

"PokerStars Group acted as a conduit for transmission of the
prize money to the winner and it did not risk any of its money in
producing the prize money to the winner . . . . Based on the
allegations contained in the first amended complaint, plaintiff
has not pled that [Rational Entertainment] is a 'winner,'" Judge
Herndon ruled.

Judge Herndon also found that Ms. Sonnenberg had not sufficiently
detailed a "loser" or a "loss."

"While Sonnenberg's affidavit in response to the motion to
dismiss states that she is seeking recovery based on her son's
losses; the first amended complaint is devoid of allegations
stated the 'who' 'what' and 'when' of the losses she seeks to
recover," Judge Herdnon said.  "However, the court finds that
Sonnenberg has sufficiently alleged that the losses occurred in
Illinois through the illegal gambling Internet site."

Judge Herndon found that the parties have not "adequately
developed/addressed REEL's argument that the forfeiture of the
PokerStars group of companies' profits by the United States
precludes this cause of action and because of that, the court is
not in a position to rule on that issue at this time."

The lawsuit was originally filed on Aug. 24, 2012, in the Circuit
Court for the 20th Judicial Circuit-St. Clair County, Ill., and
was removed to federal court on April 9.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Lloyd M. Cueto of the Law
Office of Lloyd M. Cueto PC; and Christopher F. Cueto and Michael
J. Gras of the Law Office of Christopher Cueto Ltd.

REEL and Oldford are being represented by Laura E. Craft-Schrick
-- lschrick@mmrltd.com -- and William J. Niehoff --
wniehoff@mmrltd.com -- of Mathis, Marifian & Richter Ltd.; and
David B. Deitch -- ddeitch@ifrahlaw.com -- Rachel Hirsch --
rhirsch@ifrahlaw.com -- and A. Jeff Ifrah -- jeff@ifrahlaw.com --
of Ifrah PLLC.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number: 3:13-cv-00344


PHILIP MORRIS: Constitutional Appeal in Brazil Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc.'s constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal related to the first class action
pending in Brazil is still 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 31,
2013.

In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, our subsidiary and another member of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking
damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive relief.

The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable without
hearing evidence. The court did not assess moral or actual
damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case.
The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $420) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling. The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case. The size of
the class was not estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,
finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without
hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings. In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the
claim. Plaintiff has appealed. In addition, the defendants filed
a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the
basis that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the
lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Rejected Brazil Public Prosecutor's Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected the
Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo's appeal and affirmed a trial
court decision limiting the scope of claims to the State of Sao
Paulo only, in the complaint against Philip Morris International
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.

According to Philip Morris: "In the second class action pending
in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil
Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo,
Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, our subsidiary is a defendant. The
plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is
seeking (i) damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") nationwide, and
their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District. In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial
court limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo
only. In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo
issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because
the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo
where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that
these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.
In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the
Seventh Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases,
finding that they are based on different legal claims and are
progressing at different stages of proceedings. This case was
returned to the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and our
subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March
2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits. In
January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's
appeal and affirmed the trial court decision."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit to Conclude in 2014
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., expects to conclude trial in
2014 on its first class action pending in Canada filed by Cecilia
Letourneau, 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 the first class action pending in Canada,
Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court,
Canada, filed in September 1998, our subsidiary and other
Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
for each member of the class who is deemed addicted to smoking.
The class was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial
court ruled that the federal government would remain as a third
party in the case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals
dismissed defendants' third-party claims against the federal
government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. At the present pace,
trial is expected to conclude in 2014, with a judgment to follow
at an indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial
proceedings."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: Expects to Conclude Conseil Quebecois Suit in 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., expects to conclude trial in
2014 on its second class action pending in Canada filed by the
Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais,
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 the second class action pending in
Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves
Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in
November 1998, our subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and
an individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers from
certain smoking-related diseases. The class was certified in
2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal
government would remain as a third party in the case. In November
2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party
claims against the federal government. Trial began on March 12,
2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to conclude in 2014,
with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after the
conclusion of the trial proceedings."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions in Saskatchewan Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary motions are pending in the class action against
Philip Morris International Inc., filed in Saskatchewan, Canada,
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, 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 the fourth class action pending in
Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.,
The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, we,
our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or
cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary motions
are pending."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Semple" Case
-------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., does not anticipate activity in
the so-called Semple case while plaintiff's counsel pursues a
class action filed in Saskatchewan, 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 the fifth class action pending in Canada,
Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The
Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18,
2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own
addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in this case is
anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Dorion" Case
-------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., does not anticipate activity in
the Dorion case while plaintiff's counsel pursues a class action
filed in Saskatchewan, 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.

According to the Company: "In the sixth class action pending in
Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et
al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we,
our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus
infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and
family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco
products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have
not been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this
case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class
action filed in Saskatchewan."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America.  Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: Files Jurisdictional Challenges in "McDermid" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., has filed jurisdictional
challenges in the McDermid class action on the grounds that it
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class
action, 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 the seventh class action pending in
Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.,
Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we,
our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan
class action."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: Filed Jurisdictional Challenges in "Bourassa" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., has filed jurisdictional
challenges in the Bourassa class action on the grounds that it
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class
action, 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 the eighth class action pending in
Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.,
Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, we,
our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007,
and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have
filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan
class."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Counsel to Take No Action in Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., said counsel in the Suzanne
Jacklin class action has indicated that he does not intend to
take any action in this case in the near future, 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 the ninth class action pending in Canada,
Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et
al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we,
our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
he does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


PHILIP MORRIS: Oral Hearing on El-Roy Lawsuit Scheduled in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the El-Roy in the class action pending in Israel
against Philip Morris International Inc., have appealed on the
Court's decision denying class certification and dismissing the
individual claims; and an oral hearing has been scheduled for
September 2014, 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 the class action pending in Israel, El-
Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court
of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, our subsidiary
and our indemnitees (PM USA and our former importer) are
defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported class action
claiming that the class members were misled by the descriptor
"lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are safer than
full flavor cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the purchase
price of lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for each
class member. Hearings took place in November and December 2008
regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary
to allow it to proceed as a class action. The parties' briefing
on class certification was completed in March 2011. In November
2012, the court denied class certification and dismissed the
individual claims. Plaintiffs have appealed, and an oral hearing
has been scheduled for September 2014."

