CAR_Public/140512.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 93

                             Headlines


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Wants Suit Over Vivendi Sale of Stake Nixed
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit in Massachusetts
ALERE HOME: Suit Over Theft of Laptop With Patients' Data Stayed
AMCOL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Litigations Over Imerys Merger
AMERICAN EQUITY: Settlement in Sales Lawsuit Wins Final Approval

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Stockholders' Lawsuit in New York
APOLLO GLOBAL: Arguments to Junk Trilegiant Stock Suit Heard
ASIA PACKAGING: Jensen Shawa Files Class Action in Canada
AVIS BUDGET: Judge Halts Second Class Action Over Toll Fees
BANANA REPUBLIC: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages

BANANA REPUBLIC: Misleads, Lures Consumers Into Stores, Suit Says
BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL: Sued for Failing to Pay Wages to Therapists
BIOSCRIP INC: Briefing on Dismissal Bid to Be Completed in July
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit Over Emeritus Merger
CASH AMERICA: To Pay 2013 Litigation Settlement by Q1 2014

CASH AMERICA: Suit Over Ohio Mortgage Loan Act Violations Stayed
CHOICE HOTELS: Tex. Court Junks Suit Over "Anti-Competitive" Acts
CLEAREDGE POWER: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs
CME GROUP: Discloses Effects of MF Global Lawsuit Settlement
COMMUNITY BANK: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over UCC Violation

DENDREON CORP: Opt Outs in Securities Suit Settlement File Suit
EAGLE ROCK: "Sheldon" Suit Challenges Regency Merger Deal
EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Braun" Suit Over Regency Merger Deal
ENDO HEALTH: No Certification Yet in Qualitest Contraceptive Suit
EPL OIL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Proposed Sale to Energy XXI

EPL OIL: Proposed Merger Consideration Is Inadequate, Suit Claims
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Consolidates Chemical Spill Suits
GENON ENERGY: Continues to Face Four Natural Gas Litigations
GENON ENERGY: Pa. Court Stays Lawsuit Over Cheswick Facility
GENON ENERGY: Lawsuits Over NRG Merger Agreement All Dismissed

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bares Updates on RESPA "Violations" Suits
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: No Class Status Yet for Securities Suit
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Medical Record Fees
HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Agrees to Settle Sinus Buster Class Action

HY-VEE INC: Faces "Jones" Breach of Contract Suit in Nebraska
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Wants Registration Fees Class Action Dismissed
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Motion to Junk "Silsby" Stock Suit Pending
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in Citiline Lawsuit
J2 GLOBAL: Ill. Court Grants Motion to Junk Claims Under ICFA

J2 GLOBAL: Suit by Asher & Simons Dismissed After Settlement
J2 GLOBAL: Yet to Respond to "Jenkins" Breach of Contract Suit
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: No Depositions Yet in Gainsville Plant Suit
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Paid $14.4MM Settlement in Labor Lawsuit
MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Has Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims

MEDICINES COMPANY: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in New Jersey
MGM RESORTS: Discovery Begins in Nevada Securities Litigation
MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Junk Stock Suit Pending in Col. Court
MOLYCORP INC: Deadline to Reply to Securities Suit in N.Y. Stayed
MT GOX: Bitcoin Traders Settle Class Actions Over Collapse

NBT BANK: Seeks Final OK for Checking Account Fees Suit Accord
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: MDL Settlement Filed in Bankruptcy Court
NU SKIN: Faces "Granzow" Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
NU SKIN: Misled Shareholders About Operation in China, Suit Says
NUVASIVE INC: Continues to Face Shareholder Suit in California

OLD REPUBLIC: Opposes Certification of "Markocki" in Penn. Court
OLD REPUBLIC: Seeks to Dismiss Remaining RESPA "Violations" Suit
OLD REPUBLIC: Wins Dismissal of "Friedman" Suit in California
PACWEST BANCORP: Status Conference Held in Cal. Suit Over Merger
PARKWAY PROPERTIES: Seeks Final Okay of Merger Suit Settlement

PEOPLE'S UNITED: No Order Yet on Motion to Junk Suit v. Smithtown
PEOPLE'S UNITED: No Order Yet in Motion to Junk Claims in "Farb"
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Conn. Labor Suit v. Bank in Discovery Stage
PNC FINANCIAL: Interchange Litigation Settlement Fully Funded
PNC FINANCIAL: Appeals Cert. Ruling in CBNV Mortgage Litigation

PNC FINANCIAL: "Bumpers" Suit Cut Down to Loan Discount Fee Issue
PNC FINANCIAL: Bares Updates on Overdraft Fees Lawsuits
PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks to Junk Captive Mortgage Reinsurance Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Dismissed From Force-Placed Insurance Litigation
PNC FINANCIAL: Faces "Montoya" Suit Over Lending Business in Fla.

REX ENERGY: Settles Suit Over Oil, Gas Leases in Westmoreland
REX ENERGY: Expects Schedule for Cardinale Case Set Within Months
ROSETTA STONE: Pays $0.6MM Settlement in Salaried Managers' Suit
STEEL DYNAMICS: Steel Product Buyers Seek Class Certification
TARGET CORP: Data Breach Class Actions Transferred to MDL Panel

TRULIA INC: Seeks Court Approval of Accord in Merger Suit
UAW LOCAL 469: Master Lock Seeks Declaratory Judgment in Court
URS CORP: Suits Over New Orleans Levee Failure Dismissed
VECTOR GROUP: 4 Suits Filed in 2013 v. Liggett Seek Class Status
WAFFLE HOUSE: Sued for Using Consumer Reports in Hiring Decision

WALT DISNEY: Fails to Pay Minimum or Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
WARNER MUSIC: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $11.5 Million
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: June 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
WP CAREY: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Planned Merger With CPA:15
YELP INC: Awaits 9th Cir. Ruling on Local Businesses' Appeal

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: "Reyes" Telemarketing Suit in Discovery

* New York Class Action Challenges Use of Shadow Insurance
* Number of Accounting Class Action Settlements Up in 2013


                            *********


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Wants Suit Over Vivendi Sale of Stake Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Activision Blizzard, Inc. is seeking to dismiss lawsuits filed
against it in connection with Vivendi S.A.'s sale of its stake in
the Company, according to Activision's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 1, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
shareholder derivative action in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Miller v. Kotick,
et al., No. BC517086. The complaint names the company's Board of
Directors and Vivendi as defendants, and the Company as a nominal
defendant. The complaint alleges that the company's Board of
Directors committed breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of
corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with
Vivendi's sale of its stake in the Company and that Vivendi also
breached its fiduciary duties. The plaintiff further alleges that
demand by it on the company's Board of Directors to institute
action would be futile because a majority of the company's Board
of Directors is not independent and a majority of the individual
defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability for
approving the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase
Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages
sustained by the Company, rescission of the transactions
contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement, an order
restricting the company's Chief Executive Officer, and the
company's Chairman, from purchasing additional shares of the
company's common stock and an order directing the company to take
necessary actions to improve and reform the company's corporate
governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law,
including ordering a shareholder vote on certain amendments to
the company's by-laws or charter that would require half of the
company's Board of Directors to be independent of Messrs. Kotick
and Kelly and Vivendi and a proposal to appoint a new independent
Chairman of the Board of Directors. On January 28, 2014, the
parties filed a stipulation and proposed order temporarily
staying the California action. On February 6, 2014, the court
entered the order granting a stay of the California action.

In addition, on August 14, 2013, the company received a letter
dated August 9, 2013 from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to
Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect
the books and records of the Company to ascertain whether the
Purchase Transaction and Private Sale were in the best interests
of the Company. In response to that request, the company provided
the stockholder with certain materials under a confidentiality
agreement. On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under
seal by the same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et
al., C.A. No. 8884-VCL. A public version of that complaint was
filed on September 16, 2013. The allegations in the complaint
were substantially similar to the allegations in the matter filed
on August 1, 2013. On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended
complaint under seal. The amended complaint added claims on
behalf of an alleged class of Activision stockholders other than
the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi,
ASAC, investors in ASAC and other stockholders affiliated with
the investors of ASAC. The added class claims are against the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi
affiliated directors, the members of the special committee of the
Board formed in connection with the Company's consideration of
the transactions with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi for breach of
fiduciary duty, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty against ASAC. The amended complaint removed the
derivative claims for waste of corporate assets and disgorgement
but continued to allege derivative claims for breach of fiduciary
duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of a class, damages, reformation of the Private
Sale, and disgorgement of any alleged profits received by the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and ASAC. On October
29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the Pacchia case
with the Hayes case. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery
consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining
lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013.
On December 3, 2013, the court selected Pacchia as lead
plaintiff. Pacchia filed a second amended complaint on December
11, 2013 and Activision filed an answer on January 31, 2014. Also
on January 31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick
and Kelly, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each
filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the second amended
complaint. On February 21, 2014, Pacchia filed a third amended
complaint under seal. Responses to the complaint are due on March
4, 2014. The trial is scheduled for December 2014.

On September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint
names the company's Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, ASAC,
the General Partner of ASAC, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P.
("Davis") and Fidelity Management & Research Co. ("FMR") as
defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of the
company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation by
failing to submit the matters contemplated by the Stock Purchase
Agreement for approval by a majority of the company's
stockholders (other than Vivendi and its controlled affiliates);
that the company's Board of Directors committed breaches of their
fiduciary duties in approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that
Vivendi violated fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of
the Company in entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that
the company's Chief Executive Officer and the company's Chairman
usurped a corporate opportunity from the Company; that the
company's Board of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions
to entrench the company's Board of Directors and officers in
their offices; that the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR aided and
abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors
and Vivendi; and that the company's Chief Executive Officer and
the company's Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be
unjustly enriched through the Private Sale. The complaint seeks,
among other things, the rescission of the Private Sale; an order
requiring the transfer to the Company of all or part of the
shares that are the subject of the Private Sale; an order
implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the alleged
entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order requiring the
company's Chief Executive Officer and the company's Chairman, the
ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the Company the
amounts by which they have allegedly been unjustly enriched; and
alleged damages sustained by the class and the Company. In
addition, the stockholder sought a temporary restraining order
preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions
contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without stockholder
approval. Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary
restraining order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery
issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation
of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement
pending (a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the
merits; (b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard
stockholder vote on the transactions contemplated by the Stock
Purchase Agreement under Section 9.1(b) of the company's Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or (c) modification of
such preliminary injunction order by the Court of Chancery or the
Delaware Supreme Court. On September 20, 2013, the Court of
Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary injunction
for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The
defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear
the appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the
Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of
Chancery's decision and granted the defendant's motion to hear
the appeal on an expedited basis. Following a hearing on October
10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Chancery's order issuing a preliminary injunction, and determined
that the Stock Purchase Agreement was not a merger, business
combination or similar transaction that would require a vote of
Activision's unaffiliated stockholders under the charter.

On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added
factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October
29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with
the Pacchia case. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery
consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining
lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013.
See the discussion related to the Pacchia matter (now the
consolidated matter) for any further updates to the status of the
litigation.

Further, on September 18, 2013, the Company received a letter
from another purported stockholder of the Company, Milton
Pfeiffer, seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the
Company to investigate potential wrongdoing or mismanagement in
connection with the approval of the Stock Purchase Agreement. On
November 11, 2013, Pfeiffer filed a lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section
220 containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia and Miller. The
Company answered on November 27, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the
Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order of
dismissal.

On December 17, 2013, the Company received a letter from Mark
Benston requesting certain books and records of the Company
pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
Benston is represented by the same law firm as Pfeiffer. On
January 2, 2014, Benston filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220
containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller.
The Company answered on January 17, 2014. On February 14, 2014,
the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order
of dismissal.


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is facing a securities suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
over its disclosure related to the marketing of JUXTAPID,
according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 15, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of the company's executive
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts alleging certain misstatements and omissions
related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's financial
performance in violation of the federal securities laws.


ALERE HOME: Suit Over Theft of Laptop With Patients' Data Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action over the theft of a laptop containing personally
identifiable information of patients from an employee of Alere
Home Monitoring has been stayed, according to Alere Inc.'s March
3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In September 2012, a password-protected laptop containing
personally identifiable information of approximately 116,000
patients was stolen from an employee of Alere Home Monitoring, or
AHM. On January 24, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against AHM, asserting claims for damages and other relief under
California state law, including under California's
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, arising out of this
theft. The class action has been stayed pending resolution of
other class actions involving third parties based on similar
circumstances.

The company believes that AHM has strong defenses to the claims
made in the complaint, and AHM intends to defend this matter
vigorously. The Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, or the OCR, was notified of the
inadvertent disclosure in accordance with the Breach Notification
Rule under the HITECH Act, as were certain state agencies. AHM
has responded to the OCR's inquiries and continues to cooperate.


AMCOL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Litigations Over Imerys Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Amcol International Corporation faces several lawsuits and
expects to face more in relation to its planned merger with
Imerys SA, according to Amcol's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On or about February 18, 2014, Hilary Coyne filed a purported
class action complaint on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of AMCOL in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Hilary Coyne v. AMCOL
International Corporation, John Hughes, Ryan McKendrick, Audrey
L. Weaver, Paul C. Weaver, Jay D. Proops, Donald J. Gallagher,
William H. Schumann III, Clarence O. Redman, Daniel P. Casey,
Frederick J. Palensky, Dale E. Stahl, Imerys S.A., and Imerys
Minerals Delaware, Inc., Case No. 2014 CH02849).

On or about February 24, 2014, a second AMCOL stockholder filed a
complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, on behalf of the same purported class of AMCOL
stockholders and against the same defendants as the first case as
well as a former AMCOL director (City of Monroe Employees'
Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMCOL International Corporation, Imerys
S.A., Imerys Minerals Delaware, Inc., John Hughes, Ryan
McKendrick, Arthur Brown, Daniel P. Casey, Frederick J. Palensky,
Jay D. Proops, Clarence O. Redman, Dale E. Stahl,  Audrey L.
Weaver, Paul C. Weaver, Donald J. Gallagher, William H. Schumann
III, Case No. 2014 CH03236).

On or about February 21, 2014, Benjamin Halberstam, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated AMCOL stockholders,
filed a purported class action complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware  against the same defendants in the
Coyne case (Benjamin Halberstam v. AMCOL International
Corporation, John Hughes, Ryan F. McKendrick, Daniel P. Casey,
Frederick J. Palensky, Jay D. Proops, Clarence O. Redman, Dale E.
Stahl, Audrey L. Weaver, Paul C. Weaver, Donald J. Gallagher,
William H. Schumann III, Imerys S.A., and Imerys Minerals
Delaware, Inc., Case No. 9381)

All three lawsuits allege, among other things, that AMCOL's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
negotiation, consideration and approval of the Imerys Merger
Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to sell AMCOL for
inadequate consideration and on otherwise inappropriate terms.
The complaints allege that Imerys, and in certain cases AMCOL,
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
AMCOL directors.  Based on these allegations, the lawsuits, among
other relief, seek certain injunctive relief, including the
enjoining of the Imerys Transaction, and damages. The lawsuits
also seek recovery of the costs of the actions, including
attorneys' fees.

AMCOL expects that additional stockholder class action
complaints, or amendments to the existing complaints, may be
filed with respect to the Imerys Transaction.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Settlement in Sales Lawsuit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in the case In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices
and Sales Litigation is finally approved, according to American
Equity Investment Life Holding Company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims. The company was a defendant in a purported class
action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Western Division and
Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central
District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and
Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los
Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices
and similar claims.

The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
the company. The allegations generally attacked the suitability
of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over the age of
65. The plaintiffs sought rescission and injunctive relief
including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of
all class members under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust
enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages
under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq. On July 30, 2013, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulated to
certification of the case as a class action for settlement
purposes only. Notice of the terms of the settlement was mailed
to the members of the class on October 7, 2013 and settlement
claim forms were due from members of the class on or before
December 6, 2013. On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held
regarding the fairness of the settlement. On January 29, 2014,
the Court signed a final order approving the settlement and
finding the settlement is fair and represents a complete
resolution of all claims asserted on behalf of the class. On
January 30, 2014, a final judgment, which is still subject to
appeal, was entered dismissing the case on the merits and with
prejudice. While review of the claim forms submitted is still
ongoing and it is difficult to predict the amount of the
liabilities that will ultimately result from the completion of
the claim process, the $21.2 million litigation liability
referred to represents the company's best estimate of probable
loss with respect to this litigation.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Stockholders' Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Amtrust Financial Services, Inc. faces a securities suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The company and certain of its officers are defendants in related
putative securities class action lawsuits filed in February 2014
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to represent a class
of the company's stockholders who purchased shares between
February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013. The complaints assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Arguments to Junk Trilegiant Stock Suit Heard
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court heard oral argument on Defendants' motions to
dismiss the suit In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., of which
Apollo Global Management, LLC is a defendant, according to
Apollo's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of a class of consumers
alleging online fraud. The defendants included, among others,
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), its parent company,
Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management,
LLC ("AGM"), which is affiliated with funds that are the
beneficial owners of 68% of Affinion's common stock. In both
cases, plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its business
partners, who include e-merchants and credit card companies,
developed a set of business practices intended to create consumer
confusion and ultimately defraud consumers into unknowingly
paying fees to clubs for unwanted services. Plaintiffs allege
that AGM is a proper defendant because of its indirect stock
ownership and ability to appoint the majority of Affinion's
board. The complaints assert claims under the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act; the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act; and the California Business and Professional Code,
and seek, among other things, restitution or disgorgement,
injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees. The allegations in Kelm and Miller are
substantially similar to those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp.
(No. 3:10-cv-957), a putative class action filed in the District
of Connecticut in 2010 that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as
defendants. The court has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and
Schnabel cases under the caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc. and ordered that they proceed on the same schedule. On June
18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and on
September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action
against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012,
plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and
defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013. On December 5, 2012,
plaintiffs filed another putative class action, captioned Frank
v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12-cv-1721), in the District of
Connecticut, naming the same defendants and containing
allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC. On January
23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate Frank into
In re: Trilegiant. On June 13, 2013, the Court extended all
defendants' deadlines to respond to the Frank complaint until 21
days after a ruling on the motion to transfer and consolidate. On
July 24, 2013 the Frank court transferred the case to Judge
Bryant, who is presiding over In re: Trilegiant, but the cases
have not yet been consolidated. On September 25, 2013, the Court
held oral argument on Defendants' motions to dismiss.


