CAR_Public/140513.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 13, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 94

                             Headlines


ACTIVE POWER: Has Until May 21 to Reply to Dismissal Objection
AETNA INC: Terminates Ingenix Class Action Settlement
AIR METHODS: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Moves to Dismiss Cal. Amended Securities Suit
AMY'S KITCHEN: Court Allowed Plaintiff to Amend "Figy" Complaint

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS 7 & Grayed Out Issues
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Approval of MagSafe Settlement
ARCELORMITTAL: June 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Litigation Over Iclusig
ATLAS AIR: Court Yet to Certify Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suit

AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
BNSF RAILWAY: Certification of Antitrust Litigation Vacated
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Misclassify IT Employees, Cal. Suit Claims
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks to Junk Last Gas Price "Inflation" Case
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Abuse Victim Balks at Class Action Payment

CITIGROUP INC: Approval of N.Y. Stock Suit Accord Endures Appeals
CITIGROUP INC: Fee Award in Bond Suit Settlement Under Appeal
CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Suit Over Alternative Investment Funds
CITIGROUP INC: Suits Over Credit Default Swaps Unified in N.Y.
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Suits in N.Y. Over Alleged Rate Manipulation

CITIGROUP INC: Court Blocks Appeals v. Nixing of Antitrust Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Moves to Dismiss "Laydon" Lawsuit in New York
CITIGROUP INC: Sued by Opt Outs in Interchange Fees Suit Accord
CLEOPATRA SHIPPING: Faces Suit Over Galveston Bay Fuel Oil Spill
COLUMBIA BANKING: Settlement in Suit Over Merger Wins Approval

COMSCORE INC: Trial in Consumers' Suit to Start Q2 2014
DECKERS OUTDOOR: Calif. & Del. Securities Litigations Dismissed
EBAY INC: Two Lawsuits v. PayPal Continue in California Court
EBAY INC: Lawsuits Over TCPA Violations v. PayPal Continue
EBAY INC: NC Appeals Court Ruling in StubHub Action Now Final

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
GENERAL CABLE: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuits in Kentucky
GOOGLE INC: Hagens Berman Files Antitrust Class Action
HEALTH NET: Removes MFLC Classification Suit to Federal Court
HEALTH NET: Pursues Arbitration of Cal. MFLF Classification Suit

HEALTH NET: June 4 Hearing Set in Info Security Suit Settlement
HEADWATERS INC: Hearing This Month on "Edwards" Suit Settlement
HEADWATERS INC: Ruling in Suit Over Davidson Technology Affirmed
HEADWATERS INC: Suit by Archstone v. Eldorado Stone in Discovery
HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Has MoU to Settle Litigation Over Merger

IMPERVA INC: Issued False and Misleading Statements, Suit Says
KANE COUNTY, IL: Farmers Insurance Files Flood Class Action
LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
LIN MEDIA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger With Media General
LIN MEDIA: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed Media General Merger

LIVE NATION: Sued Over Bruce Springsteen's Wrecking Ball Tour
MANNKIND CORP: Cal. Securities Lawsuit Closes After Settlement
MASTERCARD INC: Dismissal of ATM Operators Complaints Appealed
MASTERCARD INC: Interchange Litigation Continues in New York
MASTERCARD INC: U.S. Securities Suit Settlement Faces Objections

MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Face Merchant Fees Suit in Canada
MARICOPA COLLEGE DISTRICT: Sued Over Security Breach
MAZDA MOTOR: Accused of Selling Vehicles With Defective Engines
MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Infuse Product Liability Suits for $22MM
MISSOURI: Social Services Department Faces Medicaid Class Action

MONSTER BEVERAGE: Works to Settle Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Faces Lawsuit Over Monster Energy Label, Ad
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Mass. Stock Suit
MOODY'S CORP: Appeal Filed in Now Settled "Cheyne SIV" Lawsuit
MOODY'S CORP: Rhinebridge SIV Rating Suits Voluntarily Dismissed

NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Resolves Suit Over Safety of Model Car Seat
OIL STATES: Fails to Pay Overtime to Oilfield Workers, Suit Says
ON ASSSIGNMENT: Accrues $2.1MM to Resolve Lawsuit Over Nurse Pay
OPKO HEALTH: Still Faces Litigation Over Acquisition of PROLOR
OPKO HEALTH: Faces Suit by PROLOR Biotech Shareholders in Nevada

PACIFIC GAS: Dismissal of Calif. Customers' Lawsuit Appealed
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Reinstates $10.1BB Class Action Verdict
POLYCOM INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Calif.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: ERISA Claim Certification in "Seibert" Denied
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Motion to Dismiss Celera Stock Suit Denied

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Beery" Suit by Female Sales Reps Dismissed
SAFETY-KLEEN SERVICES: Certification Hearing in Fees Suit Set
SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Seeks to Amend Antitrust Claims Anew
SANDISK CORP: Dismissal of "Oliver" Suit Over SD Cards Appealed
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Massachusetts

SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit Proceeds as Part of MDL No. 2179
SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM, NRC Await Ruling in Motions Related to MDL
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Exposure to E&P, Medical Settlements Reduced
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Provides Updates on "DPH FLSA Actions" v. ORM
SERVICE CORP: "Moulton" Suit Stayed Pending Amended Claim Filing

TAISHAN GYPSUM: Chinese Drywall Poses Ongoing Risk to Families
TIER REIT: Texas Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
TRIPLE LEAF: Accused of Deceiving Slimming Herbal Tea Consumers
USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California

VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Securities Litigations
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Mediation Considered in Calif. Commercial Suit
WAL-MART: Fails to Pay Sick Time Wages, Claims Associate Asserts
WELLS FARGO: Wins Prelim. OK of Force-Placed Insurance Suit Deal
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Petitions for Writ in Natural Gas Lawsuits

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Battles Flint Hills Over Indemnification
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. BioMimetic Upheld
XEROX CORP: Summary Judgment Order in Stock Suit Under Appeal
ZYGO CORP: Faces Stockholder Suit Over Acquisition by Ametek

* Class Action Among Reasons for Hike in Bank Customer Complaints


                            *********


ACTIVE POWER: Has Until May 21 to Reply to Dismissal Objection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Active Power, Inc. has until May 21, 2014 to respond to
plaintiffs' opposition to the company's motion to dismiss Don Lee
v. Active Power, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:3-cv-00797,
according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On September 10, 2013, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas against the company and certain of the
company's former executives. The case is captioned Don Lee v.
Active Power, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:3-cv-00797. The
complaint alleges that on April 30, 2013, the company announced
during a conference call that the company had entered into a
strategic distribution partnership with Digital China.  However,
on September 5, 2013, after the close of trading, the company
disclosed that the company's partnership was with Qiyuan Network
System Limited, which is neither an affiliate nor a subsidiary of
Digital China.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of all stockholders.   On March 7, 2014, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint.  Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the company's motion on April 21, 2014.
The company has until May 21, 2014, to file the company's reply,
and anticipate that it will take several months to obtain a
ruling from the court on this motion.


AETNA INC: Terminates Ingenix Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
James Burns, Esq., at Dickinson Wright PLLC reports that on
March 13, Aetna announced that it would not finalize its proposed
settlement of In re Aetna UCR Litigation, a class action
proceeding in the District of New Jersey that focused on Aetna's
use of a database of "usual and customary" reimbursement rates
that plaintiffs alleged had improperly lowered member
reimbursements for out of network claims.  The private action
followed an earlier New York Attorney General investigation into
the manner in which Ingenix, at the time a data collection
subsidiary of UnitedHealth, calculated usual and customary rates
for several insurers, including Aetna.  The New York Attorney
General ultimately contended that the database had unfairly
reduced reimbursements to insureds, leading to settlement with
over a dozen health insurers that had used the database.
UnitedHealth, Ingenix's parent company, ultimately paid $350
million to resolve the matter.

The In re Aetna UCR Litigation focused solely on Aetna's
potential private-party liability for its use of the Ingenix
database.  After several years of litigation, Aetna announced
that it was settling the case in December of 2012 for $120
million.  However, only days before the final hearing at which
the settlement would be approved, Aetna backed out, announcing
that the number of plaintiffs "opting out" of the proposed
settlement exceeded the cap set forth in the parties' settlement
agreement.  With the settlement terminated, the litigation now
resumes in the New Jersey District Court before Judge Katherine
S. Hayden.


AIR METHODS: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Air Methods Corporation continues to face a labor lawsuit in
California Superior Court, 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 30, 2013, the company was served with a purported
class action lawsuit, Helmick and Williams v. Air Methods
Corporation, filed in Superior Court in Alameda County,
California. The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and
overtime, failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to pay
compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely wages
on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
unlawful business practices and unfair competition within the
jurisdiction of the state of California. Plaintiff is seeking
compensatory damages and other applicable statutory damages,
penalties and wages under the Labor Code, and attorneys' fees,
interest and costs.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Moves to Dismiss Cal. Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a second amended
securities complaint filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

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


AMY'S KITCHEN: Court Allowed Plaintiff to Amend "Figy" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed, without prejudice, the
first amended complaint in the class action lawsuit styled Robert
E. Figy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03816-SI.

Amy's Kitchen markets and sells a number of products listing
"evaporated cane juice" or "organic evaporated cane juice"
("ECJ") as an ingredient on the product's labeling.

In his complaint, Mr. Figy alleges that the common or usual name
for ECJ is actually "sugar," and that the Defendant uses the term
ECJ instead of the term "sugar" to make its products appear
healthier to consumers.  He further alleges that the Defendant's
failure to comply with Food and Drug Administration regulations
violates California's Sherman Law, and the California Health and
Safety Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          D'Juana Parks, Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 4905
          Beaumont, TX 77704
          Telephone: (409) 835-6000
          Facsimile: (409) 813-8647
          E-mail: dparks@provostumphrey.com

               - and -

          John Keith Hyde, Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM
          490 Park Street
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 838-8892
          Facsimile: (409) 813-8606
          E-mail: khyde@pulf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
          Michael Langer Resch, Esq.
          Andrea M. Weiss, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9509
          Facsimile: (213) 576-8121
          E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
                  mresch@mayerbrown.com
                  aweiss@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. Behr, Esq.
          Jacquelyn Lorraine Thompson, Esq.
          KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP
          1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 W
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 434-4100
          E-mail: behr@khlaw.com
                  thompsonj@khlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Stephen Niemann, Esq.
          KELLER & HECKMAN LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1420
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 948-2800
          Facsimile: (415) 948-2808
          E-mail: niemann@khlaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS 7 & Grayed Out Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that David Yastrab, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, has filed a class action
lawsuit against Apple in California.  Much of the complaint
revolves around iOS 7 issues and the "Grayed out Issue" in
particular.  It's clear that many Apple fans were not happy about
their iOS 7 experience and so this lawsuit shouldn't come as a
surprise.  Whether the suit is worth more than $5 million remains
to be seen.