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is a holding company.
PMI's subsidiaries and affiliates and their licensees are engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco
products in markets outside of the United States of America. Its
products are sold in approximately 180 countries.


UNITED STATES: Reinstatement of Claims in 9/11 Case Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that an
attorney for Arab, South Asian and Muslim non-citizen men swept
up in the post-9/11 dragnet and held at Brooklyn's Metropolitan
Detention Center (MDC) pressed a federal appeals court on May 1
to reinstate claims against former U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft and former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Rachel Meeropol, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that Mr.
Ashcroft's directive that persons of interest detained in the
9/11 terror investigation be subject to maximum pressure to
cooperate, leading to terrible conditions and abuse at the
detention center in 2001 and 2002.

Messrs. Ashcroft and Mueller, she said, should be held personally
responsible for the placement of detainees in a 23-to-24-hour
lockdown in the detention center's Administrative Maximum Special
Housing Unit (ADMAX-SHU), normally reserved for violent
prisoners, where the lights were kept on 24 hours a day and
detainees were denied access to counsel, denied communication
with the outside world, repeatedly strip searched and subjected
to verbal and physical abuse.

By pressing a "hold until clear" policy that led to the special
housing unit detention of hundreds of immigrants and spreading
"the word to law enforcement that these were suspected
terrorists," Ms. Meeropol said the attorney general and FBI
director "purposefully caused placement of civil detainees in
such restrictive conditions as to be punitive."

But H. Thomas Byron III, an appellate staff attorney with the
Department of Justice, said Ms. Meeropol and the plaintiffs in
the putative class action, eight Arab and/or Muslim men held at
the Brooklyn detention center, failed to plausibly allege that
Messrs. Ashcroft and Mueller either directed or even had personal
knowledge of conditions at the facility.

The hold-until-clear "policy decision at a very high level was
understandably not specific, particularly with respect to
conditions of confinement," Mr. Byron told Judges Rosemary
Pooler, Reena Raggi and Richard Wesley.

A central issue for all of the judges in Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 13-
0981-cv, 13-1003-cv and 13-981-cv, is whether the plaintiffs have
"plausibly" alleged intentional violations of the Constitution.

Judge Wesley targeted Mr. Byron for arguing it was implausible
that Ashcroft and Mueller could have known about the problems at
the detention center, when it was Mr. Ashcroft's policy that the
FBI's designation of someone as a "person of interest" in the
terror probe overrode any other authority, including that of the
INS, and held people longer than necessary.

Judge Wesley said Immigration and Naturalization Director
James Ziglar, who is also a defendant in Turkmen, "pushed back"
in October 2001 against the policy and FBI and INS agents also
expressed concern that people were being held who had no
connection to terrorists.

"It didn't come out of thin air!" Judge Wesley said of the
extended detention.  "Someone did it!"

When Mr. Byron started to answer, Judge Wesley raised his voice
again, saying "Tell me now who did it!" and "It's no answer to
tell me he didn't know!"

Mr. Byron conceded that the allegations may have moved the
plaintiffs' case "closer perhaps to Mr. Mueller, but that isn't
enough to establish plausibility."

Mr. Byron said a number of lower level officials who were named
in an Office of Inspector General report on the Brooklyn
detentions after 9/11 were the ones who took action on the ground
-- but they were not named in the lawsuit -- and that was the
plaintiffs' choice.

"This was the cause of action they chose to bring," Mr. Byron
said, adding that, "The policy adopted at the highest level was
lawful to the extent" that the detention of immigrants was legal.
"Are you telling us the MDC was a rogue operation?" Judge Pooler
asked.

More than 500 persons of interest were swept up in New York in
the months following the hijacking of three airplanes and the
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11,
2001.

Investigators received tens of thousands of tips about suspicious
people in New York, sometimes as specious as "they are speaking
Arabic upstairs," the judges noted.

Immigration agents and other investigators, acting on a tip,
Ms. Meeropol said, would go to an apartment "and everyone would
be arrested."

And those arrested, Ms. Meeropol said, were confined in the same
manner "subject to max pressure and identified as a potential
terrorist."

"You're saying there was no triage?" Judge Pooler asked.
"Yes," Ms. Meeropol answered.  "And there were senior INS and FBI
officials who were saying this isn't the way an investigation
should be conducted."

The lawsuits before the Second Circuit were first filed in 2002.
They also seek to hold liable prison officials at the Brooklyn
detention center.

Local Officials

The hold-until-clear policy has been upheld in court, prompting
attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Covington
& Burling to pursue challenges to the conditions of confinement
as violations of the First Amendment, substantive due process and
equal protection.

Eastern District Judge John Gleeson dismissed the case against
Messrs. Ashcroft, Mueller and Ziglar in 2013, saying the
plaintiffs "do not allege that the DOJ defendants intended to
create the punitive or abusive conditions in which the plaintiffs
were detained, nor do they allege that the DOJ defendants were
even aware of those conditions" (NYLJ Jan. 17, 2013).

But Gleeson allowed claims to proceed against former detention
center Warden Dennis Hasty and other officials for substantive
due process violations both for "official conditions" that
demonstrated "punitive intent" and claims based on "unofficial
abuse" inflicted by corrections officers, including interference
with religion and illegal strip searches.
On May 1, Hugh Sandler -- HSandler@crowell.com -- a partner at
Crowell & Moring, told the panel that Mr. Hasty should not be
sued because he was acting at the direction of Washington, D.C.,
when he housed detainees in the special unit and cut off
communication.

Mr. Hasty, Mr. Sandler said, was deferring to the authority of
senior officials in Washington because the "dangerousness" of the
detainees "was determined by the FBI."

Judge Wesley remarked again that the FBI trumped Immigration and
the Bureau of Prisons' authority and "that's really where the
rubber hits the road in this case."

Attorney Jeffrey Lamken of MoloLamken in Washington D.C., argued
for dismissal from the case of detention center of Captain James
Sherman, saying Congress could not have intended a cause of
action against a local jail official who is given orders based on
national security concerns.

William McDaniel -- mcdanielw@ballardspahr.com -- a partner at
Ballard Spahr in Baltimore, urged the panel to dismiss Mr. Ziglar
from the case, saying the plaintiffs used "sleight of hand" and
conclusory allegations in pleadings that also make clear the
former immigration director was simply following Ashcroft's
order.