ASIA PACKAGING: Jensen Shawa Files Class Action in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP (JSS Barristers) has filed
a class action proceeding against Vancouver-based Asia Packaging
Group Inc., Robert Wilson, Brian Birmingham, Jin Kuang, Michael
E.D. Raymont, George Dorin and Manning Elliott LLP.

The action is brought on behalf of shareholders who bought APX
shares between April 26, 2011 and the halt of trading in the
shares on November 6, 2013.  JSS Barristers has filed a Statement
of Claim in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary, as a
national class action.  A separate claim, for BC investors, has
been filed with the British Columbia Supreme Court in Vancouver.

Prior to trading in APX's shares being halted, the company's sole
material assets were wholly owned foreign companies in China.
The Statement of Claim alleges that APX and its directors failed
to secure proper control over those subsidiaries and their
operations, including their boards of directors, corporate seals
and records, and bank accounts.  The Claim alleges that in the
fall of 2103 APX lost complete control of its Chinese assets.  As
a result, the company can no longer operate or pay its bills.
The claim further alleges that Class Members have lost the entire
value of their investment.

This claim alleges that APX's former directors and auditors have
breached their duties, and that they made misrepresentations
regarding the true state of affairs of APX.

The Statement of Claim seeks damages for losses suffered by
investors in the amount of 9,000,000, plus other relief including
costs and interest.

JSS Barristers provides litigation services to both commercial
and individual clients.  The firm's lawyers appear at all levels
of Court in Alberta and Canada.


AVIS BUDGET: Judge Halts Second Class Action Over Toll Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ivers, Bibeka Shrestha and Greg Ryan, writing for Law360,
report that a New York federal judge on April 28 halted a class
action alleging Avis Budget Group Inc. and Avis Rent A Car System
LLC unfairly levied fees for toll collection devices, saying it
would have to wait until a parallel action is resolved.

U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the Avis companies'
motion for a stay in the action filed by Jodd Readick, ruling
that class certification in the parallel suit, which is led by
Jose Mendez and is currently in the discovery phase in New Jersey
district court, "would likely circumscribe [Readick's] ability to
prosecute this action."

"These two actions involve substantially duplicative claims.  The
Mendez plaintiffs seek similar -- albeit broader -- relief than
Readick on behalf of a nationwide putative class, and resolution
of the breach of contract and consumer law claims in both actions
will require similar proof and legal analysis, making claim
preclusion likely," he said.

Because the proposed class in Mr. Mendez's suit involves Avis
customers nationwide, Judge Gardephe added, any judgment or
settlement in the case would be binding for class members in
Mr. Readick's suit.

In its motion, Avis had argued that allowing both suits to go
forward concurrently would present it with unnecessary discovery
burdens and legal expenses.

Mr. Readick had countered by contending a stay could force he and
proposed class members to wait as long as several years for any
relief, that their interests might not be represented by the
representatives in Mendez's case, and that the two cases
presented different issues of law because his suit contained a
claim under New York's deceptive business practices law.

Judge Gardephe also said the stay would be in the best interest
of both courts by precluding the possibility of any conflicting
decisions.

Both suits are based on allegations that Avis charged daily and
weekly fees for toll devices such as E-ZPass without providing
proper disclosures in rental agreements or at any point during
the rental process.

Mr. Mendez's suit was filed in November 2011, while Mr. Readick's
suit was filed in New York Supreme Court in April 2012, but moved
to federal court the following month.

Mr. Readick is represented by Theodore Vincent McCullough --
tmccullough@mgpllp.com -- of McCullough Ginsberg Montano &
Partners LLP.

Avis is represented by Paul Richard Maino and Paul J. Halasz --
phalasz@daypitney.com -- of Day Pitney LLP.

The case is Jodd Readick v. Avis Budget Group Inc. et al., case
number 1:12-cv-03988, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The parallel case is Mendez v. Avis Budget Group Inc. et al.,
case number 2:11-cv-06537 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


BANANA REPUBLIC: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Perez; individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Banana Republic, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-01132-JCS (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed class members
sometimes worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek; however,
the proper overtime compensation was not paid by the Defendants.

Clothing retailer Banana Republic is a California limited
liability company headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          THE AIWAZIAN LAW FIRM
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          E-mail: edwin@aiwazian.com

               - and -

          Victoria V. Tsylina, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE
          410 Arden Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          E-mail: victoria@lfjpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica Perry, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1020 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94305
          Telephone: (650) 614-7350
          Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
          E-mail: jperry@orrick.com

               - and -

          Alexandra Ronald Pavlidakis, Esq.
          Allison Riechert Giese, Esq.
          Julia Collins Riechert, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 614-7400
          Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
          E-mail: apavlidakis@orrick.com
                  agiese@orrick.com
                  jriechert@orrick.com


BANANA REPUBLIC: Misleads, Lures Consumers Into Stores, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sajid Veera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Banana Republic, LLC, Banana Republic (Apparel), LLC,
and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC541146 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 1, 2014) concerns the Defendants'
alleged scheme to lure consumers into their stores by displaying
advertisements that mislead consumers to believe that all of the
products in their stores are on sale when, in fact, the
Defendants exclude many products from the advertised sale.

Banana Republic (Apparel), LLC is a California limited liability
company maintaining offices within the City and County of Los
Angeles, California, among other places in the state.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Turner, Esq.
          Usman S. Mohammed, Esq.
          JONES, BELL, ABBOTT, FLEMING & FITZGERALD L.L.P.
          601 South Figueroa Street, 27th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5759
          Telephone: (213) 485-1555
          Facsimile: (213) 689-1004
          E-mail: wmturner@jonesbell.com
                  usmohammed@jonesbell.com


BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL: Sued for Failing to Pay Wages to Therapists
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xenus Lin, Denise Morrow, Joanne Coraci, Carole Ly Sing Lao,
Josephine Martinez and Annie Pin, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation, a
California corporation; Sajahtera, Inc., a Delaware corporation
doing business as the Beverly Hills Hotel; Kava Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation doing business as the Hotel Bel-Air; and
Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC540170 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have
misclassified California-based therapists as "independent
contractors," and that the Defendants have failed to pay these
therapists wages for all hours worked.

Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation is a California corporation and
the owner and operator of an industry, business or facility in
California.   Sajahtera, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.
Sajahtera is doing business as Beverly Hills Hotel.  Kava
Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business as the
Hotel Bel-Air.  The Plaintiffs do not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell F. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN KAUFMAN & MILLER LLP
          16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 500
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-5767
          Facsimile: (818)788-2992
          E-mail: mkaufman@kaufmanmiller.com

               - and -

          Stephen F. McAndrew, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN F. McANDREW
          16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 332-1416
          Facsimile: (818) 474-7745
          E-mail: steve@mcandrewlaw.net


BIOSCRIP INC: Briefing on Dismissal Bid to Be Completed in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a scheduling order, briefing on the motion by
defendants to dismiss In re BioScrip, Inc. Securities Litigation
will be complete in July 2014, according to the company's March
3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On September 30, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed against BioScrip, Inc., Richard M. Smith ("Mr. Smith"),
the company's President and Chief Executive Officer, Hai V. Tran
("Mr. Tran"), the company's Chief Financial Officer, Mary Jane
Graves ("Ms. Graves"), the company's interim Chief Financial
Officer prior to Mr. Tran, and Patricia Bogusz ("Ms. Bogusz"),
the company's Vice President of Finance, on behalf of the
putative class of purchasers of the company's securities between
August 8, 2011 and September 20, 2013, inclusive. The complaint
is captioned Timothy Faig, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, v. BioScrip, Inc., Richard M.
Smith, Hai V. Tran, Mary Jane Graves, and Patricia Bogusz, and
was filed in the United States District Court for the SDNY. The
lawsuit seeks damages and other relief for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On November 15, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit
(the "West Palm Action") was filed against BioScrip, Inc., Mr.
Smith, Mr. Tran, Ms. Graves, Ms. Bogusz, Kimberlee C. Seah, the
company's Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel,
the following members of the company's Board of Directors: Myron
Z. Holubiak, Charlotte W. Collins, Samuel P. Frieder, David R.
Hubers, Richard L. Robbins, Stuart A. Samuels and Gordon H.
Woodward, Jefferies LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Suntrust
Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Dougherty & Company, and Noble
International Investments, Inc., on behalf of the putative class
of purchasers of the company's securities between August 8, 2011
and September 23, 2013, inclusive. The complaint is captioned
West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, Individually and On Behalf
Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BioScrip, Inc., Richard M.
Smith, Hai V. Tran, Mary Jane Graves, Patricia Bogusz, Myron Z.
Holubiak, Charlotte W. Collins, Samuel P. Frieder, David R.
Hubers, Richard L. Robbins, Stuart A. Samuels, Gordon H.
Woodward, Kimberlee Seah, Jefferies LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Dougherty & Company, and
Noble International Investments, Inc., and was filed in the
United States District Court for the SDNY. The lawsuit seeks
damages and other relief for alleged violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On December 19, 2013, the United States District Court for the
SDNY entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits
and appointing The Fresno County Employee's Retirement
Association as lead plaintiff. Upon consolidation, the
consolidated class action was recaptioned In re BioScrip, Inc.
Securities Litigation. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on February 19, 2014, naming the same defendants as the
West Palm Action but adding Kohlberg & Co., a stockholder of
BioScrip, Inc., as a defendant. The consolidated complaint is
brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
company's securities between November 9, 2012 and November 6,
2013, inclusive, and persons and entities who purchased the
company's securities pursuant or traceable to two underwritten
public offerings conducted in April 2013 and August 2013. The
consolidated complaint alleges generally that defendants made
material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related
to the Legacy Division's distribution of the Medication as well
as the company's PBM Services segment. The consolidated complaint
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The company intends to
file a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Pursuant to
the parties' scheduling order, briefing on the motion to dismiss
will be complete in July 2014.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit Over Emeritus Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. faces a lawsuit in the Superior
Court of King County, Washington over its planned merger with
Emeritus Corp., according to Brookdale's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The company is aware of a lawsuit relating to the Merger
Agreement filed by purported stockholders of Emeritus. On
February 28, 2014, Tampa Maritime Association/International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund, a purported stockholder
of Emeritus, filed a putative class action complaint in the
Superior Court of King County, Washington, titled Tampa Maritime
Association / International Longshoremen's Association Pension
Fund v. Emeritus Corp., et al., Case No. 14-2-06385-7-SEA,
against Emeritus, the Emeritus board of directors, Brookdale and
Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Emeritus board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things,
failing to take appropriate steps to enhance Emeritus' value and
attractiveness as a merger/acquisition candidate, not acting
independently to protect the interests of Emeritus' stockholders
or resolving conflicts of interest, failing to actively engage in
an auction process with third parties, and failing to disclose
all material information to Emeritus' stockholders. The complaint
also alleges that Brookdale, Merger Sub and Emeritus aided and
abetted the Emeritus board's alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
that prevented Emeritus stockholders from obtaining fair
consideration in the Merger. The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief, including rescission of the Merger,
and damages, including counsel fees and expenses.


CASH AMERICA: To Pay 2013 Litigation Settlement by Q1 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc. will pay during the first
quarter of 2014, the Class Claims and Costs estimated to be $18.0
million in the 2013 Litigation Settlement, according to the
company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In October 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement,
which received final court approval in January 2014, to settle an
outstanding class action lawsuit that has been ongoing since
2004. The Settlement Agreement requires a minimum payment by the
Company of $18.0 million and a maximum payment of $36.0 million
to cover class claims (including honorarium payments to the named
plaintiffs) and the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs
(including the costs of claims administration) (the "Class Claims
and Costs"), all of which will count towards the aggregate
payment for purposes of determining whether the minimum payment
has been made or the maximum payment has been reached. The actual
payout will depend on the number of claimants who submit claims
for payment. The Company denies all of the material allegations
of the lawsuit and denies any and all liability or wrongdoing in
connection with the conduct described in the lawsuit, but the
Company agreed to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty,
distraction, burden and expense of further litigation.

In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB")
Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 450, Contingencies, the
Company recognized a liability during the year ended December 31,
2013 in the amount of $18.0 million. In February 2014, the amount
to be paid in connection with the Class Claims and Costs was
substantially finalized, and the amount is not materially
different than the liability accrued by the Company at December
31, 2013. The Class Claims and Costs were slated to be paid
during the first quarter of 2014.


CASH AMERICA: Suit Over Ohio Mortgage Loan Act Violations Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four lawsuits, three of which are purported class actions filed
against Cash America International, Inc. over alleged violations
of the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act, have been stayed pending the
outcome of a Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in Ohio
Neighborhood Finance, Inc. v. Rodney Scott, according to Cash
America's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On May 28, 2009, one of the Company's subsidiaries, Ohio
Neighborhood Finance, Inc., doing business as Cashland
("Cashland"), filed a standard collections suit in an Elyria
Municipal Court in Ohio against Rodney Scott seeking judgment
against Mr. Scott in the amount of $570.16, which was the amount
due under his loan agreement. Cashland's loan was offered under
the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act ("OMLA"), which allows for interest at
a rate of 25% per annum plus certain loan fees allowed by the
statute. The Municipal Court, in Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc.
v. Rodney Scott, held that short-term, single-payment consumer
loans made by Cashland are not authorized under the OMLA, and
instead should have been offered under the Ohio Short-Term Lender
Law, which was passed by the Ohio legislature in 2008 for
consumer loans with similar terms. Due to a cap on interest and
loan fees at an amount that is less than permitted under the
OMLA, the Company does not offer loans under the Ohio Short-Term
Lender Law.

On December 3, 2012, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals
affirmed the Municipal Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision. Although
this court decision is only legally binding in the Ninth District
of Ohio, which includes four counties in northern Ohio where
Cashland operates seven stores and where the Company has modified
its short-term loan product in response to this decision, other
Ohio courts may consider this decision.

The Supreme Court of Ohio heard the Company's appeal of the Ninth
District Court's decision in December 2013, and a decision is
expected during the first half of 2014. If the Ninth District
Court's decision is upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal,
the Company's Ohio operations may be adversely affected. The
Company relies on the OMLA to make short-term loans in its retail
services locations in Ohio, and if the Company is unable to
continue making short-term loans under this law, it will alter
its short-term loan product in Ohio. In addition, following the
ruling by the Ninth District Court, four lawsuits were filed
against the Company by customers in Ohio, three of which are
purported class action complaints, alleging that the Company
improperly made loans under the OMLA, and the Company may in the
future receive other claims. Each of these four lawsuits has been
stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Ohio's
decision.


CHOICE HOTELS: Tex. Court Junks Suit Over "Anti-Competitive" Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The federal court in Dallas, Texas, granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that several online travel
companies and hotel companies have engaged in anti-competitive
practices, according to Choice Hotels International, Inc.'s March
3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In May 2013, the Company was added to an ongoing multi-district
class action pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. The
lawsuit alleged that several online travel companies and hotel
companies have engaged in anti-competitive practices. The
complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages and equitable
relief. The Company, along with other defendants, disputed the
allegations and vigorously defended itself against these claims.
On February 18, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice.  The plaintiffs have 30
days to petition the court to refile their claim with additional
facts.


CLEAREDGE POWER: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs
------------------------------------------------
Brian Dowling, writing for The Hartford Courant, reports that a
former South Windsor employee of ClearEdge Power has filed a
class-action lawsuit against the company for failing to give
required notice before it laid off all of its employees.

Rather than making the filing in advance of the layoffs, as
required by law, ClearEdge Power gave notice to employees and
state officials the day of the cuts.  The letter explained that
giving more notice would have ruined the company's efforts to
secure new customers and investors and would have made it harder
to collect payments from existing customers.

Ultimately, ClearEdge Power failed to get more financing or
customer orders to avoid "a shutdown and [provide] the necessary
funding to keep the job operations open for the foreseeable
future period of time," the company said in its notice letter.

"Because these efforts have not been successful, the Company has
found itself in business circumstances that were not reasonably
foreseeable at an earlier time," ClearEdge said in the letter.
"As a result, the Company has no reasonable option except to
close its operations and pursue a bankruptcy filings."

According to the filing, 268 employees were laid off.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern
California, alleges that the fuel cell manufacturer violated the
federal law requiring that employers give 60 days' notice in the
event of a mass layoff.

Peter Wojciechowski, a configuration manager who worked at the
South Windsor plant on Governors Highway and filed the suit on
Monday, also claims that ClearEdge Power has not paid him for his
full accrued vacation.

His request for class-action status seeks payment for all unpaid
wages, including vacation, pension, retirement plan contributions
and other benefits, and all benefits that would be paid for the
about two months that ClearEdge Power should have given to
employees as notice.  It also requests payment of interest on
those amounts and payment of his attorney's fees.

ClearEdge Power, in its notice letter, says its financial
situation exempted it from giving the normal notice to employees.

"To the extent this WARN notice is provided for a reduced time
period, the Company believes it has provided as much notice as
was 'practicable' under the applicable exceptions in this regard
for 'faltering' companies and 'unforeseen business circumstances'
under the WARN Act," ClearEdge said.

The company also operated a location on Bidwell Road in South
Windsor, as well as two locations in California and one in
Oregon. ClearEdge bought the South Windsor facility from United
Technologies Corp. in late 2012, when the business was known as
UTC Power.

Months later, Clear Edge Power laid off more than 150 employees.

In January, the State Bond Commission approved $1.4 million in
subsidized loans for ClearEdge and a $100,000 grant for training
new staff.  Almost half of the loan would have been forgiven by
the state if the company retained 17 jobs and created 80 new
jobs.

A spokesman for the state Department of Economic and Community
Development, said ClearEdge in early April decided not to pursue
the state aid package.

On April 24, employees were sent home early, and a local official
confirmed that ClearEdge would be seeking bankruptcy.  As of
April 29, the company had not filed for bankruptcy, according to
the federal court's online filing system.


CME GROUP: Discloses Effects of MF Global Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In its March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, CME
Group Inc. detailed the financial effects of an agreement it
reached to resolve a class action litigation filed against it on
behalf of all commodity account holders or customers of MF
Global.