Nature of the Action

This is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated who acquired, in the
United States and its territories and its protectorates, Apple's
iPhone 4, iPhone 4s and iPhone 5 (collectively, the "iPhones")
and experienced reduced functionality of their iPhones as a
result of the updates to iOS, essentially forcing consumers to
render their iPhones obsolete.

Apple debuted the iPhone in 2007.  Since the first generation
iPhone, Apple has released a new iPhone model every year: the
iPhone 3G in 2008, the 3GS in 2009, the 4 in 2010, the 4s in
2011, the 5 in 2012, and the iPhone 5c and 5s in 2013.

When the iPhone first debuted, it was described by the Wall
Street Journal as "a beautiful and breakthrough handheld
computer."  Every iPhone comes equipped with a mobile operating
system called iOS, which, according to Apple, is the "foundation
of iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch."  iOS consists of a collection
of software applications, known as "apps," that allows users to
utilize all of the features of Apple products.

Since the iPhone was first released there have been many versions
of iOS, the most recent being iOS 7 and its update iOS 7.1.Apple
has released updates to iOS since the first iPhone.

The first iOS update, iOS 1.1.1, was released a mere three months
after the original iPhone was released.  iOS 1.1.1 added the
iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store, which gave users the ability to
download music directly on their iPhones.  Since iOS 1.1.1, Apple
has released numerous iOS updates, all of which add new features
to the iPhone it is downloaded on.

Purportedly, users are prompted to download the newest iOS
version onto their device via a message from Apple when it is
released.
Users have experienced vastly reduced functionality of their
iPhones, including, most notably, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
connectivity issues, after downloading iOS updates onto their
iPhones.

For example, the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity issues
experienced by users (the "Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Connectivity Issue" or
"Grayed out Issue") appears to be most prevalent to iPhone 4s
users who downloaded iOS 7.

The iPhone 4s is the fifth generation in a line of touchscreen
based smartphones designed, developed and marketed by Apple.
When the iPhone 4s was first launched, it came standard with iOS
5.0. According to Apple, iOS 7 is a platform for over a million
mobile apps, iCloud, and includes security features that prevent
unauthorized access to Apple devices.  iPhone 4s is the oldest
generation iPhone currently sold by Apple.  It comes in black or
white, 8, 16, 32 or 64 GB models and is available for use on
AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint networks.

The iPhone 4s and its predecessor, the iPhone 4, share the same
stainless steel body type, but are distinguished by the addition
of Siri and iCloud in the iPhone 4s.  Siri is speech recognition
software that comes standard on every iPhone 4 and iPhone 5.  It
allows users to verbally give their iPhones commands and tasks to
complete.  Because Siri is capable of both speech input and
output, it can purportedly "speak" back to its user.  For
example, if you ask Siri to add an item to your personal
calendar, it is programmed to make the addition to your calendar
and verbally confirms that the task is completed.

Siri requires either a Wi-Fi or Network connection.  When using a
Wi-Fi connection for features like Siri, users do not risk
incurring overage charges as a result of exceeding the allotted
data in a data plan purchased by the user's cellular network,
like Verizon, Sprint or AT&T (herein after "Network" or "Network
connection").

In addition to Siri, the iPhone 4s originally came equipped with
iOS 5.  According to Apple, iOS 5 was the first version of iOS to
introduce iCloud, described by Apple as "a breakthrough set of
free new cloud services that work seamlessly with applications on
your iPhone(R), iPad(R), iPod touch(R), Mac(R) or PC to
automatically and wirelessly store your content in iCloud and
automatically and wirelessly push it to all your devices."

Apple prominently features iCloud in many of its iPhone 4s and
iPhone 5 advertising campaigns.  iCloud is purportedly able to
save or backup data to the cloud, such as photos, videos,
purchased music, movies, apps, books, TV shows, device settings,
ringtones and other features.  This allows users to access data
stored on the cloud on any Apple device, regardless of the device
the information was originally stored on.

[Apple's] iCloud is a feature on all iOS versions beginning with
iOS 5 and including iOS 7. As stated by Apple, regardless of
whether an iPhone is equipped with iOS 5, 6, or 7, iCloud can
only wirelessly backup data when the iPhone is locked, connected
to a power source and Wi-Fi is turned on and connected.  iCloud
is unable to backup data on a Network connection alone, and can
only do so via a Wi-Fi connection.

Apple unveiled iOS 7 on June 10, 2013.  The update was described
by Apple as "the most significant iOS update since the original
iPhone[.]"  The update, which could only be downloaded wirelessly
via a Wi-Fi connection, changed the entire look of iPhone's
interface and added hundreds of new features, some of which
include: "Control Center, Notification Center, improved
Multitasking, AirDrop(R), enhanced Photos, Safari(R), Siri(R) and
. . . iTunes Radio(TM), a free Internet radio service based on
the music you listen to on iTunes(R)."

Purportedly, iOS 7 added new apps and dramatically increased the
efficiency and performance of apps.  As of January 2014, there
were over one million apps available for download to iPhone, iPad
and iPod touch.  While some apps may be downloaded using data
from a data plan purchased by the user's cellular Network, large
apps cannot be downloaded wirelessly over a Network connection,
and must be downloaded over a properly operating Wi-Fi network.
For example, system updates, like iOS 7, cannot be downloaded
wirelessly over a Network connection, only a Wi-Fi connection.