Joshua Klein -- jklein@dsLLP.com -- a partner at Duval &
Stachenfeld, told the court that defendant Michael Zenk, who
succeeded Mr. Hasty as warden at the Brooklyn detention center in
April 2002, should be dismissed because by the time he came on
board, only two detainees were left and there were no specific
allegations made against his client.

But Ms. Meeropol argued that the local jail officials had far
more control over the treatment of detainees than they concede --
and she said they "prepared and signed a document indicating they
made an individual determination on dangerousness" that justified
continued segregation.

Judge Pooler asked "Did these conditions [of confinement]
continue even after the FBI determined" they were not suspected
terrorists?
"Yes, that's correct, your honor," said Ms. Meeropol, who added
Hasty "purposefully avoided" and "ceased rounds at the ADMAX -
SHU" but was made aware from staff complaints, suicide attempts
and the detention center's own reports of the impact the
conditions had on detainees.

As to Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Mueller, Judge Pooler repeatedly made
the point that the FBI headquarters in Washington took over and
directed the investigation from the FBI field offices, and that
the officials received daily briefings on the number of detainees
being swept up by agents in the field.

Judge Raggi asked Mr. Byron, "Are you asking us to view it as
anything other than plausible?" that the actions of the FBI field
officers in New York on the detainees "was not something the
attorney general and the Director of the FBI were regularly
briefed on?"

Judge Wesley said, "The problem I really have is not the initial
taking of people into custody, but keeping them there when there
is no reason to keep them."

The detainees remained in segregation, "when your own people told
you there was no reason to do so," Judge Wesley said.  "If [that]
is plausible, then Mr. Ashcroft might be back in this
litigation."


PRIME HEALTHCARE: Social Worker Leads Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
Evalyn Beauchamp likely never imagined she would one day serve as
the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action overtime pay
lawsuit in California, and in so doing championing the cause on
behalf of others similarly affected.  But that's what happened
when Beauchamp signed on with the proposed class action against
Prime Healthcare Centinela LLC (Prime Healthcare).

According to court records, the defendant operates 12 hospitals
in the state.  The overtime pay laws litigation hopes to
represent 400 employees of the firm similarly denied overtime pay
in accordance with California overtime law, as well as missed
meal breaks and rest periods.

Ms. Beauchamp, in her lawsuit, claims amongst other allegations
that her employer maintained policies that saw employees clock
out while they were still actively engaged in work.  It is
further alleged unionized employees saw no compensation for work
performed after they clocked out for the day.

Further, Ms. Beauchamp alleges that Prime Healthcare allowed for
hourly employees to be taken "off the clock" for a variety of
reasons during the workday, including the clocking out at a time
that represented the conclusion of an employee's "official" end-
of-shift, in spite of the fact the employee was still actually
working and undertaking tasks on behalf of the employer.

It is also alleged that meal breaks were counted as having been
taken when, in fact, they were not -- or so it is alleged.  Such
work performed off the clock, or during meal breaks, translates
to a loss of overtime pay for the affected workers.

According to California overtime law, employers are required to
pay their employees a rate of pay calculated at one and one-half
times the regular hourly rate of pay for any work performed
beyond a standard eight hour day, or beyond 40 hours in any given
week.

According to court records, such accusations are not without
precedent.  In June 2011, three claimants sued the company over
accusations Prime Healthcare engaged in unlawful activity in an
alleged effort to avoid compliance with overtime pay laws in
California.  Prime Healthcare, just last month, agreed to settle
the claims for $1.08 million.

Lead plaintiff Beauchamp is currently employed as a social worker
at one of Prime Healthcare's hospitals, in a job she has held
since 2011.  She hopes to represent all hourly, nonunionized
social workers in the employ of Prime Healthcare, as well as
others similarly affected.

Amongst the allegations, Ms. Beauchamp charges that Prime
Healthcare fails to maintain and provide adequate pay records,
and fails to provide severance and similar payments in a timely
manner, in accordance with pay laws.

"In violation of state law, defendants have knowingly and
willfully refused to perform their obligations to compensate
plaintiffs for all wages earned and all hours worked," the
proposed class action states.  "As a direct result, plaintiffs
have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related
to the use and enjoyment of such wages."

The plaintiff, on behalf of others similarly affected, is seeking
damages and civil penalties.  The overtime pay lawsuit is Evalyn
Beauchamp et al. v. Prime Healthcare Centinela LLC et al., Case
No. BC542351, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.


REVLON INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action
------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that Revlon is facing a consumer fraud
class action lawsuit filed by two women who allege the company
makes false and misleading claims regarding the benefits of
various beauty products.  The lawsuit specifically claims that
these products are advertised as providing a "DNA Advantage"
despite the fact that none of the products can stimulate,
interact with or otherwise affect the genetic code in human skin
cells.

Filed by Anne Elkind and Sharon Rosen, of Long Island and
California respectively, the lawsuit states: "Revlon claims in
its federal trademark registration that 'DNA Advantage' refers to
an 'ingredient in the manufacturing of cosmetics and makeup to
protect against UV rays' which is essentially sunscreen.
Further, only one of its three 'Age Defying with DNA Advantage'
products
. . . even contains sunscreen."

The plaintiffs allege Revlon's use of the term "with DNA
Advantage," rather than "with sunscreen," could deceive consumers
into believing that the three cosmetic products are
scientifically important and beneficial over and above anything
having to do with UV protection from sunscreen, according to the
lawsuit.

The complaint further states that even if the information on the
packaging is referring to other ingredients with respect to the
"DNA Advantage", no ingredient identified by its customer service
employees is capable of stimulating, interacting with or
otherwise affecting the DNA in human skin cells, contrary to
Revlon's advertising claims.  Further, Revlon's packaging of the
products features a double-helix design characteristic of the
shape of deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA molecules, which could
further deceive ordinary consumers.

"Plaintiffs paid more for the products than they otherwise would
have absent these statements, and would not have been willing to
pay the prices they did, or to purchase them at all, absent the
misrepresentations," the lawsuit states.  The complaint, Elkind
et al v. Revlon Consumer Products, case number 2:14-cv-02484, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
alleges fraud, false advertising and unfair business practices
claims under both New York and California statutory and common
law. Plaintiffs seeks class action status, injunctive relief
including possibly a recall of the products and payment including
punitive damages from the Manhattan-based Revlon Inc, unit.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron APLC and the Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC.