A number of lawsuits were filed in federal court in New York on
behalf of all commodity account holders or customers of MF Global
who had not received a return of 100% of their funds. These
matters have been consolidated into a single action in federal
court in New York, and a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed on November 5, 2012. On November 6, 2013, CME
announced that it has reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the class action litigation. In an agreement between the
trustee and CME, CME will be allowed to assert a $29.0 million
claim against MF Global based on expenses incurred by CME as a
result of MF Global's bankruptcy.

In a separate agreement between CME and the customer
representatives, CME has agreed to deliver $14.5 million, one-
half of the distribution that it will receive from the trustee,
to the customer representatives for distribution to MF Global's
former customers. The agreements are subject to court approval
before they can become effective. In connection with the
settlements between the company and the trustee and the
customers, the company's $550.0 million financial guarantee to
the bankruptcy trustee to cover any shortfall in the bankruptcy
will be extinguished. The company believes that the likelihood of
payment to the trustee is very remote. As a result, the guarantee
liability is estimated to be immaterial at December 31, 2013.


COMMUNITY BANK: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over UCC Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss a suit
alleging it failed to comply with certain requirements of the
applicable Uniform Commercial Code in the repossession of a
customers' automobile, according to the company's March 3, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The Bank was named a defendant in an action commenced October 30,
2013 which is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The plaintiff alleges that the
notices provided to her in connection with the repossession of
her automobile failed to comply with certain requirements of the
applicable Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  Plaintiff seeks to
pursue the action as a class action on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated plaintiffs who had their automobiles
repossessed and seeks to recover statutory damages under the UCC.
The Bank has filed a motion to dismiss the action on the basis of
mootness and contests the allegation that the repossession
notices were deficient. The Bank also maintains that the case
should not proceed as a class action and will oppose class
certification. At this time it is difficult to estimate when the
action will be resolved.  All current litigation matters,
including this action, are within a range of reasonably possible
losses for such matters in the aggregate, beyond the existing
recorded liability, and are included in the range of reasonably
possible losses.


DENDREON CORP: Opt Outs in Securities Suit Settlement File Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of individual investors who elected to opt out of the
class action settlement in In re Dendreon Corporation Class
Action Litigation commenced their own action in District Court
alleging securities fraud, according to the company's March 3,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The Company and three current and former officers were named
defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action
proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District
Court") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. 2:11-cv-1291 JLR. As previously
reported, the lawsuit was settled on stipulated terms that
received final Court approval in August 2013. The settlement has
become effective, and the litigation has been dismissed against
all defendants with prejudice. A group of individual investors
who elected to opt out of the class action settlement commenced
their own action in the District Court alleging securities fraud
on May 16, 2013. That action, captioned Christoph Bolling, et al.
v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-0872 JLR, names
the same defendant parties and alleges generally underlying facts
as were asserted in the class action -- i.e., that the Company
made various false or misleading statements between April 29,
2010 and August 3, 2011 concerning the Company, its finances,
business operations and prospects with a focus on the market
launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician
adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE. In addition to
claims under the federal securities laws, the Bolling plaintiff
group also purports to assert certain claims under Washington
state law. Based on information provided informally by
plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiff group, which totals
approximately 30 persons, purports to have purchased
approximately 250,000 shares of Dendreon common stock during the
relevant period, an amount that equates to under 0.5% of the
estimated shares that comprised the plaintiff class in the class
action. The Bolling plaintiffs filed an amended complaint July
16, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, and the Court held a
hearing on that motion January 3, 2014. On January 28, 2014, the
Court issued an order granting the motion in part and denying the
motion in part. Specifically, the Court dismissed plaintiffs'
claims based on the federal securities laws and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act; however, the Court denied the motion as
to plaintiffs' state law claims for fraud and negligent
misrepresentation. The Court granted plaintiffs 20 days leave to
amend on the dismissed claims. On February 17, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants intend to file a
motion to dismiss. The Bolling plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages. The company cannot predict the outcome of the motion. In
general, the Company intends to continue defending these claims
vigorously.


EAGLE ROCK: "Sheldon" Suit Challenges Regency Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
James Sheldon, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P., William A. Smith,
Philip B. Smith, William F. Quinn, Herbert C. Williamson, III,
Peggy A. Heeg, William K. White, Joseph A. Mills, David W. Hayes,
Christopher D. Ray, Regency Energy Partners, L.P., and Regal
Midstream, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-00838 (S.D. Tex., April 1, 2014)
challenges a proposed transaction pursuant to which Eagle Rock's
midstream oil and natural gas business will be acquired by
Regency.

Eagle Rock is a Delaware limited partnership with its corporate
headquarters located in Houston, Texas.  Eagle Rock engages in
gathering, compressing, treating, processing, transporting,
marketing, and trading natural gas, as well as fractionating and
transporting natural gas liquids.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Regency Energy Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership
with its headquarters located in Dallas, Texas.  Regal Midstream
LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Regency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Chambers, Esq.
          Timothy R. Lankau, Esq.
          WARE, JACKSON, LEE & CHAMBERS
          America Tower, 39th Floor
          2929 Allen Parkway
          Houston, TX 77019
          E-mail: jeffchambers@warejackson.com
                  timlankau@warejackson.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com


EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Braun" Suit Over Regency Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Irving S. Braun and Judith Braun, JTWROS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Eagle Rock Energy
Partners, L.P., Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC, Eagle Rock Energy GP,
L.P., Regency Energy Partners LP, Regal Midstream LLC, Joseph A.
Mills, Christopher D. Ray, William J. Quinn, David W. Hayes,
William K. White, William A. Smith, Herbert C. Williamson III,
Peggy A. Heeg, and Philip B. Smith, Case No. 4:14-cv-00727 (S.D.
Tex., March 21, 2014) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
efforts to complete the sale of the Company's midstream business
to Regency, pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price
and via the Defendants' dissemination of a false and misleading
proxy statement.

Eagle Rock is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in
Houston, Texas.  Eagle Rock is a growth-oriented master limited
partnership engaged in two businesses: (a) midstream, which
includes (i) gathering, compressing, treating, processing and
transporting natural gas; (ii) fractionating and transporting
natural gas liquids (NGLs); (iii) crude oil and condensate
logistics and marketing; and (iv) natural gas marketing and
trading; and (b) upstream, which includes exploiting, developing,
and producing hydrocarbons in oil and natural gas properties.

Regency LP is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.  Regal is a Delaware limited liability company and
wholly owned subsidiary of Regency LP.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul T. Warner, Esq.
          THE WARNER LAW FIRM
          11123 McCracken Circle, Suite A
          Cypress, TX 77429
          Telephone: (281) 664-7777
          Facsimile: (281) 664-7774
          E-mail: pwarner@warner-law.net

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


ENDO HEALTH: No Certification Yet in Qualitest Contraceptive Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of whether a class will be certified has not yet been
resolved in one case over the recalled lots of Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals' oral contraceptive products, according to Endo
Health Solutions Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and, in certain cases, the Company and
certain of the company's other subsidiaries, have been named as
defendants in lawsuits that were filed after the September 2011
recall of several lots of Qualitest Pharmaceuticals' oral
contraceptive products in which the plaintiffs seek out-of-pocket
losses, medical expenses, and other damages associated with the
alleged failure of these products. Three of these lawsuits sought
certification of a nationwide class of all patients who used the
recalled products. The company successfully defeated
certification of such a class in two of these cases. The issue of
whether a class will be certified in the third matter has not yet
been resolved.


EPL OIL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Proposed Sale to Energy XXI
----------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Lewandoski, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., Charles O. Buckner,
Scott A. Griffiths, Gary C. Hanna, Steven J. Pully, William F.
Wallace, Energy XXI (Bermuda) Limited, Energy XXI Gulf Coast,
Inc., and Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 9533-VCN (Del. Ch.
Ct., April 14, 2014) arises from a proposed transaction through
which the Company will be acquired by Energy XXI (Bermuda) Ltd.,
and Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc. through its wholly owned
subsidiary Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., for alleged inadequate
consideration.

EPL is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Founded in 1998, EPL is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company.  The Company's operations are
concentrated in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shelf, focusing on the
state and federal waters offshore Louisiana.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Energy XXI is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and
production company whose growth strategy emphasizes acquisitions,
enhanced by its value-added organic drilling program.  Energy
Gulf Coast is a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Energy XXI.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Gulf Coast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West St., 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Gina Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG PA
          2 Righter Parkway., Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: gs@rigrodskylong.com


EPL OIL: Proposed Merger Consideration Is Inadequate, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Feinstein, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., Charles O. Buckner, Scott A.
Griffiths, Gary C. Hanna, Steven J. Pully, William F. Wallace,
Energy XXI (Bermuda) Limited, Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc., and
Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 9570-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct.,
April 23, 2014) arises from a proposed transaction pursuant to
which Energy XXI will acquire all outstanding shares of stock of
EPL.

The merger consideration is inadequate in light of EPL's solid
historical financial performance and potential for significant
future growth, Ms. Feinstein contends.

EPL is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.
EPL is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and
production company.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Energy XXI is also an independent oil and natural gas exploration
and production company.  Energy Gulf Coast is a Delaware
corporation and is wholly-owned by Energy XXI.  Merger Sub is a
Delaware corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy
Gulf Coast.  Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Merger
Sub will merge with and into EPL, with EPL serving as the
surviving entity (and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy Gulf
Coast and Energy XXI).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Banko, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Gina Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG PA
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: gs@rigrodskylong.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Consolidates Chemical Spill Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge has consolidated the dozens of lawsuits filed over
the January chemical spill that affected the drinking water of
more than 300,00 West Virginia residents.

On April 18, U.S. District Court Judge John Copenhaver combined
the requests of plaintiffs in the 62 separate cases to move them
back to state court.  Judge Copenhaver's order basically
consolidates the cases to determine if they will continue in
federal or state court.

"Our court of appeals affords broad discretion to district courts
in assessing the desirability of consolidation, recognizing the
superiority of the trial court in determining how best to
structure similar pieces of litigation," Judge Copenhaver wrote.
"It has, however, provided guidelines for exercising that
discretion.

"Those guidelines essentially balance the specific risks of
prejudice and possible confusion with the potential for
inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues and
the burden on available judicial resources posed by multiple
lawsuits.  Efficiency from a time and cost perspective are also
considered.

"The risk of inconsistent adjudications, substantial expense to
the parties, and inefficient use of court resources markedly
increases here if the court declines consolidation at least to
some extent."

On Jan. 9, an estimated 10,000 gallons of crude MCHM leaked from
Freedom Industries' Etowah River Terminal along the Elk River.
More than 300,000 residents in parts of nine counties who use
West Virginia American Water Company were without tap water for
days, and many still are wary of using the water.  WVAWC's intake
facility along the Elk River is just more than a mile downstream
from the leak site.

The week after the leak, Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy,
effectively halting lawsuits filed against the company. As a
result, many plaintiffs have since removed Freedom as a defendant
in the lawsuits.

Freedom and WVAWC want the cases in federal court.

Court documents show there have been 62 lawsuits filed over the
leak.  Of those, 38 seek class-action status.  And all of the
complaints have claims similar claims such as bodily injury,
emotional distress, annoyance, loss of enjoyment, nuisance,
inconvenience, requests for medical monitoring, lost income and
loss of business revenue.

Of the complaints already filed in various state and federal
courts, some list Freedom and WVAWC as defendants and others list
just Freedom or just WVAWC.  Some also list Eastman Chemical,
which produces the crude MCHM. Freedom Industries filed for
bankruptcy Jan. 17.

Earlier in April, he Kanawha-Charleston Health Department's board
of directors voted to join a lawsuit to be filed by the City of
Charleston and other government groups to recoup more than
$200,000 it lost as a result of the chemical leak.

And, Putnam County commissioners say they might file another
lawsuit to get the MCHM wastewater-sawdust mixed out of a
Hurricane landfill.

Officials say the county has been talking to Waste Management,
which owns the landfill near Hurricane.  Waste Management
officials say the state Department of Environmental Protection,
which allowed the mix to be put in the landfill, won't let it be
removed.

In March, Putnam County and the city of Hurricane filed a lawsuit
seeking to force the DEP to stop the disposal of the material at
the landfill.  The case soon was dropped when Waste Management
changed the end date for its permit to dispose of the material
there to March 26.  When he dismissed the case, Kanawha Circuit
Judge Paul Zakaib didn't rule on whether the material already
dumped had to be removed.


GENON ENERGY: Continues to Face Four Natural Gas Litigations
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, thereby
ending one of five lawsuits filed against GenOn Energy, Inc.
in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and
2001, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

GenOn is party to five lawsuits, several of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the
resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to
increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar
laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution
and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of
energy companies unaffiliated with GenOn. In July 2011, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, which is handling four
of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases.
The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. On August 26,
2013, GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed
a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging
the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 2, 2013, the United
States Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General
on the petition for certiorari. In September 2012, the State of
Nevada Supreme Court, which is handling the remaining case,
affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for
Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In
February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court
denied the petition for certiorari, thereby ending one of the
five lawsuits. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against
certain losses relating to these lawsuits.


GENON ENERGY: Pa. Court Stays Lawsuit Over Cheswick Facility
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
stayed a case against GenOn Energy, Inc. over its Cheswick
generating facility pending the outcome of the Petition for Writ
of Certiorari, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
GenOn in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating
facility have damaged the property of neighboring residents.
GenOn disputes these allegations.  Plaintiffs have brought
nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims
seeking both damages and injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs seek to
certify a class that consists of people who own property or live
within one mile of the plant. In July 2012, GenOn removed the
lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. In October 2012, the court granted GenOn's motion
to dismiss, which Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. On June 25, 2013, the Third
Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court. On September
3, 2013, GenOn filed a petition for rehearing with the Third
Circuit which was subsequently denied on September 23, 2013. On
January 8, 2014, the District Court has stayed the case pending
the outcome of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which was
filed in February 2014.


GENON ENERGY: Lawsuits Over NRG Merger Agreement All Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining Texas state and federal court cases against GenOn
Energy, Inc. over its merger agreement with NRG Energy, Inc. were
dismissed, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

GenOn was named as a defendant in eight purported class actions
in Texas and Delaware, related to its announcement of its
agreement for NRG to acquire all outstanding shares of GenOn.
These cases were consolidated into one state court case in each
of Delaware and Texas and a federal court case in Texas. The
plaintiffs generally alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well
as conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs generally sought to: be certified as a class; enjoin
the merger; direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary
duties; rescind the acquisition and be awarded attorneys' fees
and costs and other relief that the court deems appropriate.
Plaintiffs also demanded that there be additional disclosures
regarding the merger terms. On October 24, 2012, the parties to
the Delaware state court case executed a Memorandum of
Understanding to resolve the Delaware purported class action
lawsuit. In March 2013, the parties finalized the settlement of
the Delaware action. On June 3, 2013, the court approved the
Delaware class action settlement thereby ending the Delaware
lawsuit. The remaining Texas state and federal court cases were
dismissed in July 2013 and August 2013, respectively, thereby
ending these matters.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bares Updates on RESPA "Violations" Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013,
Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed updates on lawsuits filed
against its U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries alleging that
certain "captive reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of
The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013,
one of the company's U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was
named along with several other mortgage insurance participants
and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class
action lawsuits alleging that certain "captive reinsurance
arrangements" were in violation of RESPA. Those cases are
captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
et al., United States District Court for the Central District of
California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank NA, et
al., United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California;
Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States
District court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle,
et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison
et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et
al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange,
et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District
Court for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v.
Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba BA, et al. v. HSBC
USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that "captive
reinsurance arrangements" with providers of private mortgage
insurance whereby a mortgage lender through captive reinsurance
arrangements received a portion of the borrowers' private
mortgage insurance premiums were in violation of RESPA and
unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek
declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including
restitution. The McCarn case was dismissed by the Court with
prejudice as to the company's subsidiary and certain other
defendants on November 9, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was
dismissed by the Court with prejudice as to the company's
subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. The
Manners case was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March
2013. In early May, 2013, the Samp and Orange cases were
dismissed with prejudice as to the company's subsidiary.
Plaintiffs appealed both of those dismissals, but have since
withdrawn those appeals. The White case was dismissed by the
court without prejudice on June 20, 2013, and on July 5, 2013
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming the
company's U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant.

On July 22, 2013, the company moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and Cunningham cases, the
defendants' motions to dismiss were denied, but the Court in the
Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited discovery at this stage
to issues surrounding whether the case should be dismissed on
statute of limitations grounds. In the Hill case, on December 17,
2013 the company moved for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint. In the Riddle case, in late November, 2013, the Court
granted the company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the
case. Plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal. The Menichino case
was dismissed by the court without prejudice as to the company's
subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming the
company's U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and
the company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: No Class Status Yet for Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in the
suit Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial
Wealth Management, Inc., et al. was conducted in January, but the
Court has not yet issued a decision, according to Genworth
Financial, Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In December 2009, one of the company's non-insurance
subsidiaries, one of the subsidiary's officers and Genworth
Financial, Inc. were named in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth
Financial Wealth Management, Inc., et al., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs
allege securities law and other violations involving the
selection of mutual funds by the company's subsidiary on behalf
of certain of its Private Client Group clients. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In response to the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the
Court granted the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty
claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal
claims. Oral argument on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
was conducted on January 30, 2013, but the Court has not yet
issued a decision.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Medical Record Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed
consumer class action accusing three hospitals and a document
processor of illegally overcharging patients for access to
medical records was removed to New York federal court on April
25, teeing up a potentially convoluted dispute over what
constitutes reasonable fees.

The complaint, originally filed in March in state court, targets
Beth Israel Medical Center, Mount Sinai Hospital and Montefiore
Medical Group Coop City, as well as HealthPort Technologies LLC
-- which is said to have handled document duplication requests
for the hospitals.

At issue is New York Public Health Law Section 18, which says
that fees charged for locating and copying medical records cannot
exceed the costs that health care providers incur in doing so and
that in no instance can they exceed 75 cents per page.

The individuals who brought suit all say they were charged about
75 cents per page -- a fee that allegedly was as much as 50 cents
per page in excess of actual costs -- and that the companies may
have reaped an "enormous windfall" as a result.

"Defendants have . . . deliberately engaged in a practice of
fixing or charging standard or uniform fees . . . without regard
for their actual costs incurred," the complaint asserted.

The complaint suggests that Simonson Hess Leibowitz & Goodman PC,
counsel for the plaintiffs, was involved in submitting the record
requests.  When describing those requests, the lawsuit says that
individuals made their requests through "a legally authorized
representative" and that the fees charged to the law firm were
excessive.