Although previous iPhones had Bluetooth, the iPhone 4s was the
first equipped with Bluetooth 4.0.  According to Apple, Bluetooth
allows users to "[e]xchange or synchronize data between Bluetooth
enabled computers and devices," "[u]se a Bluetooth enabled
wireless keyboard or mouse," "[c]onnect wirelessly to a Bluetooth
compatible printer, headset, headphones, or speakers," and
"[s]hare your internet connection with other Bluetooth enabled
devices."  Mike Foley, executive director of the Bluetooth
Special Interest Group, commented on the new Bluetooth technology
available on the iPhone 4s: "It enables an entirely new class of
product into the Bluetooth world."

Defendant's advertising and marketing campaigns for the iPhone 4,
iPhone 4s and iPhone 5 were and are designed to induce consumers
to acquire or purchase the iPhones over other smartphone devices
because of their Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connection capabilities,
large library of apps, iCloud and Siri -- all of which require a
Network connection or Wi-Fi connection to operate.  While users
may access some features of iCloud without a Wi-Fi connection, in
order to backup and save new data to iCloud, the iPhone must be
connected to a Wi-Fi connection, locked and plugged into a power
source.

In its promotions for iPhones 4, 4s and 5, Defendant highlights
the iPhone's ability to download later generations of iOS, such
as iOS 7.  With each update, users receive all the features ofthe
newest iPhone model that are supported by their iPhone.
According to Apple, "because iOS 7 is engineered to take full
advantage of the advanced technologies built into Apple hardware,
your devices are always years ahead -- from day one to day
whenever."

The ability to update the iOS platform on a device is a major
draw for consumers because every iOS update adds new features to
an older device.  For example, when users downloaded iOS 7, not
only did their devices inherit new apps and features, iPhone's
interface was redesigned to a "simpler, more useful, and more
enjoyable" interface.  In addition, the update added iTunes radio
and an updated photos app which allows users to add filters to
photos and auto enhance, rotate, correct red-eye, crop a panorama
photo and share photos. iOS 7 also added a Control Center feature
and security updates.

Notwithstanding Apple's extensive multi-million dollar
advertising campaign showcasing the iPhone's ability to
wirelessly download the latest features and apps from new
versions of iOS, backup and store data using iCloud, and the
iPhone 4s and 5's Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connection capabilities,
the iPhones failed to perform as advertised for Plaintiff and
members of the Class when the iOS 7 update was downloaded.

In addition, because of the Grayed out Issue, Plaintiff and Class
members who downloaded iOS 7 onto their iPhones discovered their
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth were rendered unusable.  For example, after
the update, they could not wirelessly download any iOS patches or
versions because such downloads require a Wi-Fi connection and
cannot be downloaded over a Network connection.  This meant that
Plaintiff and members of the Class could not wirelessly download
iOS 7.0.6, which provided, for example, a patch for a major
security flaw in iOS 7.

After downloading iOS 7, Plaintiff and Class members' iPhones'
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connections became "grayed out" and unusable.
This particular problem is referred to on Apple message boards as
"grayed out" because the option to turn Wi-Fi on in the iPhone's
setting turns gray and cannot be turned on.

The iPhone 4s pre-sold over one million units and sold over four
million units worldwide the weekend following its release, and
the iPhone 5 sold over five million units within the first three
days of its launch.

Defendant's message alerts, notifying iPhone users that an iOS
update is available, were also effective.  As of March 21, 2014,
85% of active Apple devices had Downloaded and were running on
iOS 7.  Once Plaintiff and Class members downloaded iOS 7 onto
their iPhones, they were unable to connect to Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.
Because of the Grayed out Issue, Plaintiff and Class members
could no longer access often free Wi-Fi and thus used data
unnecessarily and/or incurred data charges for all data used on
their iPhone 4s. In addition, Plaintiff and Class members could
no longer backup their device using iCloud, wirelessly download
iOS patches or the newest versions of iOS.

Defendant's misrepresentations concerning: (i) the iPhones'
ability to download and run iOS 7 effectively; (ii) Bluetooth and
Wi-Fi connection capabilities; and (iii) the ability to upgrade
to new iOS software and run new applications and features, are
misleading, false, and reasonably likely to deceive and have
deceived Plaintiff and members of the putative Class.

Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, and warranted the
iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, Phone 5 and iOS 7 to consumers nationwide.
In conjunction with each sale of the iPhone 4, iPhone 4s and
iPhone 5, Defendant marketed, advertised and warranted, among
other things, that each iPhone 4s was: (i) capable of downloading
and running future versions of iOS, such as iOS 7, without
adverse effects to the device's Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connection
capabilities; (ii) was able to run applications via a Wi-Fi
connection; (iii) was able to backup data using iCloud and was
otherwise fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are
used; and (iv) was free from defects in materials and
workmanship.

Plaintiff and members of the Class have damages, in that they
purchased and/or own an iPhone 4, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5,
downloaded iOS 7 at Defendant's instruction, and would not
otherwise have purchased and downloaded had they known they would
be unable to use Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.