ROBERT ABADY: Salmonella Scare Prompts Cat Food Recall
------------------------------------------------------
The Robert Abady Dog Food Co., LLC of Poughkeepsie, NY, is
recalling its 2 lb, 5 lb & 15 lb boxes of "Abady Highest Quality
Maintenance & Growth Formula for Cats" because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The recalled "Highest Quality Maintenance & Growth Formula for
Cats" were distributed nationwide in retail stores and through
mail orders.

The product comes in a 2 lb, 5 lb & 15 lb, corrugated boxes with
plastic liners marked with lot # 14029/21 stamped on the right
side top of the box.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
by the company revealed the presence of Salmonella in some 2 lb,
5 lb & 15 lb boxes of "Abady Highest Quality Cat Maintenance &
Growth Formula for Cats."

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased 2 lb, 5 lb & 15 lb boxes of "Abady
Highest Quality Maintenance & Growth Formula for Cats" are urged
to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-845-473-
1900, Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm, ET.


SADER POWER: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for St. Charles Herald Guide, reports that
after a local solar panel installation company was named in a
class action lawsuit this February, it appears many St. Charles
Parish residents may be affected by what attorneys who brought
the suit are calling unfair trade practices.

New Orleans-based Sader Power is accused of saying that the
installation of their solar panels would result in substantial
savings on a customer's electric bill.  However, attorneys
handling the class-action lawsuit say that some people ended up
paying more after getting solar panels.

When Boutte resident Ronnie Barger began exploring an investment
in putting solar panels on his property to save on electric
bills, one of the first companies he contacted was Sader Power,
largely due to their marketing efforts.  The part of the deal
that struck Mr. Barger as odd was the fact that he would be
leasing the solar panels for a six-year period before being given
the opportunity to buy them from Sader Power.  Mr. Barger said he
was turned off by the deal and could never find out what the
eventual purchase price would be.  Instead, Mr. Barger contracted
with a company that installed three large solar arrays over a
three-year period.  Although the solar panels cost him around
$50,000 up front, he was able to recapture 80 percent of those
expenses through federal and state rebates.

Mr. Barger's electric bill is now limited to around $11 per month
in fees for the hookup alone while it used to be $180 to $200 a
month.  While Mr. Barger is happy that he did not go with Sader
Power for his solar panels, he knows there are plenty of others
out there who did not scrutinize the contract as closely as he
did.

"Some people got caught in the breach here with these people who
came in and did these deals," he said.

Although the number of those in St. Charles Parish who contracted
with Sader Power for the installation of their solar panels is
uncertain, attorneys handling the case put the statewide number
at between 2,220 and 2,800.  Given that Sader aggressively
marketed their services on local TV stations, it is likely a
number of local homeowners were affected.

Josh Rubenstein -- jrubenstein@nola-law.com -- an attorney with
the law firm Scheuermann & Jones, who is representing the class
action, said that the advertised savings never materialized due
to maneuvering on behalf of Sader Power to pocket state and
federal grant monies that paid for 80 percent of the cost of the
solar panels.  Sader would then rent the system to its customers.

If a resident had instead chosen to purchase the solar panels
from another company, they would have received the 80 percent
rebate.

"The so-called service contract goes on for 15 years and they
have been negotiating anywhere from $35 to $55 from customers per
month.  The profit margins are huge if you have already made your
money off the installation and made money off the depreciation
and this continuous income," Mr. Rubenstein said.

Mr. Rubenstein said those who have enrolled in the class-action
lawsuit against Sader Power have all have maintained they had
negative experiences with the company, and in many cases have
ended up paying more for their electricity.

"It is a very interesting business model.  If the panels truly
provided the savings that was advertised then perhaps the
customer would be getting a decent deal, but all of our clients
have said over and over again they have not received anywhere
near the promised savings or any savings.  When you add the
monthly service charge, you are worse off than you were before,"
he said.  "It's a bad deal for anybody but Sader."

Mr. Rubenstein said it is difficult to locate those who entered
into the rental agreements with Sader Power because the company
was not licensed to do solar panel installations.

"Part of the problem with Sader is that when you install these
things you are supposed to have solar license and they did not.
They admitted that last month," he said.

When the class-action lawsuit is certified, Mr. Rubenstein is
optimistic that he will be able to receive a list of all of
Sader's customers.

U.S. Judge Mary Ann Lemmon, who was formerly a judge in 29th
Judicial District in St. Charles Parish, is hearing the case in
the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Recalls Organic Black Peppercorns
--------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. on April 4 said it is recalling
Organic Black Peppercorns sold under the Sprouts brand name from
all stores. This product has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, the elderly, and others with
weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella
often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled Organic Black Peppercorns were distributed to
Sprouts Farmers Market stores in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Kansas, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah. No
illnesses have been reported to date.

The product comes in a 2.12-ounce, clear glass jar marked with
lot #3287 on the bottom of the container and with an expiration
date of October 2016. Each container is identified with an
individual label showing the Sprouts Farmers Market company logo,
the description: Organic Black Peppercorns.

Sprouts Farmers Market initiated the recall after a sample taken
during routine testing by the FDA revealed the presence of
Salmonella in one lot of Organic Black Peppercorns. Upon learning
of the sample result, the company immediately removed the
following product from store shelves and initiated the process
for its destruction:

   Brand   Full Product Name  Size/Weight  UPC Code     Lot Code
   -----   -----------------  -----------  --------     --------
Sprouts    Organic Black      2.12oz       8-74875-        3287
           Peppercorns                     00425-4

As an extra precautionary measure, the company is voluntarily
recalling the following items from its grocery shelves and bulk
departments:

   Brand   Full Product Name  Size/Weight  UPC Code     Lot Code
   -----   -----------------  -----------  --------     --------
Frontier   Organic Whole      16oz     0-89836-02603-3     3256
           Black Peppercorns

Sprouts    Organic Black      2.12oz     8-74875-00425-4   3246
Farmers    Peppercorns
Market

Simply     Whole Black        2.65oz     0-89836-18524-2   3221,
Organic    Peppercorns                                     3262

Customers who have purchased any of the products mentioned in
this release are urged not to use or consume them and return them
to any Sprouts Farmers Market for a full refund. Customer safety
and product integrity is of the utmost importance to Sprouts
Farmers Market. The company is committed to alerting our
customers of hazardous or defective products in a timely and
accurate manner.