In a notice of removal, HealthPort denied "any and all liability"
but cited statistics that suggest the amount in dispute could be
very large.  For example, the company says that its records
indicate that it processed and copied more than 14 million pages
of medical records in 2013 in response to attorney requests.
Using the 50-cent figure, that would equal improper charges of
$7 million.

However, the lawsuit covers a much larger time period -- 2008 to
2014 -- and is not limited to requests submitted by lawyers.  In
addition, the complaint is seeking punitive and treble damages.

The complaint leaves some questions unanswered when it comes to
allegations about the contractual relationships between
HealthPort and the hospitals, such as how much money the
providers passed along after collecting payments from patients
for duplication performed by HealthPort.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edward S. Goodman --
esg@shlpc.com -- of Simonson Hess Leibowitz & Goodman PC.

The defense is represented by Rebecca Anne Brazzano --
Rebecca.Brazzano@ThompsonHine.com -- of Thompson Hine LLP, Sandra
Hauser of Dentons US LLP and Esther S. Widowski of Widowski Law
Group LLP.

The case is Spiro et al. v. Healthport Technologies LLC et al.,
case number 1:14-cv-02921, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts state court grants final approval to settlement
reached in securities suit against Heartware International, Inc.,
according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 27, 2011, HeartWare International, Inc. and HeartWare,
Inc., along with HeartWare's directors, certain officers and a
significant stockholder, were named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts state court by two
other Series A Preferred Stockholders on behalf of all holders of
Series A Preferred Stock. The complaint alleged that the
defendants breached their fiduciary and contractual obligations
to Series A Preferred Stockholders by preventing them from
receiving a payment of the liquidation preference in connection
with certain corporate transactions, including a transaction in
2005 in which HeartWare, Inc. was acquired by HeartWare Limited,
a subsidiary of HeartWare International, Inc. The plaintiffs
sought monetary damages, interest, costs and limited equitable
relief. The company does not believe HeartWare International,
Inc., HeartWare, Inc. or any of the company's directors, officers
or stockholders have abrogated the rights, or in any way failed
to satisfy obligations owed to, any of the company's
stockholders, including holders of Series A Preferred Stock. On
February 3, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs and defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the matter.
Defendants agreed to pay up to $1.1 million to participating
putative class members in exchange for a full and unconditional
release of all claims asserted in the litigation, including any
and all claims arising from any right to receive a payment upon
any liquidation or deemed liquidation event that has arisen or
may arise in the future. On March 22, 2012, the parties filed
with the court a stipulation of settlement formalizing the
settlement agreement. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs caused
notice of the settlement to be made to putative class members.
Following a hearing on July 25, 2012, the court entered judgment
granting plaintiffs' motion to finally approve the settlement,
including the full and unconditional release of all present and
future claims to receive the liquidation preference, and
dismissed the case with prejudice.


HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Agrees to Settle Sinus Buster Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Hi-Tech
Pharmacal Co. Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit
alleging that it misrepresented the efficacy of a group of over-
the-counter drugs.

Consumers who purchased Sinus Buster products between March 7,
2012 and Feb. 20, could be eligible for a cash payment from the
settlement.

Class members of the settlement include consumers who purchased
Sinus Buster products -- including Sinus Buster, Sinus Buster
Mild, Sinus Buster Anti-Cold Formula, Cold Buster, Allergy
Buster, Sinus Buster Allergy Formula, Headache Buster and Sinus
Buster Headache Formula -- between March 7, 2012, and Feb. 20.

The settlement will provide refunds of $5 per affected product,
up to a maximum of two products, to class members who do not
submit a proof of purchase.  Class members who submit proofs of
purchase with their claim forms will be eligible to receive a
full monetary refund of the actual purchase price of the affected
products purchased.  The claim form deadline in July 17.

David Delre and Matthew Harrison will receive $2,500 each as
incentive awards in recognition of their efforts on behalf of the
settlement class.

"Class counsel shall submit a request for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses, up to a maximum of $250,000 upon the court's
entry of the order and final judgment and an order awarding fees
. . ." according to the stipulation and settlement agreement
filed Dec. 23.

Sinus Buster products are a line of capsaicin-based drugs that
are marketed and sold online and in retail stores for between $10
and $15 per bottle.

Hi-Tech claimed capsaicin has the ability to treat sinus
congestion and related cold and allergy symptoms, according to
the suit.

Mr. Delre claimed he purchased Sinus Buster products, which did
not give him the relief promised on the product's label or in the
defendants' advertisements.

Mr. Harrison claimed the defendant's advertising claims were
false and the products did not relieve his congestion.

The plaintiffs also claimed they were concerned regarding the
efficacy of homeopathic products and that the Sinus Buster
products were not homeopathic but "are illegal unapproved non-
homeopathic drugs."

Hi-Tech falsely represented that Sinus Buster products were
effective for their advertised purpose, homeopathic, FDA-
approved, and proven effective, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claimed Hi-Tech misrepresented the efficacy of its
Sinus Buster products in violation of consumer protection and
warranty laws.  Had they known the products were labeled
inaccurately, the plaintiffs would not have purchased or paid as
much for the products, according to the suit.

Hi-Tech denies the allegations but has agreed to the class action
settlement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of ongoing
litigation.  A final hearing is scheduled for June 27.

The plaintiffs were represented by Antonio Vozzolo --
avozzolo@faruqilaw.com -- and Courtney E. Maccarone --
cmaccarone@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP; and Scott A.
Burso and Joseph I. Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- of Bursor
& Fisher PA.

Hi-Tech was represented by Jeffrey N. Levy -- jlevy@tgcllaw.com
-- of Tashlik Goldwyn Crandell Levy LLP.

The case was assigned to District Judge Arthur D. Spatt.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York case
number: 1:12-cv-02429


HY-VEE INC: Faces "Jones" Breach of Contract Suit in Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hy-Vee Inc. and NNW, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00092-LSC-
FG3 (D. Neb., March 20, 2014) asserts breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Guastello, Esq.
          GUASTELLO LAW FIRM
          4010 Washington Street, Suite 501
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 753-7171
          Facsimile: (816) 753-7227
          E-mail: david@guastellolaw.com

               - and -

          John M. Molle, Esq.
          MOLLE LAW FIRM
          4010 Washington, Suite 501
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (913) 515-8286
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1288
          E-mail: john@mollelawfirm.com

Defendant Hy-Vee Inc. is represented by:

          Jonathan J. Papik, Esq.
          Trenten P. Bausch, Esq.
          CLINE, WILLIAMS LAW FIRM - OMAHA
          1125 South 103rd Street
          Suite 600, One Pacific Place
          Omaha, NE 68124-6019
          Telephone: (402) 397-1700
          Facsimile: (402) 397-1806
          E-mail: jpapik@clinewilliams.com
                  tbausch@clinewilliams.com

               - and -

          Michele F. Sutton, Esq.
          SCHARNHORST, AST LAW FIRM
          100 Walnut Street, Suite 1950
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 268-9400
          Facsimile: (816) 268-9409
          E-mail: msutton@sakg.com

Defendant NNW, LLC is represented by:

          James F. Cann, Esq.
          KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM
          One Pacific Place, Suite 800
          1125 South 103rd Street
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 390-9500
          Facsimile: (402) 390-9005
          E-mail: james.cann@koleyjessen.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Wants Registration Fees Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Kiernan, writing for Law360, reports that Hyundai Motor
America urged a California federal court on April 25 to toss a
proposed class action alleging it should pay all registration
fees and full-coverage insurance for cars deemed to be lemons,
arguing it already fulfills its legal obligations under
California's lemon law.

Hyundai said it offered the required reimbursements to
Lori Robbins, a California resident who filed a complaint
alleging the company should be responsible for all registration
fees and full-coverage insurance when buying back a defective
vehicle.  The car manufacturer argued on April 25 that Ms.
Robbins had no right to claim reimbursement for those costs under
California or federal law.

Ms. Robbins' claims "not only lack a meritorious or colorable
legal basis, they defy common sense and seek to punish HMA for
doing the right thing by its customer," said a memorandum Hyundai
Motor filed with the court on April 25.  Hyundai "respectfully
requests that the complaint . . . be dismissed with prejudice as
there is simply no basis in law or in fact for any of [the]
claims and no amendment could save these claims."

In a complaint filed in January, Ms. Robbins said Hyundai Motors
was required to cover the registration costs for each year she
owned a Hyundai Sonata, as well as GAP insurance, full-coverage
insurance and extended service contracts for the time she owned
the vehicle before experiencing problems with her engine,
transmission, axles and other components.

Hyundai said it offered Ms. Robbins reimbursement for her initial
registration fee when it offered to buy back her vehicle for a
total of about $23,150.  That offer included reimbursement for
any loan payments paid and any related incidental damages and
expenses, Hyundai said.

The car manufacturer said Ms. Robbins initially accepted the
offer before turning around and filing the proposed class action.
That complaint argued she was owed more than $40,000.

Hyundai argued on April 25 that the California Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, which Robbins claims the car company
violated, doesn't require coverage of the insurance or service
contracts as those are optional third-party services.  It also
only requires reimbursement for initial registration fees, not
for the fees every year the vehicle was registered, the Hyundai
memorandum said.

Additionally, Hyundai argues Robbins had no standing to protest
Hyundai's repurchase condition that she be responsible for any
damages beyond normal wear and tear because no such damages were
assessed against her vehicle.  The company also said Ms. Robbins
had no right to bring claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
because she failed to first contest the reimbursement through
Hyundai's informal dispute procedure.

Karen Nakon, counsel for Robbins, declined to comment.

The plaintiff is represented by Steve Borislav Mikhov and Mark D.
O'Connor of O'Connor & Mikhov LLP and Karen E. Nakon and Payam
Shahian of Strategic Legal Practices APC.

Hyundai is represented by Michael L. Mallow -- mmallow@loeb.com
-- and Darlene M. Cho -- dcho@loeb.com -- of Loeb & Loeb LLP.

The case is Lori Robbins v. Hyundai Motor America et al., case
number 8:14-cv-00005 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Motion to Junk "Silsby" Stock Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the securities case Silsby v. Icahn et al.
is pending, according to Icahn Enterprises L.P.'s March 3, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et al.
Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc.
("Dynegy") and certain of its directors. As initially filed, the
action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of
Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September
2011 and March 2012.  The Complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making false and
misleading statements in securities filings which statements
artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The individual
defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of
Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount.
Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for
bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of
Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has
filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities
between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012.  The company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion
to dismiss on July 19, 2013. At present, the motion to dismiss
the case is pending.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in Citiline Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Court approved a settlement reached in the Citiline class
action filed against iSTAR Financial Inc., according to the
company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On June 4, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs' Court-appointed representatives in the
Citiline class action to settle the litigation.  Settlement
payments will be primarily funded by the Company's insurance
carriers, with the Company contributing $2.0 million to the
settlement.  On April 5, 2013, the Court approved the settlement,
entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice
and the Citiline Action was concluded.


J2 GLOBAL: Ill. Court Grants Motion to Junk Claims Under ICFA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted a motion by j2 Global and j2 Canada to dismiss
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and conversion claims against them, according to j2 Global,
Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Company ("Paldo"),
filed an amended complaint adding j2 Global, j2 Canada, and a
former j2 Canada employee, Tyler Eyamie ("Eyamie"), as additional
defendants in an existing purported class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from a customer's alleged use of the j2
Canada system to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. On
August 23, 2013, Paldo filed a second amended complaint to add a
second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"). j2 Global and j2 Canada
filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which
was granted. Paldo and Sabon seek statutory damages, costs,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief for the remaining TCPA
claims. Eyamie has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, which motion is pending. Discovery will not
commence until the Eyamie motion is resolved.


J2 GLOBAL: Suit by Asher & Simons Dismissed After Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The action filed by Asher & Simons, P.A. and Dr. Stuart T.
Zaller, LLC against j2 Global and j2 Canada was dismissed
pursuant to a settlement agreement, according to j2 Global,
Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 19, 2013, Asher & Simons, P.A. ("Simons") and Dr.
Stuart T. Zaller, LLC ("Zaller") filed suit against j2 Global and
j2 Canada in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland,
alleging violations of the TCPA. On April 10, 2014, Simons and
Zaller filed an amended complaint, adding a cause of action for
violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Simons and
Zaller seek statutory damages, costs, attorney's fees and
injunctive relief. j2 Canada removed the case to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland and j2 Global
was dismissed from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In February 2014 this action was dismissed pursuant to a
settlement agreement.


J2 GLOBAL: Yet to Respond to "Jenkins" Breach of Contract Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global has yet to file a responsive pleading to the complaint
filed by Anthony Jenkins as a purported class action in the
Central District of California,

On December 16, 2013, Anthony Jenkins ("Jenkins") filed a
purported class action against j2 Global, carrying on business as
eFax, in the Central District of California. The complaint
includes causes of action for breach of contract, state statutory
violations, unjust enrichment and conversion. As the potential
class representative, Jenkins is seeking damages, statutory
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and
injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide
class of persons allegedly similarly situated. j2 Global has yet
to file a responsive pleading to the complaint.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: No Depositions Yet in Gainsville Plant Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Depositions relating to class certification of a suit filed by
residential real property owners living near the utility pole
treatment plant of Koppers Holdings Inc. in Gainesville have not
yet commenced, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several
other parties as defendants. In a Second Amended Complaint,
plaintiffs define the putative class as consisting of all persons
who are present record owners of residential real properties
located in an area within a two-mile radius of the former
Gainesville wood treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that
chemicals and contaminants from the Gainesville plant have
contaminated real properties within the two mile geographical
area, have caused property damage (diminution in value) and have
placed residents and owners of the putative class properties at
an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals at
issue. The Second Amended complaint seeks damages for diminution
in property values, the establishment of a medical monitoring
fund and punitive damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. On May 31, 2013,
the Court entered a scheduling order for class certification,
which sets out discovery deadlines leading up to motions for
class certification and opposition to those motions. Under the
terms of the order, depositions relating to class certification
will not commence until the court has disposed of all pending
motions to dismiss. The district court dismissed Koppers Holdings
Inc. on September 9, 2013 on the ground that there was no
personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of
Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed on December 2, 2013. However,
the court has not yet ruled on all pending motions to dismiss
filed by other defendants. Therefore, depositions relating to
class certification have not yet commenced.


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Paid $14.4MM Settlement in Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The $14.4 million payment related to the settlement of the
litigation Molina v. Lexmark was made by Lexmark International,
Inc. in February 2014, according to the company's March 3, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On August 31, 2005 former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect
prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This statute
has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose"
vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200
current and former California employees of the Company. The trial
was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On May
1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to a
conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and personal
choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated
California law. In a Statement of Decision, received by the
Company on August 27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the
class members approximately $8.3 million in damages which
included waiting time penalties and interest. The class had
sought up to $16.7 million in such damages. On November 17, 2010,
the trial court Judge partially granted the Company's motion for
a new trial solely as to the argument that current employees are
not entitled to any damages. On March 7, 2011 the trial court
Judge reduced the original award to $7.8 million. On October 28,
2011, the trial court Judge awarded the class members $5.7
million in attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees. On September 19, 2013, the California Court of
Appeals upheld the rulings of the trial court Judge except for
the use of gross pay rather than base rate of pay in the
calculation of damages.  The matter was remanded back to the
trial court Judge to recalculate damages using the base rate of
pay.  The award of $5.7 million in attorneys' fees was unchanged
by the California Court of Appeals.  The Company filed a petition
for review with the California Supreme Court on certain issues
that were upheld by the California Court of Appeals.  Acceptance
of review by the California Supreme Court was discretionary and
on December 11, 2013 the California Supreme Court denied
Lexmark's petition.

In February 2014, the Company and the class reached agreement on
a stipulation for damages and attorneys' fees.  Under the terms
of the stipulation, the Company has agreed to pay $5.5 million in
damages, which includes forfeited vacation and personal choice
days, waiting time penalties and interest, to former California
based employees of the Company.  The Company also agreed to pay
class counsel $8.9 million in cost and attorneys' fees which
includes interest.  The agreed upon stipulation requires approval
by the California Superior Court.

The Company regularly evaluates the probability of a potential
loss of its material litigation to determine whether a liability
has been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more
future events will occur confirming the loss.  The Company
believes an unfavorable outcome in this matter is probable.  If a
potential loss is determined by the Company to be probable, and
the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company
establishes an accrual for the litigation.  Based on the
developments, the Company increased the accrual during the fourth
quarter of 2013 from $1.8 million to $14.4 million for the Molina
matter, which represents the Company's best estimate of the
potential loss based on the terms of the stipulation described
above. The $14.4 million payment related to the Molina litigation
was made by the Company in February 2014, subsequent to the date
of the financial statements.


MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Has Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Ferreira, also known as Nicholas Anthony Perez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Magic Mountain, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and
Does 1-30 inclusive, Case No. BC540006 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 20, 2014) alleges that during the Class
Period, Magic Mountain:

   (a) failed to pay overtime wages;
   (b) failed to furnish accurate wage statements;
   (c) failed to pay all wages upon termination; and
   (d) engaged in unfair business practices in an effort to
       increase profits and gain an unfair business advantage at
       the expense of Class Members and the public.

Magic Mountain, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company.
Magic Mountain owns and operates Six Flags Magic Mountain Theme
Park located at in Valencia, California.  The Plaintiff is
presently unaware of the names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Jean-Paul LeClercq, Esq.
          Ivan Moe, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
          E-mail: leclercq@law-rm.com
                  moe@law-rm.com

MEDICINES COMPANY: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The Medicines Company is facing a securities lawsuit filed by
David Serr in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the company and certain of the company's current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey by David Serr on behalf of stockholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between February
20, 2013 through February 12, 2014, which the company refers to
as the class period. The complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, including allegations that the company's stock was
artificially inflated during the class period because the company
and certain current and former officers allegedly made
misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding
the results of clinical trials, which tested the efficacy and
safety of cangrelor. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
statements made throughout the class period about the trials were
misleading because they failed to disclose that cangrelor did not
show superiority to the drug clopidogrel and that the clinical
trials were unethically and inappropriately administered. The
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert
fees and other costs.