Defendant knew or should have known that the iPhones were
defective in design and/or manufacture, were not fit for their
ordinary and intended use, and did not perform in accordance with
the advertisements, marketing materials, and warranties
disseminated by Defendant in its nationwide marketing and
advertising campaign.  In addition, Defendant knew or should have
known that the iPhones did not conform with the reasonable
expectations of ordinary consumers.  Indeed, Defendant has
received hundreds of comments regarding the iPhone 4s and 5's Wi-
Fi an Bluetooth connectivity issues since iOS was released.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers who purchased and/or own the
iPhone 4, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5 and experienced Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth connectivity issues after downloading iOS 7, in order
to halt the dissemination of Apple's false and misleading
advertising message, and to obtain redress for those who have
acquired an iPhone 4, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5.  Plaintiff alleges
violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil
Code Sec. 1750, et seq. (the "California Act"); violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code
Sec. 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"); breach of express warranty;
intentional misrepresentation; and negligent misrepresentation.


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Approval of MagSafe Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has vacated a lower
court's approval of a class action settlement over Apple MagSafe
power adapters on April 24.

The Ninth Circuit decided that the $3 million in attorneys fees
included in the deal had not been cross-checked thoroughly by the
lower court and, because of that, the lower court lacked "a
sufficient basis for determining the reasonableness of the
award," the opinion stated.

"The district court's order accepted the lodestar of
$1,986,362.00 submitted by plaintiffs' counsel," the court ruled.

"But the court did not explain why this figure is reasonable
beyond a few boilerplate recitations about the attorneys' skill
and the risks of proceeding with the litigation that never
reference the specific facts of this case."

Approval of the settlement was appealed by the Center for Class
Action Fairness, which was founded by Ted Frank.

Under some circumstances, counting all hours expended on the
litigation -- even those reasonably spent -- may produce an
"excessive amount," according to the memo.

"The district court then applied a multiplier that increased the
total amount of the attorneys' fee award to $3,000,000 without
explaining why a multiplier was necessary to adequately
compensate class counsel," the opinion stated.

"If the court determines on remand that a multiplier is
appropriate, it should offer an explanation of its decision that
is sufficient to 'assure itself -- and us -- that the amount
awarded was not unreasonably excessive in light of the results
achieved.'"

The appeals court emphasized that Apple's advance agreement to
pay class counsel up to $3 million in attorneys fees and $100,000
in expenses "cannot relieve the district court of its duty to
assess fully the reasonableness of the fee request," according to
the opinion.

The district court also did not cross-check the attorneys fee
award against the percentage-of-the-recovery method, the opinion
states.

"Although we have 'encouraged' rather than required courts to
cross-check their calculations, the fact that the court made no
mention of the value of the settlement, let alone the percentage-
of-the-recovery method, contributes to our determination that we
'lack a sufficient basis for determining the reasonableness of
the award,'" the court said.

If the class action settlement agreement had been left in place,
it would have been the settlement of two lawsuits filed against
Apple, both of which claimed that Apple's MagSafe power adapters
were sold with design flaws that caused them to fray, spark and
prematurely fail to work.

Consumers who had signed up for the Apple MagSafe class action
settlement would have collected $79, $50 or $35 for replacement
adapters, depending on when consumers purchased the products,
according to court documents.

The lawsuits were first filed in 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs alleged the flawed power adapters were dangerous
fire hazards that prematurely failed.  The plaintiffs claimed
Apple was aware of the problems, but did not disclose or warn
consumers about them and forced consumers to purchase costly
replacements upon their failure from Apple.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Helen I. Zeldes --
helenz@zhlaw.com -- of Zeldes & Haeggquist LLP; Steven A. Skalet
-- sskalet@findjustice.com -- and Craig L. Briskin --
cbriskin@findjustice.com -- of Mehri & Skalet PLLC; Angela C.
Agrusa and Camilla Y. Chan of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz
Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP; and Patrick McNicholas and
Douglas D. Winter of McNicholas & McNicholas.

Apple is being represented by Anne M. Hunter, Alexei Klestoff --
aklestoff@mofo.com -- Heather A. Moser, Andrew David Muhlbach and
Penelope Athene Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

The original Apple class action settlement was approved in March
2012.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case numbers:
12-15757, 12-15782


ARCELORMITTAL: June 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
If you bought Steel Products from one or more Defendants between
April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, you may be affected by three
Class Action Settlements.

What are the Settlements about?

Eight steel manufacturers, ArcelorMittal, Nucor Corporation,
United States Steel Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation,
AK Steel Holding Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., SSAB Swedish
Steel Corporation and Commercial Metals Company) were sued by
several businesses who allege that the Defendants conspired, in
violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, to restrict their output
and therefore raise or "fix" the prices for certain steel
products sold for delivery in the United States between April 1,
2005 and December 31, 2007.

Settlements have been reached with three of the Defendants:
Commercial Metals Company, AK Steel Holding Corporation, and
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation.  These "Settling Defendants"
collectively will pay $15.9 million into a Settlement Fund.  The
Settling Defendants deny the allegations.  The litigation is
continuing against the other five Defendants.

Who is a Settlement Class Member?

You are a Settleent Class Member if you Purchased certain Steel
Products directly from any of the Defendants or their
subsidiaries or controlled affiliates at any time between April
1, 2005 and December 31, 2007 for delivery in the United States.

In general "Steel Products" include carbon steel slabs, plates,
sheet and coil products, galvanized and other coated sheet
products; billets, blooms, rebar, merchant bar, beams and other
structural shapes; and other steel products derived from raw
carbon steel and sold by Defendants.  The terms "Steel Products"
and "Purchased" are more specifically defined in the full Notice
and the Settlement Agreements.

Will I get a payment?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
be eligible to file a claim at a later date to receive money from
the Settlements.