Customers with questions may contact Sprouts Farmers Market's
Customer Relations Department Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm
PST at (480) 814-8016 or email us at
customerrelations@sprouts.com

Sprouts Farmers Market is a healthy grocery store offering fresh,
natural and organic foods at great prices. We offer a complete
shopping experience that includes fresh produce, bulk foods,
vitamins and supplements, packaged groceries, meat and seafood,
baked goods, dairy products, frozen foods, natural body care and
household items catering to consumers' growing interest in health
and wellness. Recently named one of the top five supermarket
chains by Consumer Reports and headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona,
Sprouts Farmers Market employs more than 15,000 team members and
operates more than 170 stores in nine states.


STATE STREET: Accrued $15-Mil. in Two ERISA Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation accrued $15 million in connection to two
related ERISA class actions challenging the Company's division of
its securities lending-related revenue between the unregistered
SSgA-managed collective trust funds and common trust funds and
Company in its role as lending agent, 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 have previously reported on two related
ERISA class actions by investors in unregistered SSgA-managed
collective trust funds and common trust funds which challenge the
division of our securities lending-related revenue between those
funds and State Street in its role as lending agent. In January
2014, we filed a motion to approve a $10 million class settlement
of the collective trust fund litigation. A final fairness hearing
has been scheduled for May 2014. The common trust fund class
action remains pending. We have accrued $15 million in connection
with these matters, including the proposed class settlement."

State Street Corporation (State Street) is a financial holding
company. Through its subsidiaries, including its principal
banking subsidiary, State Street Bank and Trust Company (State
Street Bank), the Company provides a range of financial products
and services to institutional investors worldwide. The Company
has two lines of business: Investment Servicing and Investment
Management. At December 31, 2011, it had consolidated total
deposits of $157.29 billion. Its clients include mutual funds,
collective investment funds and other investment pools, corporate
and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations,
endowments and investment managers. State Street operates in 29
countries and in more than 100 geographic markets worldwide. In
January 2014, its joint venture Boston Financial acquired assets
and staff of The Colbent Corporation.


STATE STREET: Faces Three Pending Shareholder Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------
Three shareholder-related complaints against State Street
Corporation are currently pending in federal court in Boston,
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: "One complaint purports to be a class action
on behalf of State Street shareholders. The two other complaints
purport to be class actions on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries in the State Street Salary Savings Program who
invested in the program's State Street common stock investment
option. The complaints allege various violations of the federal
securities laws, common law and ERISA in connection with our
public disclosures concerning our investment securities
portfolio, our asset-backed commercial paper conduit program, and
our foreign exchange trading business. A fourth complaint, a
purported shareholder derivative action on behalf of State
Street, was dismissed in September 2013. We have accrued $12.5
million in connection with these matters."

State Street Corporation (State Street) is a financial holding
company. Through its subsidiaries, including its principal
banking subsidiary, State Street Bank and Trust Company (State
Street Bank), the Company provides a range of financial products
and services to institutional investors worldwide. The Company
has two lines of business: Investment Servicing and Investment
Management. At December 31, 2011, it had consolidated total
deposits of $157.29 billion. Its clients include mutual funds,
collective investment funds and other investment pools, corporate
and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations,
endowments and investment managers. State Street operates in 29
countries and in more than 100 geographic markets worldwide. In
January 2014, its joint venture Boston Financial acquired assets
and staff of The Colbent Corporation.


SWANSON HEALTH: Salmonella Scare Prompts Spectrum Cilantro Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swanson Health Products is voluntarily recalling Swanson Premium
Brand Full Spectrum Cilantro (Coriander), item number SW1112,
because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with salmonella can result in the
organism entering the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was sold by several different methods. It was either
sold at the Swanson Health Products retail store, 109 Broadway
N., Fargo, North Dakota, shipped directly to online or mail-order
consumers, or held for pick up by the consumer at Swanson Health
Products headquarters. The product was sold between November 21,
2013, and January 31, 2014.

The lot numbers of Swanson Premium Brand Full Spectrum Cilantro
(Coriander) included in this recall are 203921 and 204888, with a
manufacturing date of 11/2013. The lot number and manufacturing
date can be found on the label near the UPC code.

Swanson Health Products became aware of the potential
contamination after being notified by its supplier, UST
Corporation, Layton, Utah. UST Corp. had earlier learned of the
potential contamination from its supplier. No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this voluntary recall. The
raw material, as well as the finished products capsules, have
been tested and found to contain no trace of Salmonella.

Consumers in possession of this voluntarily recalled product may
return it to Swanson Health Products headquarters in Fargo, North
Dakota. Consumers or media with questions should contact Swanson
Health Products Customer Care at (800) 451-9304 (Monday-Friday,
8:00 am-5:00 pm CDT).

Headquartered in Fargo, ND, Swanson Health Products --
http://www.swansonvitamins.com/-- is a natural health retailer,
offering high quality vitamins, supplements and natural health
products to consumers online and via direct mail. The company
operates out of a modern, Good Manufacturing Practices certified
facility, where orders are fulfilled and shipped out to customers
around the world. All products sold are backed by a 100%
satisfaction money-back guarantee with free return shipping,
delivering an unmatched customer service experience.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ordered to Change Terms in Arbitration Clause
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, The Recorder, reports that U.S. District Judge
Edward Chen has ordered Uber to change the wording of an
arbitration clause in its agreement with drivers -- and this time
he really means it.  In an order issued on May 1, the San
Francisco federal judge agreed with plaintiffs lawyers that
Uber's use of an arbitration agreement was meant to limit
drivers' participation in several pending class actions over tips
and expenses.

The company must inform new drivers of the class action and how
their rights would be affected by agreeing to arbitration,
Judge Chen held.  In addition, Judge Chen ordered Uber
Technologies Inc. to provide reasonable opt-out avenues to some
existing drivers and to the new drivers it continues to sign up.
"Lest there be any doubt," Judge Chen wrote, "Uber must comply
with the order."