MGM RESORTS: Discovery Begins in Nevada Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Nevada has entered a scheduling order
and discovery has commenced in In re MGM MIRAGE Securities
Litigation, according to MGM Resorts International's March 3,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In 2009 various shareholders filed six lawsuits in Nevada federal
and state court against the Company and various of its former and
current directors and officers alleging federal securities laws
violations and/or related breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with statements allegedly made by the defendants
during the period August 2007 through the date of such lawsuit
filings in 2009 (the "class period"). In general, the lawsuits
assert the same or similar allegations, including that during the
relevant period defendants artificially inflated the Company's
common stock price by knowingly making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions to the investing public about
the Company's financial statements and condition, operations,
CityCenter, and the intrinsic value of the Company's common
stock; that these alleged misstatements and omissions thereby
enabled certain Company insiders to derive personal profit from
the sale of Company common stock to the public; that defendants
caused plaintiffs and other shareholders to purchase Company
common stock at artificially inflated prices; and that defendants
imprudently implemented a share repurchase program to the
detriment of the Company. The lawsuits seek unspecified
compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of alleged
profits and/or attorneys' fees and costs in amounts to be proven
at trial, as well as injunctive relief related to corporate
governance.

The lawsuits are:

In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-
GMN-LRL. In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada
consolidated the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No.
2:09-cv-01558-RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur
Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-
RJJ, filed October 19, 2009) putative class actions under the
caption "In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation." The cases name
the Company and certain former and current directors and officers
as defendants and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These cases were
transferred in July 2010 to the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro. In
October 2010 the court appointed several employee retirement
benefits funds as co-lead plaintiffs and their counsel as co-lead
and co-liaison counsel. In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, alleging that between August 2,
2007 and March 5, 2009, the Company, its directors and certain of
its officers artificially inflated the market price of the
Company's securities by knowingly making materially false and
misleading public statements and omissions concerning the
Company's financial condition, its liquidity, its access to
credit, and the costs and progress of construction of the
CityCenter development. The consolidated amended complaint
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

In March 2011, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on the grounds that it fails to allege facts
upon which relief could be granted under the federal securities
laws, and on the further ground that the complaint fails to
satisfy the heightened pleading standards mandated by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). The motions to
dismiss emphasized three primary arguments: 1) the complaint
fails to allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements of fact, as opposed to statements concerning plans and
expectations that did not anticipate the severity of the
financial crisis of 2008-2009 and the challenges presented by
constructing CityCenter; 2) the complaint fails to allege facts
supporting a "strong inference" of wrongful intent, as the PSLRA
requires; and 3) the complaint fails to plead adequately that the
alleged wrongdoing was the cause of the decline in the price of
the Company's publicly traded securities. The parties completed
the briefing in support of, and in opposition to, the motions to
dismiss, and requested oral argument on the motions.

In March 2012, the court issued an order which granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint
without prejudice, and allowed plaintiffs an opportunity to file
an amended complaint. On April 17, 2012 plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint which substantially repeats but reorganizes
their substantive allegations and asserts the same claims as
raised in the original complaint. In May 2012, defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. In
September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Defendants have answered the
amended complaint, the court has entered a scheduling order and
discovery has commenced.


MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Junk Stock Suit Pending in Col. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against it was filed and is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, according to the
company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the
company and certain of the company's current and former executive
officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also
names most of the company's Board members and some of the
company's stockholders as defendants, along with other persons
and entities. That Complaint alleges 18 claims for relief arising
out of alleged: (1) securities fraud in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, during the
proposed class period from February 11, 2011 through November 10,
2011; and (2) materially untrue or misleading statements in
registration statements and prospectuses for the company's public
offering of preferred stock in February 2011 and of common stock
in June 2011, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, or the
Securities Act. The company's motion to dismiss that Complaint
was filed in October 2012 and is pending.


MOLYCORP INC: Deadline to Reply to Securities Suit in N.Y. Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadlines for Molycorp Inc. to respond to securities lawsuits
filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York have been stayed pending appointment of a
lead plaintiff, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In August 2013, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of the company's current and
former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. The purported class action lawsuits allege
claims for relief arising out of alleged securities fraud in
violation of the Exchange Act during the proposed class period
from August 2, 2012 through August 7, 2013. Pursuant to
stipulations and orders of the court dated September 25, 2013 and
September 27, 2013, among other things, the deadlines for the
company and the company's current and former executive officers
to respond to the lawsuits have been stayed pending appointment
of a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.


MT GOX: Bitcoin Traders Settle Class Actions Over Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. and Canadian
customers of failed Tokyo-based bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox have
agreed to settle their proposed class action lawsuits that
alleged the company defrauded them of hundreds of millions of
dollars.

The class action plaintiffs agreed to support a plan by Sunlot
Holdings to buy the shuttered exchange and accept their share of
bitcoins still held by Mt. Gox, according to a statement and
court filings.

Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy in Japan and the United States
earlier this year after saying it lost some 850,000 bitcoins --
worth more than $400 million -- in a hacking attack. It
subsequently said it found 200,000 bitcoins.

"BEST OPTION"

Once the world's biggest bitcoin exchange, Mt. Gox is slated to
be liquidated after the Tokyo District Court granted the
company's request to abandon plans to revive its business.

In return for settling separate class actions, the U.S. and
Canadian customers will share in a 16.5 percent stake after
Mt. Gox is sold to Sunlot, a firm backed by child actor-turned
entrepreneur Brock Pierce and venture capitalist William Quigley.

In addition, the customers will split the 200,000 bitcoins that
Mt. Gox said it found after seeking bankruptcy protection, and
will also split up to $20 million in fiat currency held by the
administrator for Mt. Gox.

"This is the customers' best option and the only chance they have
for full restitution," said a statement from Jay Edelson of the
Edelson law firm, the lead attorney in the U.S. case.

Sunlot has proposed buying Mt. Gox for one bitcoin, or less than
$500, according to the Wall Street Journal.  A sale to Sunlot
must be approved by the Tokyo court.

The court-appointed administrator for Mt. Gox, attorney Nobuaki
Kobayashi, did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday, a
national holiday in Japan.

The settlement releases Mt. Gox's founder, Jed McCaleb, and
Gonzague Gay-Bouchery, once the exchange's chief marketing
officer.  The pair committed to help pursue the class action
against the remaining defendants: Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles,
parent company Tibanne, the company's banking partner Mizuho Bank
Ltd and others.

The settlement needs to be approved by the Canadian and U.S.
courts overseeing the class actions cases.

The U.S. class action is Gregory Greene et al v Mt. Gox Inc et
al; United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
No. 14-01437

The Canadian class action is David Joyce et al v Mt. Gox Inc et
al, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, CV-14-500253-00CP


NBT BANK: Seeks Final OK for Checking Account Fees Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing of a proposed settlement in connection
with the previously disclosed class action lawsuit against NBT
Bank, National Association arising from its assessment and
collection of fees on its checking account customers has been
scheduled for June 27, 2014, according to NBT Bancorp Inc.'s
March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The complaint had been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Delaware, on September 12, 2011 and alleged
that the Bank engaged in certain unfair practices and failed to
make adequate disclosure to customers concerning its overdraft
fee assessment practices.  The complaint sought certification of
a class of national checking account holders who had incurred
overdraft fees and a subclass of such customers who reside in New
York.  In addition, the complaint sought actual and punitive
damages, disgorgement, interest and costs, including attorneys`
fees.  On May 15, 2012, Acting Supreme Court Judge for Delaware
County, New York, John F. Lambert, dismissed in its entirety the
plaintiff`s case.  On June 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department.  On December
12, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement under which the Bank would pay an aggregate of
$625,000, which if and when finally approved would entirely
dispose of the action.  A hearing with respect to such approval
has been scheduled for June 27, 2014.  The Company has accrued
for the full amount of the settlement as of December 31, 2013.


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: MDL Settlement Filed in Bankruptcy Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys with Janet, Jenner & Suggs, LLC on May 6 disclosed that
victims of contaminated steroid injections who sued in federal
courts will share a $100 million settlement against the products'
compounder, New England Compounding Center (NECC).

"There are hundreds of victims and their families feeling some
relief [May 6], even though grief for many is still fresh," said
attorney Kimberly Dougherty, JJ&S lawyer who serves on the NECC
Plaintiffs Steering Committee, which has been representing the
victims.  The tainted injections ultimately killed 64 people and
injured over 750 in 20 states in the nation's worst ever outbreak
of fungal meningitis.

"This tragedy claimed the lives of mothers, fathers, spouses,
grandparents, no amount of money is going to make these losses
easier to bear," she added.

The settlement was tentatively agreed upon last December.  It was
officially filed on May 6 with the bankruptcy court, which must
approve it.  The bankruptcy court is overseeing NECC's
bankruptcy, filed in 2012.  The settlement is with NECC, NECC's
owners, related companies, and insurers.  The Case is In re: New
England Compounding Pharmacy Inc.  Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2419, in the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

According to Ms. Dougherty, victims could be receiving
compensation as early as next year, with more compensation on the
way from other companies that contributed to the victims' losses.
"Decisions regarding which of the 3,300 claimants will receive
compensation from the settlement funds have yet to be made and
will take considerable time over the next several months,"
Ms. Dougherty said.

The MDL litigation will continue against other named defendants,
said Robert Jenner -- RJenner@myadvocates.com -- who heads JJ&S
Mass Torts Division.  "We will continue to pursue justice for
victims from those whose actions contributed to the product
contamination and distribution, like the companies responsible
for the clean room and air filtration systems design,
installation and maintenance at the NECC facility, and the
hospitals, clinics and doctors who purchased or
administered the injections," Jenner said.

The announced settlement covers all claims against NECC filed in
with the bankruptcy claims administrator.  The lawsuits were
originally consolidated in 2012 as Multidistrict Litigation
before Massachusetts U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, and
have now been transferred to U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel.  An
MDL is established to make litigation of multiple lawsuits
against similar defendants more efficient.  Hundreds of lawsuits
are pending in the MDL court.

The number of those cases will certainly grow as the second
anniversary nears of the outbreak, which the Centers for disease
Control and Prevention first identified in September of 2012, and
various states' statutes of limitations are triggered,
Ms. Dougherty added.

According to the terms of the settlement:

NECC owners Barry Cadden, Lisa Cadden, Carla Conigliaro, and
Greg Conigliaro will contribute more than $50 million.  These
NECC insiders will also contribute an additional estimated $10
million contribution, which come from 90 percent of their
expected tax refunds.

Pharmacists Mutual and Maxum, insurance companies representing
NECC and a related company Ameridose, are contributing more than
$25 million.

An additional contribution will be made if and when the sale of
Ameridose is completed, estimated to be valued at approximately
$9 million, Ms. Dougherty noted.

"We are dedicated to continuing to obtain fair compensation from
all wrongdoers who contributed to this tragedy.  The compensation
will not end with this settlement," said Ms. Dougherty.

                    About Janet, Jenner & Suggs

Janet, Jenner & Suggs -- http://www.myadvocates.com-- is a
national firm noted for its expertise in dangerous drugs and
medical devices, birth injury and cerebral palsy cases, and
environmental litigation.  The firm has offices in Maryland,
South Carolina, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, D.C.,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Minnesota, and West Virginia.

                    Hagens Berman'S Statement

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee, the legal committee representing victims in federal
court, on May 6 disclosed that a $100 million settlement for
victims who were exposed to tainted epidural steroid injections
manufactured by New England Compounding Center (NECC), which
caused a recorded 64 deaths.  The tentative settlement announced
late last year has now been reduced to writing, signed by the
parties and filed with the bankruptcy court.

The 2012 outbreak was the worst such outbreak in U.S. history.
The CDC ultimately recorded 751 cases of fungal meningitis and
infections in 20 states, linked to tainted injections compounded
and distributed by NECC.

"This is a good recovery given the reality of the bankruptcy, but
it isn't nearly enough to make up for all that the victims and
their loved ones have suffered," said Kristen Johnson, Lead
Counsel for the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.  "The Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee is committed to maximizing victims' recovery
from the many others that contributed to their injuries and
minimizing the costs that reduce the amount of money that
actually makes its way into victims' pockets."

The settlement involves NECC, NECC's owners, related companies
and insurers.  The settlement is pending approval from the
bankruptcy court. Given the timing of the settlement, it is
possible that victims could receive compensation as early as next
year.

"The job that we are duty bound to complete is far from over.  We
will continue with our efforts to hold other wrongdoers
accountable, including companies like UniFirst, who was
responsible for controlling contamination," Mark Zamora, a member
of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee said.

"We are hopeful that other national defendants currently engaged
in the mediation program, including the designer and installer of
the cleanroom and HVAC systems, will follow suit here and resolve
their share of liability to increase compensation to the
victims," said Kim Dougherty, another Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee member.

Plaintiffs' Steering Committee member Ben Gastel said, "Hopefully
the settlement is approved soon, so that victims can get the
money they need quickly.  In the meantime, we will continue to
vigorously litigate against the hospitals, clinics and doctors
that put profits over patient safety, including the St. Thomas
entities in Nashville, Tenn."

The terms of the settlement includes personal contributions of
almost $50 million from NECC owners Barry Cadden, Lisa Cadden,
Carla Conigliaro and Greg Conigliaro.  According to the
settlement, insiders will also assign 90 percent of their
expected tax refunds, which the insiders estimate will amount to
an additional $20 million contribution.

Ameridose, the insurers for NECC and a related company,
Pharmacists Mutual and Maxum, are contributing more than $25
million.  Other insurers, including Lloyd's of London and
Ironshores, have not contributed to the settlement.

An additional contribution will be made if and when the sale of
Ameridose is completed, estimated to be valued at about $10
million.

Following the outbreak, hundreds of lawsuits were filed, alleging
that NECC and affiliated companies ignored safety procedures in
their facilities, resulting in the tainted injections.  The
company filed for bankruptcy in December of 2012.

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
national class-action law firm with offices nine cities.  The
firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot
List seven times.

               About New England Compounding Pharmacy

New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc., filed a Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 12-19882) in Boston on Dec.
21, 2012, after a meningitis outbreak linked to an injectable
steroid, methylprednisolone acetate ("MPA"), manufactured by
NECC, killed 39 people and sickened 656 in 19 states, though no
illnesses have been reported in Massachusetts.  The Debtor owns
and operates the New England Compounding Center is located in
Framingham, Mass.  In October 2012, the company recalled all its
products, not just those associated with the outbreak.

Paul D. Moore, Esq., at Duane Morris LLP, in Boston, has been
appointed as Chapter 11 Trustee of NECC.  He is represented by:

         Jeffrey D. Sternklar, Esq.
         DUANE MORRIS LLP
         Suite 2400
         100 High Street
         Boston, MA 02110-1724
         Tel: 857-488-4216
         Fax: 857-401-3034

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the
case has been represented by:

         BROWN RUDNICK LLP
         William R. Baldiga, Esq.
         Rebecca L. Fordon, Esq.
         Jessica L. Conte, Esq.
         One Financial Center
         Boston, MA 02111
         Tel: (617) 856-8200

              - and -

         David J. Molton, Esq.
         Seven Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Tel: (212) 209-4800


NU SKIN: Faces "Granzow" Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Granzow, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Nu Skin Enterprises Inc., M. Truman Hunt
and Ritch N. Wood, Case No. 2:14-cv-00169-DB (D. Utah, March 7,
2014) is brought on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nu
Skin, who purchased or otherwise acquired Nu Skin securities
between July 10, 2013, and January 14, 2014, inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Nu Skin is a Delaware corporation based in Provo, Utah.  Nu Skin
is a global direct-sales company which distributes anti-aging
personal skin care products and nutritional supplements under the
Nu Skin and Pharmanex brands in 53 international markets,
including Greater China, North Asia, the Americas, Europe, the
Asia Pacific region, the Middle East and Africa.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nelson Abbott, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW FIRM
          3651 North 100 East, Suite 350
          Provo, UT 84604
          Telephone: (801) 374-3000
          E-mail: nelson@abbottlawfirm.com

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: skaskela@ktmc.com
                  abell@ktmc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel E. Barnett, Esq.
          Robert S. Clark, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
          185 S State St., Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          E-mail: dbarnett@parrbrown.com
                  rclark@parrbrown.com

Movants Jason Spring and Michael J. DuDash are represented by:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Rd., Suite 303
          Salt Lake City, UT 84093-6160
          Telephone: (801) 322-2002
          E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark F. James, Esq.
          HATCH JAMES & DODGE
          10 W Broadway, Suite 400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 363-6363
          E-mail: mjames@hjdlaw.com


NU SKIN: Misled Shareholders About Operation in China, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
State-Boston Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc, M. Truman
Hunt, and Ritch N. Wood, Case No. 2:14-cv-00217-DB (D. Utah,
March 24, 2014) alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operation and compliance
policies.

Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's operations in the
People's Republic of China engaged in pyramid selling schemes in
violation of PRC law; and (2) as a result, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times, the Plaintiff contend.

Nu Skin is a Delaware corporation based in Provo, Utah.  Nu Skin
is a global direct-sales company which distributes anti-aging
personal skin care products and nutritional supplements under the
Nu Skin and Pharmanex brands in 53 international markets,
including Greater China, North Asia, the Americas, Europe, the
Asia Pacific region, the Middle East and Africa.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heidi G. Goebel, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C.
          15 West South Temple, Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
          Telephone: (801) 323-5000
          E-mail: Heidi.Goebel@chrisjen.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  mstocker@labaton.com
                  ravan@labaton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel E. Barnett, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
          185 S State St., Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          E-mail: dbarnett@parrbrown.com


NUVASIVE INC: Continues to Face Shareholder Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. still faces a securities litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, according
to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed by Danny Popov in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California naming NuVasive and certain of
its current and former executive officers for allegedly making
false and materially misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results, specifically relating
to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare
and Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period
stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees.


OLD REPUBLIC: Opposes Certification of "Markocki" in Penn. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company is challenging the
certification of the suit "Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC," according
to Old Republic International Corporation's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The
plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue
and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). A class
has been certified in the suit. ORNTIC is challenging the
certification based on more recent case precedents.


OLD REPUBLIC: Seeks to Dismiss Remaining RESPA "Violations" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Mortgage Insurance Company has filed motions to dismiss
the two remaining lawsuits filed against it over alleged Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act violations, according to Old
Republic International Corporation's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC
Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance
subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services
Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et
al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of
twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the
mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were
substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty
insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks'
captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in
violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of
Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have
been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages,
costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A
class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed
motions to dismiss the cases.