What are my rights?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
release certain legal rights against the Settling Defendants, as
set forth in the full Notice and in the Settlement Agreements.
If you do not want to take part in the Settlements, you have the
right to opt out.  To opt out of the Settlements, you must do so
by June 16, 2014.  Settlement Class Members have the right to
object to the Settlements.  If you want to object, you must do so
by June 16, 2014.  Information on how to opt out or object to the
Settlements is contained in the full Notice and at
http://www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com

You may speak to your own attorney at your expense for help.

When is the Approval Hearing?

A Final Approval Hearing to consider approval of the Settlements
and Plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of litigation expenses
is scheduled to be held in Courtroom 2503, Everett McKinley
Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL 60604, on July 10, 2014, at 12:00 p.m.  You may
appear at the hearing, but your attendance is not required.  The
date and location for this hearing may be changed on further
Order of the Court.

This is a Summary, where can I get more information?

You can get complete settlement information, including a copy of
the full Notice and the Settlement Agreements, by visiting
http://www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Litigation Over Iclusig
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces four securities lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, 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 October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and
December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled
Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch
v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
respectively, were filed in Massachusetts District Court, naming
the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The
lawsuits allege that the Company made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety
data for Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from
December 12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the
order of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the
class period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through
October 30, 2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of
the Company's officers, present and former directors and certain
underwriters made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in
connection with the Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public
offering of common stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and
an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.


ATLAS AIR: Court Yet to Certify Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York is yet to rule whether or not to certify antitrust class
actions filed against Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.,
according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In 2010, Old Polar entered into an agreement with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") to resolve issues
relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning
alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and
other rate components for air cargo services (the "DOJ
Investigation").

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs
from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that
arose prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar
emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the
injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an
order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims
arising prior to 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was
substantial pretrial written discovery and document production,
and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on
whether or not to certify the case as a class action was held in
October 2013 and oral arguments were held in November 2013. The
company is unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling or the
ultimate outcome of the litigation.

The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have
also been named as defendants in civil class action suits in the
provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that
are substantially similar to the class action suits in the United
States. The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have
indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the
Company and Old Polar. The company is unable to reasonably
predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and Quebec.


AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cader, writing for Publishers Lunch, reports that in
mid-April, Judge Denise Cote rejected all of the substantive
motions to dismiss a class action suit brought by author/
customers against Author Solutions, and the suit will move
forward.  The parties will proceed to discovery and will submit a
proposed pre-trial schedule to the court.


BNSF RAILWAY: Certification of Antitrust Litigation Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals vacated a district court's class-
certification decision in In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869 and remanded the case to
permit the district court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
according to Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC's March 3, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway Company and other Class I
railroads alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel
surcharges with respect to unregulated freight transportation
services in violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek
injunctive relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases
were consolidated and are currently pending in the federal
District Court of the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated
amended class action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway
and three other Class I railroads in April 2008.

On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought
by the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I
railroads appealed the class-certification decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals.

On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District
Court's class-certification decision and remanded the case to
permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.
The Company continues to believe that these claims are without
merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.
The Company does not believe that the outcome of these
proceedings will have a material effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.


CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Misclassify IT Employees, Cal. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Stein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, a California
Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC542249
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2014) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged systematic and uniform misclassification
of proposed class members as exempt from overtime pay, resulting
in the non-payment of overtime compensation and failure to
provide compliant rest and meal periods to certain California
Information-Technology employees of the Company.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is a California corporation.  Cedars-
Sinai maintains and transacts business as a health care delivery
system operating in Los Angeles and other Central California
counties.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 "C" Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  dkhoury@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks to Junk Last Gas Price "Inflation" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES) is pursuing the dismissal
of a case now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a
conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002,
according to CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Houston or their predecessor,
Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of
their former subsidiaries have been named as defendants in
certain lawsuits. Under a master separation agreement between
CenterPoint Energy and a former subsidiary, Reliant Resources,
Inc. (RRI), CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are entitled
to be indemnified by RRI and its successors for any losses,
including certain attorneys' fees and other costs, arising out of
these lawsuits.  In May 2009, RRI sold its Texas retail business
to a subsidiary of NRG and RRI changed its name to RRI Energy,
Inc. In December 2010, Mirant Corporation merged with and became
a wholly owned subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to
GenOn Energy, Inc. (GenOn). In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn
through a merger in which GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary
of NRG. None of the sale of the retail business, the merger with
Mirant Corporation, or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters
RRI's (now GenOn's) contractual obligations to indemnify
CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint
Houston, for certain liabilities, including their indemnification
obligations regarding the gas market manipulation litigation, nor
does it affect the terms of existing guarantee arrangements for
certain GenOn gas transportation contracts.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions,
alleged violations of state and federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits sought a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in
some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory
damages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.
CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since
been released or dismissed from all but one such case.

CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC
Corp., is a defendant in a case now pending in federal court in
Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas
prices in 2000-2002.  In July 2011, the court issued an order
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against other defendants in the
case, each of whom had demonstrated FERC jurisdictional sales for
resale during the relevant period, based on federal preemption.
The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2013, the other
defendants filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme
Court. CenterPoint Energy believes that CES is not a proper
defendant in this case and will continue to pursue a dismissal.
CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material impact on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Abuse Victim Balks at Class Action Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Banks and Colleen Egan, writing for The West Australian,
report that the national law firm that represented former
orphanage residents in a class action against the
Christian Brothers was fighting for its commission and not for
the victims, a man who was abused at Bindoon told the royal
commission in Perth on April 30.