The 16-page ruling had a feel of deja vu.  In December, Chen
imposed similar directives on Uber, after deeming the arbitration
clause potentially misleading and coercive.  Uber challenged
Judge Chen's ruling insofar as it impacted new Uber drivers who,
the company claimed, would not be covered by the suits filed
prior to their arrival.  Judge Chen allowed Uber to state its
case earlier this month, but ultimately was not swayed.

"The court has authority to regulate communications which
jeopardize the fairness of the litigation even if those
communications are made to future and potential putative class
members," Judge Chen wrote.

Uber, a car service that links drivers and riders through a
smartphone app, has been accused of withholding tips customers
believed drivers were receiving and failing to reimburse drivers
for expenses.  The company inserted an arbitration clause into
its driver agreement in July, before plaintiffs filed their case
in San Francisco federal court, but after plaintiffs filed
similar suits in Massachusetts and Illinois.

Judge Chen's ruling was cheered by plaintiffs attorney Shannon
Liss-Riordan, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston.  "This is what
we were looking for in this battle," she said.

Uber's lead defense attorney, Robert Hendricks --
rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- a partner with Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius in San Francisco, did not immediately respond to an
emailed request for comment on May 1.

Judge Chen had asked both Uber and plaintiffs lawyers to propose
a revised arbitration clause for new Uber drivers, as well as a
corrective notice to be issued to drivers who already signed an
arbitration agreement.  He took issue with the submissions from
both sides.

Uber's proposal was found lacking because it provided no opt-out
mechanism, thereby forcing drivers to consent to arbitration or
forgo use of the rideshare app.  "Conditioning use of its app on
accepting the arbitration provision is clearly an attempt to
discourage participation in the class action," Judge Chen wrote.

Uber's new proposed arbitration agreement is even more
restrictive than the original, which required drivers to mail a
notice to Uber's general counsel to opt out. Drivers opted in by
swiping a button on their cellphone.

But Judge Chen also took issue with plaintiffs' proposal, which,
he wrote, "tends more to urge participation than provide
impartial information."


VIM RECYCLING: Elkhart Residents Await Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Callahan, writing for Associated Press, reports that
Northern Indiana residents who sued a wood-recycling plant,
alleging that its dust and other emissions threatens their health
and keeps them indoors, are awaiting a federal judge's approval
of a settlement calling for the Elkhart plant's operators to
clean up and shutter the site within five years.

The proposed settlement of the class-action suit also calls for
Soil Solutions Co. to obtain a restrictive covenant barring
similar operations from using the site after it's closed.

Environmental attorney Kim Ferraro sued VIM Recycling on behalf
of local residents in 2009, two years before the plant was sold
to Soil Solutions.

A federal judge dismissed that suit in 2010, but the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals in Chicago overturned that ruling in 2011,
clearing the way for the suit to proceed against the plant, which
grinds scrap wood into animal bedding and mulch.

The case obtained class-action status last year.  Ms. Ferraro
said the 1,800 residents who joined the suit are looking forward
to a June 16 hearing where a federal judge in Hammond, who gave
his preliminary approval in March to the settlement, will
consider giving it his final approval.  She said the deal means
the plant's neighbors won't have to wait through more years of
litigation and an uncertain outcome.

Ms. Ferraro, who's the Hoosier Environmental Council's staff
attorney, said the plaintiffs will continue to seek monetary
damages against the plant's former operator, VIM Recycling.

Soil Solutions has disavowed the actions of VIM Recycling, which
owned the plant between 2000 and 2011.

Ed Sullivan, an attorney who represents Soil Solutions in the
lawsuit, said the company will only shutter its Elkhart location
under the settlement.

Once the deal is approved, he said Soil Solutions will assess how
much material remains at the site and needs to be removed over
the next five years.


VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Organic Black Peppercorns
--------------------------------------------------
Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets, Inc., a Lakewood, Colorado
based natural grocery chain, is recalling multiple lots of
Natural Grocers brand Organic Black Peppercorns as the product
has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Consumption
of products containing Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms)
endocarditic and arthritis.

This recall was initiated after being notified of positive
Salmonella findings in product supplied by Frontier Natural
Products Co-op.

The recalled product is packaged in clear plastic bags with
Natural Grocers label notating Julian pack on dates and pricing
per pound. The lots identified by Julian packed on date include:
28-14, 13-14, 351-13, 336-13, 322-13, 305-13, 290-13, 281-13,
266-13, 252-13, 245-13.

The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 80 stores located
in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Consumers
can find the specific locations of Natural Grocers stores at:
http://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locations

Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are
subject to recall.

Through April 7, the company has received no reports of illness.
Consumers who may have purchased this product should return it to
the store for credit or refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling:

Customer Service
303-986-4600, ext. 531
Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time.


WHOLE FOODS: Chipotle Chicken Wraps Recalled in Northern Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market's Northern California region on April 4
announced a recall of its Chipotle Chicken Wrap because it
contains an undeclared allergen. The wrap, labeled as "Chipotle
Chicken Wrap," is filled with a Chicken Caesar wrap mix, which
contains a fish allergen (anchovies) not declared on the Chipotle
Chicken Wrap label. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to anchovies run the risk of serious or life-
threatening reactions if they consume this product.

The Chipotle Chicken Wrap was sold in the Prepared Foods
department on Apr. 2 or Apr. 3 only. The wraps were packaged in
brown cardstock wrap sleeves printed with the Whole Foods Market
logo. They were sold under the label, "Chipotle Chicken Wrap,"
UPC: 046319-97076. Wraps have been pulled from all venues where
they were stocked. Affected product carries a "use by" date of
Apr. 6. The lot code on the product is 40109104.

The recalled wraps were sold in the following 38 of the company's
40 Northern California stores:

    Berkeley
    Blithedale (Mill Valley)
    Blossom Hill (San Jose)
    Campbell
    Capitola
    Coddingtown (Santa Rosa)
    Davis
    Folsom
    Franklin (San Francisco)
    Fremont
    Haight (Stanyan/San Francisco)
    Harrison (Oakland)
    Lafayette
    Los Altos
    Los Gatos
    Market Street (San Francisco)
    Mill Valley
    Monterey
    Napa
    Noe Valley
    Novato
    Ocean (San Francisco)
    Palo Alto
    Petaluma
    Potrero Hill (San Francisco)
    Redwood City
    Reno
    Roseville
    Sacramento
    San Mateo
    San Rafael
    San Ramon
    Santa Cruz
    Sebastopol
    South of Market (San Francisco)
    Sonoma
    Stevens Creek (Cupertino)
    Walnut Creek

To date, Whole Foods Market has not received any claims or
complaints of illness or allergic reactions. Consumers who have
purchased the wrap should discard it and may bring in their
receipt for a full refund. Customers with questions may contact
their local store for more information.