OLD REPUBLIC: Wins Dismissal of "Friedman" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the motions of Old Republic Home Protection Company to
dismiss a Complaint filed against it alleging violation of
various provisions of the California Civil Code and Business and
Professions Code, according to Old Republic International
Corporation's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On September 26, 2012 a purported national class action suit was
filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the
Superior Court of California for Riverside County. (Friedman v.
Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.). The suit alleged
that the Company operates in breach of its home warranty
contracts, in breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair
dealing, in violation of various provisions of the California
Civil Code and Business and Professions Code and is guilty of
false advertising. The stated class period was from November 24,
2004 through the present. The suit sought declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, restitution, damages, costs and attorneys'
fees in unspecified amounts. The firm representing the plaintiff
had previously filed similar suits against the Company, which
were unsuccessful. The Company succeeded in having the case
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on October 24, 2012, and on December 2, 2013 the Court
granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Complaint. The
plaintiff was allowed to prepare a third amended complaint on one
remaining claim.


PACWEST BANCORP: Status Conference Held in Cal. Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
A May 5, 2014 status conference was set in the California Actions
against Pacwest Bancorp over its merger agreement with
CapitalSource Inc., according to Pacwest's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Since July 24, 2013, 11 putative stockholder class action
lawsuits, referred to as the merger litigations, were filed
against CapitalSource, PacWest and certain other defendants in
connection with the CapitalSource merger agreement. Five of the
11 actions were filed in Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County: (1) Engel v. CapitalSource Inc. et al., Case No.
BC516267, filed on July 24, 2013; (2) Miller v. Fremder et al.,
Case No. BC516590, filed on July 29, 2013; (3) Basu v.
CapitalSource Inc. et al., Case No. BC516775, filed on July 31,
2013; (4) Holliday v. PacWest Bancorp et al., Case No. BC517209,
filed on August 5, 2013; and (5) Iron Workers Mid-South Pension
Fund v. CapitalSource Inc. et al., Case No. BC517698, filed on
August 8, 2013, referred to as the California actions. The other
six actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware: (1) Fosket v. Byrnes et al., Case No. 8765, filed on
August 1, 2013; (2) Bennett v. CapitalSource Inc. et al., Case
No. 8770, filed on August 2, 2013; (3) Chalfant v. CapitalSource
et al., Case No. 8777, filed on August 6, 2013; (4) Oliveira v.
CapitalSource Inc. et al., Case No. 8779, filed on August 7,
2013; (5) Desai v. CapitalSource Inc. et al., Case No. 8804,
filed on August 13, 2013; and (6) Fattore v. CapitalSource Inc.
et al., Case No. 8927, filed on September 19, 2013, referred to
as the Delaware actions.

The merger litigations allege variously that the members of the
CapitalSource board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to
CapitalSource stockholders by approving the CapitalSource merger
for inadequate consideration; approving the transaction in order
to obtain benefits not equally shared by other CapitalSource
stockholders; entering into the CapitalSource merger agreement
containing preclusive deal protection devices; failing to take
steps to maximize the value to be paid to the CapitalSource
stockholders; and failing to disclose material information
regarding the proposed transaction. Each of the merger
litigations also alleges claims against CapitalSource and PacWest
for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiffs generally seek, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation
of the CapitalSource merger, rescission, an accounting by
defendants, damages and attorneys' fees and costs, and other and
further relief.

On December 20, 2013, the parties in the California and Delaware
actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth
the terms of an agreement in principle to settle both the
California and Delaware Actions, subject to certain conditions
and future occurrences. A further status conference was set in
the California Actions for May 5, 2014. The Company expects to
appear in the Delaware actions for Court approval in the event a
settlement is finalized by the parties.


PARKWAY PROPERTIES: Seeks Final Okay of Merger Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parkway Properties, Inc. is seeking final approval of a
settlement reached in a suit filed over its merger with Thomas
Properties Group, Inc. and Thomas Properties Group, L.P.,
according to Parkway's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

On October 24, 2013, Jason Osiezanek filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court a putative class action against TPGI and each of
its directors, and included the company and Merger Sub as
defendants. The complaint alleged that, in connection with the
Mergers, the directors of TPGI had breached their fiduciary
duties, particularly with respect to allegedly inadequate
disclosures in the proxy statement provided to the shareholders
who were to vote on the proposed mergers. The company was alleged
to have aided and abetted this breach of fiduciary duties. The
lawsuit sought various forms of relief, including that the court
enjoin the Mergers and rescind the Merger Agreement. The
plaintiff also sought an award of damages and litigation expenses
and to have the Defendants account for any profits or special
benefits the defendants may have obtained by the alleged breach
of a fiduciary duty. After initial discovery, including
depositions, was completed, the parties engaged in settlement
negotiations.

On December 3, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the litigation. The terms of the agreement in
principle were reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding, which
was submitted to the Delaware Chancery Court.

The terms of the settlement were later embodied in a Stipulation
of Settlement, which was filed with the Delaware Chancery Court.
A Notice of the proposed settlement was sent to all class
members, and they were given time to object to the proposed
settlement. The Delaware Chancery Court set April 29, 2014 as the
date for the hearing on the final approval of the settlement.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: No Order Yet on Motion to Junk Suit v. Smithtown
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second Amended Complaint in a suit
originally filed by Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
against Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. has been fully briefed and is
awaiting a court ruling, according to People's United Financial,
Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 25, 2010 and March 29, 2010, Smithtown and several of
its officers and directors were named in two lawsuits commenced
in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
(Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement v. Smithtown
Bancorp, Inc., et al. and Yourgal v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. et
al., respectively) on behalf of a putative class of all persons
and entities who purchased Smithtown's common stock between March
13, 2008 and February 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Smithtown's loan
loss reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired
assets and its internal and disclosure controls were materially
false, misleading or incomplete. As a result of the merger of
Smithtown with and into People's United Financial on November 30,
2010, People's United Financial has become the successor party to
Smithtown in this matter.

On April 26, 2010, the named plaintiff in the Waterford action
moved to consolidate its action with the Yourgal action, to have
itself appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and to
obtain approval of its selection of lead counsel. The Court
approved the consolidation of the two suits, with Waterford
Township named the lead plaintiff. On March 22, 2012, People's
United Financial filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On
March 29, 2013, the Court granted People's United Financial's
Motion to Dismiss. On April 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
second Amended Complaint, and on June 6, 2013, People's United
Financial filed a Motion to Dismiss the second Amended Complaint.
The Company's motion to dismiss the second Amended Complaint has
been fully briefed and is before the Court for a ruling.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: No Order Yet in Motion to Junk Claims in "Farb"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury
postponed consideration of plaintiff's Motion to Strike certain
of People's United Financial, Inc.'s Defenses and Counterclaim in
a suit over its assessment and collection of overdraft fees,
according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Marta Farb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. People's United Bank) arising from its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers.
The Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011 and alleges
that People's United Bank engaged in certain unfair practices in
the posting of electronic debit card transactions from highest to
lowest dollar amount. The Complaint also alleges that such
practices were inadequately disclosed to customers and were
unfairly used by People's United Bank for the purpose of
generating revenue by maximizing the number of overdrafts a
customer is assessed. The Complaint seeks certification of a
class of checking account holders residing in Connecticut and who
have incurred at least one overdraft fee, injunctive relief,
compensatory, punitive and treble damages, disgorgement and
restitution of overdraft fees paid, and attorneys' fees. On June
16, 2011, People's United Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, and on December 7, 2011, that motion was denied by the
Court. On April 11, 2012, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on May 15, 2012, People's United Bank filed a
Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint. On April 10, 2013,
People's United Bank renewed its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
On June 6, 2013, the Court denied People's United Bank's Motion
to Strike and its renewed Motion to Dismiss. On September 23,
2013, People's United Bank filed its Revised Answer, Special
Defenses and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Class Action
Complaint. The case is in the discovery stages. A Court hearing
on plaintiff's Motion to Strike certain of People's United Bank's
Defenses and a Counterclaim was held on January 30, 2014 and the
Court postponed consideration of that Motion while it considers
whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Conn. Labor Suit v. Bank in Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
The case Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. People's United Bank is in
the discovery stage, according to People's United Financial,
Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. People's United Bank) based on
allegations that People's United Bank failed to pay overtime
compensation required by (i) the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and (ii) the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs allege
that they were employed as "underwriters" and were misclassified
as exempt employees. The plaintiffs further allege that they
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and were erroneously denied
overtime compensation as required by federal and state wage and
hour laws. The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of
Connecticut on May 3, 2012. Since the Complaint is brought under
both federal and state law, the Complaint seeks certification of
two different but overlapping classes. The plaintiffs seek
damages in the amount of their respective unpaid overtime and
minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, interest and
attorneys' fees. On June 29, 2012, People's United Bank filed its
Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On June 17, 2013, the Court
granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the plaintiff's state law
claims. The case is in the discovery stages.


PNC FINANCIAL: Interchange Litigation Settlement Fully Funded
-------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.'s part of approximately
$6.6 billion in settlement of In re Payment Card Interchange Fee
and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation is fully funded,
according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

Beginning in June 2005, a series of antitrust lawsuits were filed
against Visa, MasterCard, and several major financial
institutions, including cases naming National City (since merged
into PNC) and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky
(since merged into National City Bank which in turn was merged
into PNC Bank, N.A.). The cases have been consolidated for
pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under the caption In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation
(Master File No. 1:05-md-1720-JG-JO). Those cases naming National
City were brought as class actions on behalf of all persons or
business entities who have accepted Visa or Master Card. The
plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout
the U.S. and trade associations, allege, among other things, that
the defendants conspired to fix the prices for general purpose
card network services and otherwise imposed unreasonable
restraints on trade, resulting in the payment of inflated
interchange fees, in violation of the antitrust laws. In January
2009, the plaintiffs filed amended and supplemental complaints
adding, among other things, allegations that the restructuring of
Visa and MasterCard, each of which included an initial public
offering, violated the antitrust laws. In their complaints, the
plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
unspecified damages (trebled under the antitrust laws) and
attorneys' fees.

In July 2012, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the class plaintiffs and an agreement in
principle with certain individual plaintiffs with respect to a
settlement of these cases, under which the defendants will
collectively pay approximately $6.6 billion to the class and
individual settling plaintiffs and have agreed to changes in the
terms applicable to their respective card networks (including an
eight-month reduction in default credit interchange rates). The
parties entered into a definitive agreement with respect to this
settlement in October 2012. The court granted final approval to
the settlement in December 2013. Several objectors have appealed
the order of approval to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, which appeal is pending.

As a result of the previously funded litigation escrow, which
will cover substantially all of the company's share of the Visa
portion of this settlement, the company anticipates no material
financial impact from the monetary amount of this settlement.
Numerous merchants, including some large national merchants, have
objected to or requested exclusion (opted out) from the proposed
class settlements, and some of those opting out have lawsuits
pending in federal and state courts against Visa, MasterCard and,
in some instances, one or more of the other issuing banks
(including PNC).


PNC FINANCIAL: Appeals Cert. Ruling in CBNV Mortgage Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. against the
class certification granted in In re: Community Bank of Northern
Virginia Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.),
MDL No. 1674) is pending, according to PNC's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs
or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate lawsuits were
filed in state and federal courts against Community Bank of
Northern Virginia (CBNV), a PNC Bank predecessor, and other
defendants asserting claims arising from second mortgage loans
made to the plaintiffs. The state lawsuits were removed to
federal court and, with the lawsuits that had been filed in
federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the
caption In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending
Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674). In
January 2008, the Pennsylvania district court issued an order
sending back to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, for Wake County, North Carolina the claims of two
proposed class members. These claims are asserted in a case
originally filed in 2001 and captioned Bumpers, et al. v.
Community Bank of Northern Virginia (01-CVS-011342).

In October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a joint consolidated
amended class action complaint covering all of the class action
lawsuits pending in this proceeding. The amended complaint names
CBNV, another bank, and purchasers of loans originated by CBNV
and the other bank (including the Residential Funding Company,
LLC) as defendants. (In May 2012, the Residential Funding
Company, LLC filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11.)
The principal allegations in the amended complaint are that a
group of persons and entities collectively characterized as the
"Shumway/Bapst Organization" referred prospective second
residential mortgage loan borrowers to CBNV and the other bank,
that CBNV and the other bank charged these borrowers improper
title and loan fees at loan closings, that the disclosures
provided to the borrowers at loan closings were inaccurate, and
that CBNV and the other bank paid some of the loan fees to the
Shumway/Bapst Organization as purported "kickbacks" for the
referrals. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA), as amended by the Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act (HOEPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).

The amended complaint seeks to certify a class of all borrowers
who obtained a second residential non-purchase money mortgage
loan, secured by their principal dwelling, from either CBNV or
the other defendant bank, the terms of which made the loan
subject to HOEPA. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified damages (including treble damages under RICO and
RESPA), rescission of loans, declaratory and injunctive relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees. In November 2011, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In June 2013,
the court granted in part and denied in part the motion,
dismissing the claims of any plaintiff whose loan did not
originate or was not assigned to CBNV, narrowing the scope of the
RESPA claim, and dismissing several of the named plaintiffs for
lack of standing. The court also dismissed the claims against the
other lender defendant on jurisdictional grounds. The limitation
of the potential class to CBNV borrowers reduces its size to
approximately 22,500 from the 50,000 members alleged in the
amended complaint. Also in June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification, which was granted in July 2013.
In August 2013, the company filed a motion seeking leave to
appeal the granting of the motion for class certification. The
court granted the motion in October 2013 and the company's appeal
is pending.


PNC FINANCIAL: "Bumpers" Suit Cut Down to Loan Discount Fee Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's remaining claims in the lending practices
litigation Bumpers, et al. v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia
(01-CVS-011342) now relate only to loan discount fee, according
to The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The plaintiffs in Bumpers, et al. v. Community Bank of Northern
Virginia (01-CVS-011342) make similar allegations to those
included in the amended complaint in the In re: Community Bank of
Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D.
Pa.), MDL No. 1674). Following the remand to North Carolina state
court, the plaintiffs in Bumpers sought to represent a class of
North Carolina borrowers in state court proceedings in North
Carolina. The plaintiffs claim that this class consists of
approximately 650 borrowers. The district court in Pennsylvania
handling the MDL proceedings enjoined class proceedings in
Bumpers in March 2008. In April 2008, the North Carolina Superior
Court granted the Bumpers plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
on their individual claims and awarded them approximately $11,000
each plus interest. CBNV appealed the grant of the motion for
summary judgment. In September 2011, the North Carolina Court of
Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the granting of the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the
judgment on the plaintiffs' claim that they paid a loan discount
fee but were not provided a loan discount. It reversed the
judgment on the plaintiffs' claim that they were overcharged for
settlement services and remanded that claim for trial. The court
also held that, in light of the Pennsylvania district court's
injunction against class proceedings having been vacated in
September 2010, the trial court may on remand consider the issue
of class certification. In August 2012, the North Carolina
Supreme Court granted the company's petition for discretionary
review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The appeal was argued in January 2013. In August 2013, the North
Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of
Appeals and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further
proceedings. In September 2013, the remaining plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to amend his complaint in the trial court. The
plaintiff's remaining claims, as reflected in the proposed
amended complaint, relate exclusively to the loan discount fee.


PNC FINANCIAL: Bares Updates on Overdraft Fees Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
In its March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, The PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. provided a description of the
remaining lawsuits relating to the manner in which its units
charged overdraft fees on ATM and debit transactions to
customers.

Beginning in October 2009, PNC Bank, National City Bank and RBC
Bank (USA) have been named in lawsuits brought as class actions
relating to the manner in which they charged overdraft fees on
ATM and debit transactions to customers and related matters.
Several of these lawsuits have been settled. The following is a
description of the remaining pending lawsuits.

Status of MDL Cases: Two pending lawsuits naming RBC Bank (USA),
along with similar lawsuits pending against numerous other banks,
have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the
"MDL Court") under the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ). A
consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2010 that
consolidated all of the claims in these MDL Court cases. The
first case against RBC Bank (USA) pending in the MDL Court
(Dasher v. RBC Bank (10-cv-22190-JLK)) was filed in July 2010 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. The other case against RBC Bank (USA) (Avery v. RBC Bank
(Case No. 10-cv-329)) was originally filed in North Carolina
state court in July 2010 and was removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina before
being transferred to the MDL Court. An amended complaint was
filed in Avery in August 2010.

The cases now pending in the MDL Court seek to certify multi-
state classes of customers for the common law claims described
(covering all states in which RBC Bank (USA) had retail branch
operations during the class periods), and subclasses of RBC Bank
(USA) customers with accounts in North Carolina branches, with
each subclass being asserted for purposes of claims under those
states' consumer protection statutes. No class periods are stated
in any of the complaints, other than for the applicable statutes
of limitations, which vary by state and claim.

The customer agreements with the RBC Bank (USA) plaintiffs
contain arbitration provisions. RBC Bank (USA)'s original motion
in Dasher to compel arbitration under these provisions was denied
by the MDL Court. This denial was appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While this appeal was
pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, following which the court of appeals
vacated the MDL Court's denial of the arbitration motion and
remanded to the MDL Court for further consideration in light of
the Concepcion decision. RBC Bank (USA)'s motion to compel
arbitration, now covering both Dasher and Avery, was denied in
January 2013. The company appealed the denial of the motion to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
which, in February 2014, affirmed the order of the district court
denying arbitration.

Status of Non-MDL Case: In December 2010, an additional lawsuit
(Henry v. PNC Bank, National Association (No. GD-10-022974)) was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania on behalf of all current citizens of Pennsylvania
who are domiciled in Pennsylvania who had or have a PNC checking
or debit account used primarily for personal, family or household
purposes and who incurred overdraft and related fees on
transactions resulting from the methodology of posting
transactions from December 8, 2004 through August 14, 2010. The
company filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of each of
the claims in this lawsuit in March 2011. In January 2012, the
court ruled on the company's preliminary objections, dismissing
several claims but overruling the company's objections with
respect to claims for breach of contract and the duty of good
faith and fair dealing and for violation of Pennsylvania's
consumer protection statute. In November 2013, the parties agreed
to a dismissal of this lawsuit.