Edward Delaney told the public hearing that he had heard about
the class action by Slater & Gordon and attended a meeting in
Melbourne, where he was told he should sign a final offer that
would give him about $3000.

"For what we went through, I felt this amount was an insult," he
said at the third day of evidence at the Perth hearing of the
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual
Abuse.

Mr. Delaney said he thought it was "disgusting", but he was told
it was $3000 or nothing and he signed a document.  "I am sorry I
signed that document," he said.

The Perth hearing is investigating the abuse of boys at the
Christian Brothers' Bindoon, Clontarf, Castledare and Tardun
homes from the 1940s to 1960s.

Criticism of Slater & Gordon's handling of the class action has
been heard in the evidence of numerous former residents over the
past three days.

Slater & Gordon lawyers were scheduled to give evidence at the
commission on May 1.

Former Bindoon resident Gordon Grant said on April 30 he had
accepted $10,000 from the class action in return for signing away
his legal rights.

"Most of these guys have never spoken to a lawyer," he said.
"Most of these guys were pensioners, out of work, didn't have
anything, so they accepted a lousy $2000."

In a letter written to the Christian Brothers congregation on
April 30, Oceania Province professional standards executive
director Brian Brandon said the men had been heard and their pain
was acknowledged

Brother Brandon reiterated the Christian Brothers apology first
made in 1993, saying what had happened at the four homes was
indefensible and of the deepest shame to the order.

Acting director-general of the WA Department for Child Protection
and Family Support Emma White told the inquiry that a search of
records found no documents from the 1940s and 50s.

But an unannounced visit to Bindoon in 1947 had resulted in a
letter to the Catholic Archbishop of Perth and a recommendation
that boys not be admitted until education facilities improved.

A note on the file read: "I think you will agree, as minister for
education, that boys of school age being brought out from England
under the migrant scheme must at least be given a chance to be
properly educated."


CITIGROUP INC: Approval of N.Y. Stock Suit Accord Endures Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals against a final order that approved a settlement reached
in In Re Citigroup Inc. Securities litigation have been dismissed
or voluntarily withdrawn, 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.

Citigroup and Related Parties were named as defendants in the
consolidated putative class action IN RE CITIGROUP INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended
complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Citigroup common stock from January 1, 2004 through
January 15, 2009. On November 9, 2010, the court issued an
opinion and order dismissing all claims except those arising out
of Citigroup's exposure to CDOs for the time period February 1,
2007 through April 18, 2008. On August 30, 2012, the court
entered an order preliminarily approving the parties' proposed
settlement, under which Citigroup agreed to pay $590 million in
exchange for a release of all claims asserted on behalf of the
settlement class. A fairness hearing was held on April 8, 2013.
On August 1, 2013, the court entered a final order approving the
settlement. Appeals from the final order have been dismissed or
voluntarily withdrawn. Additional information concerning this
action is publicly available in court filings under the
consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein,
J.), and 13-3531, 13-3539, and 13-3710 (2d Cir.).


CITIGROUP INC: Fee Award in Bond Suit Settlement Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
An objector to the settlement of In Re Citigroup Inc. Bond
Litigation filed a notice of appeal from the fee award, 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.

Citigroup and Related Parties were named as defendants in the
consolidated putative class action IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND
LITIGATION, also filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended
complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of $71 billion of debt securities and preferred stock
issued by Citigroup between May 2006 and August 2008. On July 12,
2010, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing
plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act of
1933, but denying defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims
under Section 11. On March 25, 2013, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the parties' proposed settlement, under
which Citigroup agreed to pay $730 million in exchange for a
release of all claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class.
A fairness hearing was held on July 23, 2013. On August 20, 2013,
the court entered a final order approving the settlement. In a
separate order dated December 19, 2013, the court awarded fees to
class counsel. On January 14, 2014, an objector to the settlement
filed a notice of appeal from the fee award. Additional
information concerning this action is publicly available in court
filings under the consolidated lead docket number 08 Civ. 9522
(S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Suit Over Alternative Investment Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to face a suit filed on behalf of
investors in CSO Ltd., CSO US Ltd., and Corporate Special
Opportunities Ltd., 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.

Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2012 on behalf of
investors in CSO Ltd., CSO US Ltd., and Corporate Special
Opportunities Ltd., whose investments were managed indirectly by
a Citigroup affiliate. Plaintiffs assert a variety of state
common law claims, alleging that they and other investors were
misled into investing in the funds and, later, not redeeming
their investments. The complaint seeks to recover more than $400
million on behalf of a putative class of investors. Additional
information concerning this action is publicly available in court
filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel,
J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Suits Over Credit Default Swaps Unified in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized
numerous putative class actions filed by various entities against
Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Citibank, N.A.,
alleging anticompetitive conduct in the credit default swaps
industry and ordered them transferred to 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.

Putative class action complaints have been filed by various
entities against Citigroup, CGMI and Citibank, N.A., among other
defendants, alleging anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry
and asserting various claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act as well as a state law claim for unjust enrichment.
On October 16, 2013, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation centralized numerous putative class actions filed by
various entities against Citigroup, CGMI and Citibank, N.A.,
among other defendants, alleging anticompetitive conduct in the
credit default swaps industry and ordered that those actions
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Denise Cote.