ZYNGA INC: Hearing on Motions to Dismiss Securities Suits Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on September 23, 2013, vacated a previously
scheduled hearing on Zynga Inc.'s motions to dismiss the
consolidated securities class actions alleging that the Company
issued false or misleading statements regarding its business and
financial projections, 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 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives.
Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26,
2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In
re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-
JSW.

On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial projections. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between December 16,
2011 and July 25, 2012. The consolidated complaint asserts claims
for unspecified damages, and an award of costs and expenses to
the putative class, including attorneys' fees. The defendants'
motions to dismiss were filed on May 31, 2013, and briefing on
the motions was completed in August 2013. On September 23, 2013,
the court vacated the previously scheduled hearing on the motions
and advised that the motions would be decided on the filings. The
court's order does not indicate when a ruling on the motions to
dismiss is likely to be issued.

Zynga Inc. develops, markets and operates online social games as
live services played over the Internet and on social networking
sites and mobile platforms. The Company's games are accessible on
Facebook and other social networks, mobile platforms and
Zynga.com. According to AppData, as of December 31, 2012, the
Company had five of the top 10 games on Facebook based on DAUs.
The Company's players are also more engaged, with the Company's
games being played by 63 million DAUs, worldwide as of December
31, 2012. According to comScore, in the month of December 2012,
players spent more time playing Zynga's mobile games than the
next five mobile game developers combined.


ZYNGA INC: Deadlines Stayed in "Reyes" Action
---------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on August 26, 2013, issued orders overruling the
demurrer and granting the motion to stay all deadlines in the
Reyes action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the
federal securities class action against Zynga 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.

In addition, a purported securities class action captioned Reyes
v. Zynga Inc., et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San
Francisco County Superior Court. The action was removed to
federal court, and was later remanded to San Francisco County
Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements in connection with an April 2012 secondary
offering of Class A common stock. The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who acquired the Company's common
stock pursuant or traceable to the secondary offering. On June
10, 2013, the defendants filed a demurrer and motion to stay the
action. On August 26, 2013, the court issued orders overruling
the demurrer and granting the motion to stay all deadlines in the
action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal
securities class action.

Zynga Inc. develops, markets and operates online social games as
live services played over the Internet and on social networking
sites and mobile platforms. The Company's games are accessible on
Facebook and other social networks, mobile platforms and
Zynga.com. According to AppData, as of December 31, 2012, the
Company had five of the top 10 games on Facebook based on DAUs.
The Company's players are also more engaged, with the Company's
games being played by 63 million DAUs, worldwide as of December
31, 2012. According to comScore, in the month of December 2012,
players spent more time playing Zynga's mobile games than the
next five mobile game developers combined.


ZYNGA INC: Faces Amended Complaint Over Lock-Up Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed on January 17, 2014, against Zynga
Inc., in connection with the release of certain lock-up
agreements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, 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 April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering. The defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on May 10, 2013. On
December 23, 2013, the district court granted the plaintiff's
motion to remand the action to the Court of Chancery. On January
8, 2014, the Chancery Court entered a scheduling order. On
January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
Company's deadline to respond to the amended complaint was March
6, 2014.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the above
securities class actions and will vigorously defend these
actions.

Zynga Inc. develops, markets and operates online social games as
live services played over the Internet and on social networking
sites and mobile platforms. The Company's games are accessible on
Facebook and other social networks, mobile platforms and
Zynga.com. According to AppData, as of December 31, 2012, the
Company had five of the top 10 games on Facebook based on DAUs.
The Company's players are also more engaged, with the Company's
games being played by 63 million DAUs, worldwide as of December
31, 2012. According to comScore, in the month of December 2012,
players spent more time playing Zynga's mobile games than the
next five mobile game developers combined.


* 10 Listed Banks in China File Class Action v. Steel Traders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Want China Times, writing for China Business News and Chinese
market researcher ChinaIRN, reports that ten listed banks in
China have filed a class action lawsuit against domestic steel
traders over loan disputes this year.  The number of the disputes
has surged since the huge loans taken out by steel traders have
met with eroding steel prices.

Banks such as ICBC, Bank of China, Minsheng Banking and China
Everbright Bank filed a lawsuit this year as declining steel
prices have increased the possibility of steel traders dumping
their stock or default on their debt.  They may be forced to get
loans from non-bank financial institutions such as trust funds
and underground lenders, spreading the risks to non-banking
sectors.

Steel traders began accumulating debt since the financial crisis
in 2008.  Demand for steel was strong and they were able to get
loans easily by guaranteeing for each other or using their stocks
as collateral.  Many of them in Yangtze River Delta used the
loans to make high-yield investments such as properties.

The steel price, however, has been in decline over the past seven
months as of the end of March this year, reaching its lowest
since Feb. 2006.

The decline has clogged the Shanghai courthouse with 3,700
financial lawsuits involving 23 billion yuan (US$3.6 billion)
worth of steel trades last year.  The figure was around 5.5 times
more than the same period a year before and continues to increase
this year.  Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court accepted
1,051 lawsuits for steel loans in the first quarter, which is
around half of the 2,500 cases it took last year.

The number of defendants sometimes involved as many as 35 people
because of numerous gaurantors among steel traders.  Many of the
run from the authorities when hearing of trial.

The loan disputes could spread financial risks to other sectors
since they often involved multiple parties such as banks,
pawnshops and business owners not in steel-trading sector.  If
one of the parties were sued, all of them would face class action
lawsuit filed by banks.

Banks have been alerted by some steel traders' illegal means to
get loan such as falsifying warehouse documents and using a
collateral to get loans from several creditors.  Shanghai Banking
Association established a collaterals platform in March this year
to deter these illegal means.  The platform gave steels
identifications, managed their information through logistic and
warehouse management systems.