Nature of Claims: The complaints in each of these lawsuits allege
that the banks engaged in unlawful practices in assessing
overdraft fees arising from electronic point-of-sale and ATM
debits. The principal practice challenged in these lawsuits is
the banks' purportedly common policy of posting debit
transactions on a daily basis from highest amount to lowest
amount, thereby allegedly inflating the number of overdraft fees
assessed. Other practices challenged include the failure to
decline to honor debit card transactions where the account has
insufficient funds to cover the transactions.

In the consolidated amended complaint in the MDL Court, the
plaintiffs asserted claims for unconscionability; unjust
enrichment; and violation of the consumer protection statute of
North Carolina. In the Dasher complaint, the plaintiffs also
assert claims for a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and for conversion. In the Henry case, the remaining
claims were for breach of contract and the duty of good faith and
fair dealing and for violation of Pennsylvania's consumer
protection statute. In their complaints, the plaintiffs seek,
among other things, restitution of overdraft fees paid,
unspecified actual and punitive damages (with actual damages, in
some cases, trebled under state law), pre-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, and declaratory relief finding the overdraft
policies to be unfair and unconscionable.


PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks to Junk Captive Mortgage Reinsurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has not yet ruled on a motion by The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. to dismiss a second amended complaint in a
suit alleging it violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA), according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In December 2011, a lawsuit (White, et al. v. The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928)) was
filed against PNC (as successor in interest to National City
Corporation and several of its subsidiaries) and several mortgage
insurance companies in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit, which was brought
as a class action, alleges that National City structured its
program of reinsurance of private mortgage insurance in such a
way as to avoid a true transfer of risk from the mortgage
insurers to National City's captive reinsurer. The plaintiffs
allege that the payments from the mortgage insurers to the
captive reinsurer constitute kickbacks, referral payments, or
unearned fee splits prohibited under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA), as well as common law unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that from the beginning
of 2004 until the end of 2010 National City's captive reinsurer
collected from the mortgage insurance company defendants at least
$219 million as its share of borrowers' private mortgage
insurance premiums and that its share of paid claims during this
period was approximately $12 million. The plaintiffs seek to
certify a nationwide class of all persons who obtained
residential mortgage loans originated, funded or originated
through correspondent lending by National City or any of its
subsidiaries or affiliates between January 1, 2004 and the
present and, in connection with these mortgage loans, purchased
private mortgage insurance and whose residential mortgage loans
were included within National City's captive mortgage reinsurance
arrangements. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, statutory
damages under RESPA (which include treble damages), restitution
of reinsurance premiums collected, disgorgement of profits, and
attorneys' fees. In August 2012, the district court directed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which the plaintiffs
filed in September 2012. In November 2012, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed,
without prejudice, the amended complaint in June 2013 on statute
of limitations grounds. A second amended complaint, in response
to the court's dismissal order, was filed in July 2013. The
company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
also in July 2013. The court held oral argument on this motion in
January 2014. The court has not yet ruled on this motion.


PNC FINANCIAL: Dismissed From Force-Placed Insurance Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania entered an order dismissing the plaintiff's
nationwide class action allegations with regard to all remaining
claims against The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. in the suit
Lauren vs. PNC Bank, N.A., et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM,
according to PNC's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In June 2013, a lawsuit (Lauren vs. PNC Bank, N.A., et al, Case
No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against PNC Bank
and American Security Insurance Company ("ASIC"), a provider of
property and casualty insurance to PNC for certain residential
mortgages. This lawsuit, which was brought as a class action,
alleges, with respect to PNC Bank, that it breached alleged
contractual (including the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing) and fiduciary duties to residential mortgage
borrowers, and, as to Ohio borrowers, violated the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practice Act in connection with the administration of PNC
Bank's program for placement of insurance for borrowers who fail
to obtain hazard insurance coverages required by the terms of
their mortgages. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
defendants placed insurance in unnecessary and excessive amounts
and that PNC Bank improperly profited from these arrangements,
principally as a result of the payment of commissions to PNC Bank
and of reinsurance arrangements between PNC and the insurance
provider. The plaintiff originally sought to certify a nationwide
class and an Ohio sub-class of all persons who, during applicable
periods, have or had a residential mortgage loan or line of
credit with PNC Bank, and had hazard insurance placed upon the
property by PNC Bank. The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
damages, restitution or disgorgement of profits improperly
obtained, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. In
October 2013, the court ruled on the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint, granting the company's motion with respect to the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act claim and otherwise denying the
motion. The company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the
denial as to the fiduciary duty claim, which motion was denied in
November 2013. In January 2014, the court granted ASIC's motion
to dismiss the nationwide class action allegations with respect
to the state common law claim of unjust enrichment pending
against ASIC. Later in January 2014, PNC Bank filed a similar
motion to dismiss the nationwide class action allegations, on the
same grounds as asserted in ASIC's motion to dismiss, with
respect to the state common law claims of breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and breach of fiduciary duty pending against PNC Bank. The
plaintiff thereafter agreed to withdraw those allegations. In
February 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiff's nationwide class action allegations with regard to
all remaining claims against PNC. Also in February 2014, the
court on its own motion transferred the matter to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.


PNC FINANCIAL: Faces "Montoya" Suit Over Lending Business in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Bank, N.A. is facing a lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, among others, according to The PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In February 2014, a separate class action lawsuit (Montoya vs.
PNC Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-20474-JEM) was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against PNC Bank, American Security Insurance Company
(ASIC) and its parent, Assurant, Inc. The allegations of the
complaint are similar to those found in the Lauren complaint. The
plaintiff asserts breach of contract by PNC, breach of its duty
of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of a
fiduciary duty, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and federal TILA and RICO statutes.
The plaintiff seeks a nationwide class on all claims except the
Florida statutory claim, for which he seeks to certify a Florida
subclass. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages
(including treble damages), disgorgement of "unjust benefits,"
injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees.


REX ENERGY: Settles Suit Over Oil, Gas Leases in Westmoreland
-------------------------------------------------------------
The final order regarding the Settlement Agreement dismissed all
claims against Rex Energy Corporation in the Snyder case filed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania,
according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

In July 2009, the company was named as defendants in a proposed
class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (the "Snyder case"). The named
plaintiffs were five individuals who sued on behalf of themselves
and all persons who are alleged to be similarly situated. The
complaint in the Snyder case generally asserted that a binding
contract to lease oil and gas property was formed between the
Company and each proposed class member when representatives of
Duncan Land & Energy, Inc. ("Duncan Land"), a leasing agent that
the company engaged, presented a form of proposed oil and gas
lease to each person, and each person signed the proposed oil and
gas lease form and delivered the executed proposed lease to
representatives of Duncan Land. The company rejected these leases
and never signed them. The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring
the rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases,
as well as damages and other relief, together with interest,
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

In May 2011, the company entered into a Settlement Agreement with
respect to these legal proceedings. In July 2011, the court
approved the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which the company
offered each eligible class member an oil and gas lease, in a
form agreed to by the parties, with a prepaid rental of $2,500
per acre for a five-year term with a 15% royalty. The company
also agreed to pay $30,000 to plaintiffs' attorneys for the
anticipated expenses of administration of the Settlement
Agreement. Additionally, the company deposited $2.5 million into
a fund for distribution to class members and for attorney's fees,
costs and expenses of counsel for the class. The final order
regarding the Settlement Agreement dismissed all claims against
the company with prejudice and without any admission of
liability, and provided a release by all class members of all
claims against the company in connection with the litigation.


REX ENERGY: Expects Schedule for Cardinale Case Set Within Months
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation expects to enter a case management plan
with the plaintiffs' counsel in a litigation related to the
proposed oil and gas leases in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania
within the next several months, according to the company's March
3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In October 2011, the company was named as defendants in a
proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The
named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of
themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that the company engaged, presented a form of
proposed oil and gas lease and an order for payment to each
person in 2008, and each person signed the proposed oil and gas
lease form and order for payment and delivered the documents to
representatives of Western. The company rejected these leases and
never signed them.

he plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the rights of the parties
with respect to those proposed leases, as well as damages and
other relief as may be established by plaintiffs at trial,
together with interest, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. The
company filed affirmative defenses and preliminary objections to
the plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made various
responsive filings throughout the first quarter of 2012. In May
2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with prejudice
on the grounds that there was no contract formed between the
company and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
and the parties filed briefs and responses during the second half
of 2012. On May 3, 2013, the Superior Court reversed the decision
of the Common Pleas Court and remanded the case for further
procedures.

In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against the company in the Court of
Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed
class action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the
"Billotte case") and another on behalf of a group of individually
named plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for the
Billotte case contains the same claims as those set forth in the
Cardinale case. The company has not yet been served with a
complaint in the Meeker case, but the company believes the claims
will also mirror those made in the Cardinale and Billotte cases.
It is the company's understanding that these two additional
lawsuits were filed for procedural reasons in light of the
dismissal of the Cardinale case and the pendency of the appeal.
Proceedings in both the Billotte and Meeker cases were stayed
pending the outcome of the appeal in the Cardinale case. The
company expects to make a determination as to the consolidation
of these cases with the Cardinale case as the Cardinale case
proceeds.

The company intends to vigorously defend against each of these
claims. The company expects to enter a case management plan with
the Cardinale plaintiffs' counsel within the next several months,
which will outline the timing for class discovery, class
certification, trial discovery and the trial. In the meantime,
the company is preparing for discovery. At this time the company
is unable to express an opinion with respect to the likelihood of
an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of potential
losses.


ROSETTA STONE: Pays $0.6MM Settlement in Salaried Managers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosetta Stone Inc. paid $0.6 million in final settlement of a
labor lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to the company's March
3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In April 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the company in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda for damages, injunctive relief and restitution
in the matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rosetta Stone Ltd.
and DOES 1 to 50. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs and other
persons similarly situated who are or were employed as salaried
managers by the company in the company's retail locations in
California are due unpaid wages and other relief for the
company's violations of state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs
moved to amend their complaint to
include a nationwide class in January 2011. In March 2011, the
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. In November 2011, the parties
agreed to a mediator's proposed settlement terms, and as a
result, as of September 30, 2011, the company reserved $0.6
million for the proposed settlement amount. The company disputes
the plaintiffs' claims and have not admitted any wrongdoing with
respect to the case. In September 2013, the court entered a final
order directing payment of the $0.6 million settlement amount and
in October 2013, the Company paid this amount in final settlement
of the lawsuit.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Steel Product Buyers Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification is being sought in an antitrust complaint
filed against Steel Dynamics, Inc. in federal court in Chicago,
Illinois alleging conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the
United States, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The company is involved in various routine litigation matters,
including administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings,
governmental investigations, environmental matters, and
commercial and construction contract disputes. The company is
involved, along with eight other steel manufacturing companies,
in a class action antitrust complaint filed in federal court in
Chicago, Illinois, which alleges a conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were
sold in the United States during a period between 2005 and 2007,
by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products.
All but one of the complaints were brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel
products. The other complaint was brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel
products within the same time period. A ninth complaint, in
December 2010, was brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
steel products in Tennessee and has been consolidated with the
original complaints. All complaints seek treble damages and
costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief. In January 2009, Steel Dynamics
and the other defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss all of
the direct purchaser lawsuits, but this motion was denied in June
2009. Following a period of preliminary discovery relating to
class certification matters, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Class Certification in May 2012, and on February 28, 2013,
Defendants filed their Joint Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, together with joint
motions to exclude the expert opinions of both of Plaintiffs' two
retained experts. On October 15, 2013, Plaintiffs submitted their
Reply papers, and the defendants have submitted their additional
responses as well. A hearing on class certification and Daubert
issues was scheduled for March 5 to 7, 2014.


TARGET CORP: Data Breach Class Actions Transferred to MDL Panel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Target data
breach class action lawsuits from 18 federal districts have been
transferred to the Multidistrict Litigation Panel.

The transfer order was signed by MDL Chairman John G. Heyburn II
on April 2, and the 27 actions from 18 different federal
districts were transferred to the District of Minnesota and
assigned to District Judge Paul A. Magnuson.

"On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we
find that these actions involve common questions of fact and that
centralization in the District of Minnesota will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation," the transfer order states.

"We are persuaded that the most appropriate location for this
litigation is the District of Minnesota.  Target is headquartered
in that district, where 25 actions and potential tag-along
actions are pending."

The District of Minnesota is also easily accessible and
relatively centrally located for the parties to the litigation,
which is nationwide in scope, according to the order.

Since the panel transferred 27 civil actions to the District of
Minnesota, 49 additional actions have also been transferred to
Minnesota, all of which have been assigned to Magnuson with the
consent of the court, according to a conditional transfer order.

Between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15, a data security breach occurred at
Target stores nationwide.  Target announced that data from
approximately 40 million credit and debit cards was stolen.

The news of the data breach was first published by a blogger
named Brian Krebs on Dec. 18.

Target failed to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of
the information compromised in the data breach, according to one
of the class action lawsuits, which was originally filed in the
District of Oregon.

Lisa Purcell, the named plaintiff in the District of Oregon suit,
said as the news broke, Target finally released a statement
concerning the data breach, but not one designed to notify
affected customers directly.

"The information Target lost, including Plaintiff's identifying
information and other financial information, is extremely
valuable to thieves," the complaint states.  "As the Federal
Trade Commission recognizes, once identity thieves have personal
information, they can drain your bank account, run up your credit
cards, open new utility accounts or get medical treatment on your
health insurance."

The so-called track data was stolen in real time as payment cards
were swiped in its stores between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15, according
to a statement issued by Target.

"Investigators believe the data was obtained via software
installed on machines that customers use to swipe magnetic strips
on their cards when paying for merchandise at Target stores,"
according to the lawsuit.

The thieves may also have accessed PIN numbers for affected
customers' debit cards, allowing the thieves to withdraw money
from those customers' bank accounts, the complaint states.

Once the breach was discovered, Target partnered with a leading
third-party forensics firm that is thoroughly investigating the
breach.

The actions are from the Central District of California, the
Northern District of California, the Southern District of
California, the District of Colorado, the Middle District of
Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District
of Illinois, the Southern District of Illinois, the Eastern
District of Louisiana, the Middle District of Louisiana, the
District of Massachusetts, the District of Minnesota, the Eastern
District of Missouri, the Eastern District of New York, the
District of Oregon, the District of Rhode Island, the District of
Utah and the Western District of Washington.

U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation case number:
0:14-md-2522


TRULIA INC: Seeks Court Approval of Accord in Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Trulia, Inc. is seeking final approval for a settlement it
reached in In re Market Leader Inc. Shareholders' Litigation, No.
13-2-20796-6 SEA, according to the company's March 3, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Following the announcement that the company entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to acquire Market Leader, purported
class action law suits contesting the merger were filed and then
consolidated under the caption In re Market Leader Inc.
Shareholders' Litigation, No. 13-2-20796-6 SEA (the "Merger
Litigation"). On July 15, 2013, a superseding Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"), was filed, alleging
that Market Leader's board of directors breached its fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize shareholder value or to engage in a
fair sale process before approving the proposed acquisition of
Market Leader by Trulia. The Consolidated Complaint also alleges
that the defendants, including the company and Mariner
Acquisition Corp., the company's wholly owned subsidiary, failed
to provide Market Leader shareholders with material information
regarding the merger in the proxy statement and related public
filings.

The Consolidated Complaint further alleges that Market Leader,
Trulia and Mariner Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the Market
Leader directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The Consolidated
Complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the
merger, rescission to the extent the merger terms have already
been implemented, damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty, and payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On
August 5, 2013, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the Merger Litigation and resolve all
allegations against Market Leader and the other defendants. The
settlement, which is subject court approval, provides for the
release of all claims against the defendants relating to the
merger, including those alleged in the Consolidated Complaint.

Lead Counsel for the consolidated action intends to apply to the
court for an award of fees and reimbursement of costs incurred in
connection with the Merger Litigation. Market Leader has agreed
not to oppose the application for an award of fees and
reimbursement of costs up to $350,000. On December 23, 2013, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. A
final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2014.


UAW LOCAL 469: Master Lock Seeks Declaratory Judgment in Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Lockwood, writing for Milwaukee Business Journal, reports
that Master Lock Co. notified its retirees earlier this year that
it would no longer pay for life and health care insurance, and a
number of those retirees and officials with UAW Local 469, which
represents them, had planned to take issue with the decision.

But the company filed a class action complaint for declaratory
judgment earlier in April in federal court asserting its right to
eliminate its contributions for medical and life insurance
benefits for its retirees.  Oak Creek-based Master Lock, which
makes padlocks, combination locks and related security products,
filed the complaint to address issues raised by the UAW and a
number of Master Lock retirees, which have questioned the
legality of Master Lock's decision.

John Drew, a regional representative for UAW, said the union was
in the process of reviewing Master Lock's complaint.

"We'll be filing an answer and counter claim within the deadlines
established in the court document," Mr. Drew said.

According to the complaint, Master Lock wants the court to issue
declarations "that the retirees are not entitled to vested,
lifetime medical or life insurance benefits paid for by Master
Lock" and that it has the legal right to change and modify those
benefits.

The 473 affected retirees were eligible to receive medical and
life insurance benefits under a contract signed in 2008, which
expired in 2013.  At that time, the company warned retirees in a
letter that because of the Affordable Care Act, company officials
might need to make changes to or terminate the medical and life
insurance coverage.

While UAW Local 469 and Master Lock entered into a new contract
in 2013, the two parties agreed not to have any provisions for
medical or life insurance benefits for retirees, only for active
employees.  In a letter dated Jan. 15, the company told retirees
that it planned to terminate the Medicare Part B supplement and
life insurance benefits because of rule changes under the
Affordable Care Act, according to the complaint.

A number of retirees have challenged Master Lock's decision and
the matter has been referred to UAW's legal department.


URS CORP: Suits Over New Orleans Levee Failure Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana dismissed majority of the New Orleans Levee Failure
Class Action Litigation and the remainder of the outstanding
claims are being transferred to the District Court for final
judgment of dismissal, according to URS Corp.'s March 3, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 3, 2014.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary
acquired by the company on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.  Fifty-nine
personal injury and property damage class action lawsuits were
filed in Louisiana State and federal court against several
defendants, including WGI Ohio, seeking $200.0 billion in damages
plus attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs are residents and
property owners who claim to have incurred damages from the
breach and failure of the hurricane protection levees and
floodwalls in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet
been certified as class actions.  Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee
District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance
Company were also named as defendants.  At this time WGI Ohio and
the Army Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants.  These
59 lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not
involving WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District
Court").

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.
Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, plaintiffs allege that work WGI
Ohio performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee
and floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding.
WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government.

WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal
on grounds that government contractors are immune from liability.
On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's
motion for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2009.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI
Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District
Court for further litigation.  On August 1, 2011, the District
Court decided that the government contractor immunity defense
would not be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an
issue for appeal.  Five of the cases were tried in District Court
from September 12, 2012 through October 3, 2012.  On April 12,
2013, the District Court ruled in favor of WGI Ohio and the Army
Corps of Engineers, finding that the five plaintiffs failed to
prove that WGI Ohio's or the Army Corps of Engineers' actions
caused the failure of the Industrial Canal floodwall during
Hurricane Katrina.  On July 1, 2013, WGI Ohio filed a motion for
summary judgment in District Court to dismiss all other related
cases as a result of the District Court's April 2013 decision.
On December 20, 2013, the District Court dismissed the majority
of the lawsuits and the remainder of the outstanding claims are
being transferred to the District Court for final judgment of
dismissal.


VECTOR GROUP: 4 Suits Filed in 2013 v. Liggett Seek Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2013, there were four actions pending for
which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were
seeking class certification, where Liggett Group, LLC is a named
defendant, including one alleged price fixing case, according to
Vector Group Ltd.'s March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.  Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these
actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence,
gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation,
design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and
implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert
of action, violation of deceptive trade practice laws and
consumer protection statutes and claims under the federal and
state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions
seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive
damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and
penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation
funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable
relief.

Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute
of limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants and suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The
plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages. In March 2013, the court entered an order
staying this case pending the implementation of the smoking
cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American
Tobacco Co., outcome of an appeal in another matter, which has
been concluded. There has been no further activity in this case.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a class was
commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly
have personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette
smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000
in compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is
stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of
the defendants.

In February 2000, in Smith v. Philip Morris, a case pending in
Kansas, the class alleges that cigarette manufacturers conspired
to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount in actual and
punitive damages. Class certification was granted in November
2001. In January 2012, the trial court heard oral argument on
defendants' motions for summary judgment and in March 2012, the
court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice. In July 2012, plaintiffs noticed an appeal. Oral
argument occurred on December 11, 2013. A decision is pending.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that
were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain common issues. In
January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the trial of the
consolidated action. After two mistrials, on May 15, 2013, the
jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding for
the plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes,
sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969, should have included
instructions on how to use them. On July 15, 2013, plaintiffs
filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a
motion for a new trial. Defendants filed a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict. All post-trial motions were denied
and the issue of damages was reserved for further proceedings
that have not yet been scheduled. Final judgment as to liability
was issued on October 28, 2013, after which the plaintiff filed a
Notice of Appeal with respect to the defense verdicts obtained on
five of the six claims. The defendants did not appeal the verdict
in favor of the plaintiff on the "failure to instruct" claim
which impacted less than 30 of the plaintiffs. If the case were
to proceed against Liggett, it is estimated that Liggett could be
a defendant in approximately 100 of the individual cases.

Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against
cigarette manufacturers, alleging, among other things, that use
of the terms "lights" and "ultra lights" constitutes unfair and
deceptive trade practices. In December 2008, the United States
Supreme Court, in Altria Group v. Good, ruled that the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt the state
law claims asserted by the plaintiffs and that they could proceed
with their claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The
Good decision has resulted in the filing of additional "lights"
class action cases in other states against other cigarette
manufacturers. Although Liggett was not a defendant in the Good
case, and is not currently a defendant in any other "lights"
class actions, an adverse ruling or commencement of additional
"lights" related class actions could have a material adverse
effect on the Company.

In addition to those cases, numerous class actions remain
certified against other cigarette manufacturers. Adverse
decisions in these cases could have a material adverse affect on
Liggett's sales volume, operating income and cash flows.


WAFFLE HOUSE: Sued for Using Consumer Reports in Hiring Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Lynn Horton, and Brandi Nicole Harper, For themselves and
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Waffle House,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00283-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va., March 18, 2014)
asserts that the Plaintiffs applied for jobs with the Defendant,
and the Defendant used their consumer reports, that it obtained
from a consumer reporting agency, to make the decision not to
hire them.  In doing so, the Plaintiffs contend, the Defendant
failed to comply with the procedural protections and requirements
imposed on it by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Waffle House, Inc. is a Georgia Corporation operating 1,700
restaurant locations in 25 states.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Colt North, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          751-A Thimble Shoals Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (757) 873-1010
          Facsimile: (757) 873-8375
          E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@.clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          4084 University Dr., Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Michael Gettings, Esq.
          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          222 Central Park Ave., Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687-7747
          Facsimile: (757) 687-1545
          E-mail: david.gettings@troutmansanders.com
                  john.lynch@troutmansanders.com


WALT DISNEY: Fails to Pay Minimum or Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reykeel Zorio, an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. Walt Disney Worldwide Services Inc., Walt Disney
Park and Resorts US Inc., and Does 1 - 25, Case No. BC540154
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 20, 2014) alleges that
the Defendants violated, and continues to violate, the Labor Code
by failing to pay minimum wage or overtime compensation required
by law for all uncompensated hours worked and overtime.

Walt Disney Worldwide Services Inc. and Walt Disney Parks and
Resorts US Inc. are foreign corporations headquartered in
Burbank, California.  The Defendants own, operate or manage
properties or locations, including Disneyland Hotel and
Disneyland Park.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Fialkow, Esq.
          James S. Cahill, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NEAL J. FIALKOW, INC.
          215 North Marengo Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 584-6060
          Facsimile: (626) 584-2950
          E-mail: njfialkow@sbcglobal.net
                  jscahilllaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818)609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


WARNER MUSIC: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $11.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Warner
Music Group Corp. has agreed to pay $11.5 million to settle a
class action lawsuit that alleged the company failed to properly
credit royalty payments to class members from the exploitation of
digital downloads and mastertones of recordings under certain
contracts.

The plaintiffs, including Sister Sledge, claimed Warner Music
Group failed to provide proper royalty payments to them from
digital downloads and mastertones.

The plaintiffs claimed the exploitation of digital downloads and
mastertones should be considered a "license" instead of a "sale."

Warner Music Group U.S. labels include Atlantic Recording
Corporation, Bad Boy Records LLC, Electra Entertainment Group
Inc., Fueled by Ramen LLC, Nonesuch Records Inc., Rhino
Entertainment Company, Warner Bros. Records Inc. and Word
Entertainment LLC.

The claim form deadline is May 31. A final hearing is scheduled
for Oct. 2.

To compensate class members for downloads/mastertones that have
already been the subject of a royalty payment, Warner will make
available $11.5 million for settlement, according to settlement
documents.

Class members who timely submit a valid claim form will receive
their per capita share of the fund payout based upon the
percentage of revenue they generated from Warner for downloads
and mastertones between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.

The parties have stipulated that the total U.S. sales by WMG of
subject masters as downloads and mastertones for the settlement
class for the period is more than $381 million.

As defined by the class action settlement, "Royalty Rate Basis"
means a calculation based on a percentage of the actual or
adjusted suggested retail list price, published price to dealer
or wholesale price. "Penny Rate Basis" means a calculation based
on a specific cent rate per unit.

The settlement agreement allows counsel to make an application to
the court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, payable from
the settlement fund, in an amount not to exceed $2.875 million
and $150,000 in costs.

Warner Music Group denies the allegations but agreed to settle
the class action lawsuit to avoid the cost and risk of trial.

The named plaintiffs were Debra Sledge, Joan Sledge, Kathy Sledge
Lightfoot and Kim Sledge Allen, jointly doing business as Sister
Sledge; Ronee Blakley; Simone Johnson Risko; Emlio Castillo;
Mikael Johnston; and Gary Wright.

The plaintiffs are represented by Arthur Nash Bailey Jr.,
Nathaniel Christian Giddings, Michael D. Hausfeld, Michael Paul
Lehmann, James J. Pizzirusso and Bruce J. Wecker of Hausfeld LLP;
Raymond Paul Boucher of Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP; Nicholas A.
Carlin -- nac@phillaw.com -- David M. Given -- dmg@phillaw.com --
and Alexander Hilary Tuzin -- aht@phillaw.com -- of Phillips
Erlewine & Given LLP; Bryan L. Clobes of Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP; Joshua Caleb Ezrin of Audet & Partner
LLP; Don Alan Hernandez -- Don_Hernandez@gshllp.com -- of
Gonzalez Saggio and Harlan LLP; Douglas Lowell Johnson and
Neville J. Johnson -- njohnson@jjllplaw.com -- of Johnson &
Johnson LLP; Paul R. Kiesel -- kiesel@kbla.com -- and Jeffrey
Alan Koncius -- koncius@kbla.com -- of Kiesel Law LLP; William
James Newsom, Clifford H. Pearson, Alexander Robert Safyan, Aaron
M. Sheanin, Bruce Lee Simon and Daniel L. Warshaw of Pearson
Simon & Warshaw LLP; James Timothy Ryan of Johnson & Rishwain
LLP; Richard Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri Inc.; Leonard B.
Simon of the Law Offices of Leonard B. Simon PC; and Michael W.
Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Warner is being represented by Tamerlin J. Godley --
Tamerlin.Godley@mto.com -- and Melinda Eades LeMoine --
Melinda.LeMoine@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 3:12-cv-00559


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: June 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Ryan
& Maniskas, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit has been filed
in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of World
Acceptance Corp. between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014,
inclusive.  World Acceptance shareholders may, no later than June
23, 2014, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of
the Class.

If you purchased shares of World Acceptance and would like to
learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these
matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at
(877) 316-3218 or to sign up online, visit:
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/wrld

You may also email Mr. Maniskas at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

World Acceptance is one of America's largest providers of
installment loans.  The Company offers short-term small loans,
medium-term larger loans, and related credit insurance products
and services to those who have limited access to other sources of
consumer credit.

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's loan
practices do not abide by the Consumer Financial Protection Act
and/or the Truth in Lending Act; (ii) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (iii) as a result of the
above, the Company's financial statements, assurances and
expectations with regard to the Company's growth, operations and
business prospects were false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 13, 2014, World Acceptance disclosed that it had
received a subpoena from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
as part of an investigation into potential violations of consumer
protection laws.  Upon the above news, shares of World Acceptance
fell nearly 20% in trading on March 13, 2014.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 23,
2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a
national shareholder litigation firm.  Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is
devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.


WP CAREY: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Planned Merger With CPA:15
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P. Carey Inc. is facing a lawsuit in New York Superior Court,
N.Y. County in relation to its merger with  Corporate Property
Associates 15 Incorporated, or CPA:15, according to the company's
March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 31, 2013, Ira Gaines and entities affiliated with him
commenced a purported class action (Ira Gaines, et al. v.
Corporate Property Associates 16 -- Global Incorporated, Index.
No. 650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) against the company,
the company's subsidiary WPC REIT Merger Sub Inc., CPA:16 --
Global, and the directors of CPA:16 -- Global. The complaint
alleges (i) that the CPA:16 Merger was unfair to CPA:16 -- Global
stockholders, (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
defendants, all of whom are members of the board of directors of
CPA:16 -- Global, (iii) that the entity defendants aided and
abetted the directors in breaching their fiduciary duties, and
(iv) that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus relating to the
CPA:16 Merger, or the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, contained
inadequate disclosure about certain matters.

The complaint demands (i) that a class be certified and
plaintiffs named as class representatives, (ii) supplemental
disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, be issued,
(iii) the CPA:16 Merger be rescinded, (iv) damages be awarded,
and (v) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and other costs be reimbursed.

On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue a
temporary restraining order enjoining the vote of the
stockholders of CPA:16 -- Global pending the completion of
expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction hearing. On
January 13, 2014 after a hearing, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining
the vote of CPA:16 -- Global's stockholders.


YELP INC: Awaits 9th Cir. Ruling on Local Businesses' Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet
issued a decision on an appeal by plaintiffs against the
dismissal of a suit filed by local businesses asserting Yelp Inc.
manipulated the ratings and reviews on its platform, according to
the company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

In February and March 2010, the company was sued in two putative
class actions on behalf of local businesses asserting various
causes of action based on claims that the company manipulated the
ratings and reviews on the company's platform to coerce local
businesses to buy the company's advertising products. These cases
were subsequently consolidated in an action asserting claims for
violation of the California Business & Professions Code,
extortion and attempted extortion based on the conduct they
allege and seeking monetary relief in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief. In October 2011, the court dismissed this
consolidated action with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard
the appeal on July 11, 2013. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued
a decision.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: "Reyes" Telemarketing Suit in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been completed in the Reyes v. Zions First National
Bank, et al. case, but has not commenced in the Meridian Funds
case with respect to aiding and abetting claims, according to the
company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The company is subject to litigation in court and arbitral
proceedings, as well as proceedings, investigations, examinations
and other actions brought or considered by governmental and self-
regulatory agencies. At any given time, litigation may relate to
lending, deposit and other customer relationships, vendor and
contractual issues, employee matters, intellectual property
matters, personal injuries and torts, regulatory and legal
compliance, and other matters. While most matters relate to
individual claims, the company is also subject to putative class
action claims and similar broader claims. Current putative class
actions and similar claims include:

     (i) a complaint relating to the company's banking
relationships with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful
telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff seeks a trebled
monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First
National Bank, et al., pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and

    (ii) a complaint arising from the company's banking
relationships with Frederick Berg and a number of investment
funds controlled by him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which
the liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an award from the
company, on the basis of aiding and abetting and other claims,
for monetary damages suffered by victims of a fraud allegedly
perpetrated by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a
Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et
al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of Washington,
N.A., pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Washington.

In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. In
the first quarter of 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
approved the plaintiff's motion to appeal the District Court
decision.

Discovery has been completed in the Reyes case, but has not
commenced in the Meridian Funds case with respect to aiding and
abetting claims.


* New York Class Action Challenges Use of Shadow Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
The Lawyer reports that a new putative class action suit filed in
the Southern District of New York alleges that the use of
so-called 'shadow insurance' transactions violates New York
Insurance Law section 4226(a)(4), which prohibits insurers from
making 'any misleading representation, or any misrepresentation
of the financial condition of any such insurer or of the legal
reserve system upon which it operates'.

The April 33, 2014 complaint -- filed by plaintiffs' counsel
Perkins Coie -- is the first of its kind and draws heavily from a
June 2013 New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS)
report that criticized the use of 'shadow insurance' by New York
life insurers.  Known more formally as 'captive reinsurance', the
practice involves reinsurance of a subset of an insurer's
existing policies through a wholly owned subsidiary rather than
through a third party.  These subsidiaries are typically located
outside of New York in jurisdictions with less stringent reserve
and capital requirements.  According to the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), captive reinsurers underwrite
more than 25 per cent of reinsurance policies in the US life
insurance industry.

The complaint alleges that the use of captive reinsurance
resulted in misrepresentations about the insurer's exposure to
the risk of financial loss, its financial condition and its
reserve system. Relying on a section of the New York Insurance
Law that governs ethical sales practices, the class action
plaintiffs seek a statutory penalty in the amount of all premiums
paid by class members for life insurance policies in effect
during the class period.  It is unclear whether putative class
members' policies would also be rescinded and far less clear
whether such rescission would actually serve the putative class
policyholders' long-term interests.  It is equally unclear how
the class representatives plan to show reliance on a class-wide
basis given the individualized nature of the life insurance sales
process.


* Number of Accounting Class Action Settlements Up in 2013
----------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, reports that the number of
accounting class action settlements increased for the second
straight year in 2013, but remained relatively low compared to
the previous decade, according to a Cornerstone Research report
released on April 29 on securities class actions and settlements
involving accounting allegations.

In 2013, a total of 44 accounting class actions -- which the
report defines as cases involving alleged violations of generally
accepted accounting principles and weaknesses in internal control
over financial reporting -- were settled, with a median
settlement amount of $4.2 million.  By contrast, the 23
nonaccounting securities class actions that were settled in 2013
had a median settlement amount of $15.3 million, the report said.

Historically, accounting class action settlement dollars have
comprised the vast majority of all settlement dollars for
securities class actions, according to the report.  In 2013,
though, accounting cases represented only 25 percent of the cases
settled, down from 90 percent the previous year.

That drastic shift is attributable in part to the large
proportion of Chinese reverse-merger settlements and in part to
one large nonaccounting securities case settlement, and the
change is not expected to indicate a future trend, the report
said.

"The presence of [Chinese reverse-merger] cases, which tend to
involve smaller firms and lower shareholder losses, contributed
to a drop in the total value of accounting case settlements,"
said Dr. Laura Simmons, a senior adviser at Cornerstone, in a
statement.

The number of new accounting class actions filed in 2013 remained
fairly consistent, at 47, compared with 46 the prior year,
according to the report.  Accounting cases represented just 28
percent of all securities class actions filed in 2013, a 10-year
low, according to Cornerstone.

The low number of accounting class action filings is consistent
with overall trends in securities class action filing activity,
and the past two years have been marked by an absence of new
types of cases, the report said.

While the number of accounting case filings held steady in 2013,
the market capitalization losses associated with those filings
more than doubled over 2012, to $44.8 billion, according to
Cornerstone.  That figure is much higher than the historical
average of $40.6 billion, the report said.

The report also noted that plaintiffs alleged internal control
weaknesses in more than 70 percent of the accounting class
actions filed in 2013, higher than in any of the five prior
years.  Cases in which those allegations are accompanied by
company announcements disclosing the presence of such weaknesses
typically settle for substantially higher amounts, according to
the report.

Cornerstone said the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's
renewed focus on identifying accounting-related fraud was likely
to increase SEC enforcement actions involving accounting issues,
which could lead to a spike in the number of private securities
actions filed.  The report cited the SEC Division of
Enforcement's creation of its new Financial Reporting and Audit
Task Force, which was announced in July.

"It is conceivable that the SEC's current focus could provide an
opportunity for plaintiff counsel to make accounting-related
cases a future wave in securities class actions," Dr. Elaine
Harwood, a Cornerstone vice president and head of the firm's
accounting practice, said in a statement.


                             *********

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  * * *