Loans lent to steel traders have also been reduced from 280
billion yuan (US$44 billion) at the end of 2011 to 80 billion
yuan (US$12 billion) at the end of last year.  Since the end of
Chinese New Year, steel traders' inventory also declined lowered
from 2,250 tons to 2,070, said Mi Yezhou, an UBS analyst.

A court in Shanghai said banks are partly responsible for the
multiple loan disputes that have come to light since last year
since they failed to evaluate the risks properly, granting loans
to debtors who clearly did not have enough guarantees, causing
the amount of non-performing debts to soar.


* FDA Issues Two Orders to Address Transvaginal Mesh Risks
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 29 issued two
proposed orders to address the health risks associated with
surgical mesh used for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ
prolapse (POP).  If finalized, the orders would reclassify
surgical mesh for transvaginal POP from a moderate-risk device
(class II) to a high-risk device (class III) and require
manufacturers to submit a premarket approval (PMA) application
for the agency to evaluate safety and effectiveness.

POP occurs when the internal structures that support the pelvic
organs such as the bladder, uterus and bowel, become so weak,
stretched, or broken that the organs drop from their normal
position and bulge (prolapse) into the vagina.  While not a life-
threatening condition, women with POP often experience pelvic
discomfort, disruption of their sexual, urinary, and defecatory
functions, and an overall reduction in their quality of life.

"The FDA has identified clear risks associated with surgical mesh
for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse and is now
proposing to address those risks for more safe and effective
products," said William Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., deputy director of
science and chief scientist at the FDA's Center for Devices and
Radiological Health.  "If these proposals are finalized, we will
require manufacturers to provide premarket clinical data to
demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness
for surgical mesh used to treat transvaginal POP repair."

Surgical mesh is a medical device that is used to provide
additional support when repairing weakened or damaged tissue.
Many mesh products come in kits that include instruments
specifically designed to aid in insertion, placement, fixation,
and anchoring of mesh in the body.  Instruments provided in kits
will be reviewed as part of the regulatory submission for the
mesh product.  Instruments are also provided separately from the
mesh implant, and the FDA is proposing that this urogynecologic
surgical instrumentation be reclassified from low-risk devices
(class I) to moderate-risk devices (class II).

Beginning in Jan. 2012, the FDA issued orders to manufacturers of
urogynecologic surgical mesh devices to conduct postmarket
surveillance studies (522 studies) to address specific safety and
effectiveness concerns related to surgical mesh used for
transvaginal repair of POP.

In Sept. 2011, the FDA's Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel
recommended that surgical mesh for transvaginal POP be
reclassified from class II to class III and require PMAs.

In July 2011, the FDA provided an updated safety communication
about serious complications associated with transvaginal
placement of surgical mesh used to treat POP.  At that time, the
FDA also released a review of urogynecologic surgical mesh
adverse events and peer-reviewed scientific literature that
identified serious safety and effectiveness concerns.  The FDA
previously communicated about serious complications associated
with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat POP and
stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in an Oct. 2008 FDA Public
Health Notification.

Surgical mesh indicated for surgical treatments of SUI, abdominal
POP repair with mesh, hernia repair, and other non-urogynecologic
indications are not part of this proposed order.

The FDA will take comments on the proposed order for 90 days.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety,
effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs,
vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical
devices.  The agency also is responsible for the safety and
security of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, dietary
supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for
regulating tobacco products.


* Group Seeks Right to Use Wiretaps in Suit v. Oil Companies
------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Tenneriello, writing for CJAD News, reports that the
Automobile Protection Association (APA) was at the Supreme Court
of Canada on April 24 trying to win the right to use wiretaps in
its class action lawsuit against oil companies who were found
guilty of price fixing in Quebec.

In 2008, following an investigation by the Federal Competition
Bureau, 11 oil corporations and 13 individuals were found guilty
of price fixing, in four regions in the Eastern Townships of
Quebec.  Soon after, the APA filed a class action lawsuit to try
to get consumers some money back, and extend the number of
overcharged regions to 22, which would include Montreal.

APA spokesperson George Iny says the Supreme Court should decide
in the fall if their wiretaps could be used as evidence in court.
But it will take at least another four to five years before
consumers would get any money back.

"A class action for us is generally a 10 to 12 year deal, if we
go all the way, so you're looking at another 4-5 years.  If we
win, individual consumers could get 2 to 3 cents a litre, so $50
a year, if you're in a community where this was going on," Mr.
Iny said.

Mr. Iny says since the oil companies were found criminally guilty
of price fixing, he's hoping they are no longer fixing prices in
Quebec.


* Medical-Malpractice Claims Hit New Low in Ohio in 2012
--------------------------------------------------------
Alan Johnson, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that
medical-malpractice claims hit a new low in Ohio in 2012, with
2,733 claims -- the vast majority resulting in no malpractice
payment.

A total of $177.3 million was paid to 576 claimants, an average
of $307,852 apiece, according to the annual Ohio Medical
Professional Liability Closed Claim Report from the Ohio
Department of Insurance.

The report shows a steady decline in claims against surgeons,
general-practice physicians and other medical personnel since the
state adopted tort-reform laws in 2003.  The 2,733 closed claims
in 2012, the last year for which numbers are available, was the
lowest since the state began tracking claims in 2005, when there
were 5,051.

Nearly 4 in 5 claims resulted in no malpractice payment, although
in almost all cases money was awarded for investigation and
defense costs, averaging $29,691 apiece, the report showed.

Legal wrangling over lawsuits and settlements in medical-
malpractice cases reached a tipping point in 2003 when the
General Assembly passed and Gov. Bob Taft signed Senate Bill 281.
The law capped non-economic damages, commonly known as "pain and
suffering" awards, at $500,000 per occurrence.  Other changes
followed.

The report said that the average claim payment in 2012 was 14
percent higher than in 2005, but total payments dropped by 37
percent over the same period.

Statistics showed that more than half of the claims came from 14
counties in northeastern Ohio, accounting for $111.1 million of
$177.3 million awarded.

Central Ohio's average claim amount, $224,320, was second lowest
in the state to southwestern Ohio, $219,744.

Non-obstetrical medical care, such as failure to treat or delayed
or improper treatment, generated the largest number of claims,
780, while obstetrics claims showed the highest payments,
averaging more than $1.1 million apiece.

The full report can be seen online at insurance.ohio.gov.


                             *********

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  * * *