Additional information relating to these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 1:13-cv-03357
(N.D. Ill.), 1:13-cv-04979 (N.D. Ill.), 1:13-cv-04928 (S.D.N.Y.),
1:13-cv-05413 (N.D. Ill.), and 1:13-cv-05417 (N.D. Ill.), 1:13-
cv-05725 (N.D. Ill.), and 13-cv-6116 (S.D.N.Y.).


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Suits in N.Y. Over Alleged Rate Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is facing lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging it colluded
to manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR), 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.

Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citibank, N.A.,
Citigroup, and, in certain cases, Citigroup Forex, Inc., are
named as defendants in putative class actions that are proceeding
on a consolidated basis before Judge Schofield in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the
defendants colluded to manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR),
thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in
connection with WMR-based financial instruments. The plaintiffs
assert federal and state antitrust claims and claims for unjust
enrichment, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages where
authorized by statute, restitution, and declaratory and
injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these
consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under
the docket number 1:13-cv-7789.

Additionally, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, and CKI, as well as
numerous other foreign exchange dealers, are named as defendants
in a putative class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS
BANK PLC, ET AL., that is also proceeding before Judge Schofield
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
persons who traded foreign currency with the defendants in Korea,
alleging that the class suffered losses as a result of the
defendants' alleged WMR manipulation. The plaintiff asserts
federal and state antitrust claims, and seeks compensatory
damages, treble damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 1:13-cv-7953.


CITIGROUP INC: Court Blocks Appeals v. Nixing of Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied appeals
against the dismissal of claims in the Libor-based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation against Citigroup 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 September 17, 2013, the plaintiff class of indirect OTC
purchasers of U.S. debt securities filed an appeal in the Second
Circuit of Judge Buchwald's March 29, 2013 and August 23, 2013
orders. The Schwab plaintiffs filed a separate appeal in the
Second Circuit on September 24, 2013.

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD)
LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation
(MDL) proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN
RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the
LIBOR MDL), appearing under docket number 1:11-md-2262
(S.D.N.Y.). Judge Buchwald appointed interim lead class counsel
for, and consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of,
three separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-
counter (OTC) purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD
LIBOR; (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments
tied to USD LIBOR; and (iii) indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt
securities. Each of these putative classes alleged that the panel
bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR in violation of
the Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act, thereby
causing plaintiffs to suffer losses on the instruments they
purchased. Also consolidated into the MDL proceeding were
individual civil actions commenced by various Charles Schwab
entities alleging that the panel bank defendants conspired to
suppress the USD LIBOR rates in violation of the Sherman Act, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and
California state law, causing the Schwab entities to suffer
losses on USD LIBOR-linked financial instruments they owned.
Plaintiffs in these actions sought compensatory damages and
restitution for losses caused by the alleged violations, as well
as treble damages under the Sherman Act. The Schwab and OTC
plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief.

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved
to dismiss all of the actions. On March 29, 2013, Judge Buchwald
issued an opinion and order dismissing the plaintiffs' federal
and state antitrust claims, RICO claims and unjust enrichment
claims in their entirety, but allowing certain of the plaintiffs'
Commodity Exchange Act claims to proceed.

On August 23, 2013, Judge Buchwald issued a decision resolving
several motions filed after the March 29, 2013 order. Pursuant to
the August 23, 2013 decision, on September 10, 2013, consolidated
second amended complaints were filed by interim lead plaintiffs
for the putative classes of (i) OTC purchasers of derivative
instruments tied to USD LIBOR and (ii) purchasers of exchange-
traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR. Each of these
putative classes continues to allege that the panel bank
defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR: (i) OTC purchasers
assert claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
(ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments assert
claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and
for unjust enrichment.

On September 17, 2013, the plaintiff class of indirect OTC
purchasers of U.S. debt securities filed an appeal in the Second
Circuit of Judge Buchwald's March 29, 2013 and August 23, 2013
orders. The Schwab plaintiffs filed a separate appeal in the
Second Circuit on September 24, 2013. The Second Circuit
dismissed the appeals on October 30, 2013, and denied the
plaintiffs' motions to reconsider dismissal on December 16, 2013.

As part of the August 23, 2013 order, Judge Buchwald also
continued the stay of all actions that have been consolidated
into the LIBOR MDL proceeding after June 29, 2012. Citigroup
and/or Citibank, N.A. are named in 36 such stayed actions. The
stayed actions include lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of
putative classes of, community and other banks, savings and loans
institutions, credit unions, municipalities and purchasers and
holders of LIBOR-linked financial products. As a general matter,
plaintiffs allege that defendant panel banks artificially
suppressed USD LIBOR, thereby decreasing the amount plaintiffs
would have received in the absence of manipulation. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, various forms of enhanced damages, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Additional information relating to these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the following docket numbers:
1:12-cv-4205 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-5723 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-5822 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-
6056 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-6693 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Buchwald, J.); 1:12-cv-7461 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 2:12-cv-
6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert, J.); 2:12-cv-10903 (C.D. Cal.) (Snyder,
J.); 3:12-cv-6571 (N.D. Cal.) (Conti, J.); 3:13-cv-106 (N.D.
Cal.) (Beller, J.); 4:13-cv-108 (N.D. Cal.) (Ryu, J.); 3:13-cv-
109 (N.D. Cal.) (Laporte, J.); 3:13-cv-48 (S.D. Cal.)
(Sammartino, J.); 5:13-cv-62 (C.D. Cal.) (Phillips, J.); 1:13-cv-
346 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-407 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald,
J.); 5:13-cv-122 (C.D. Cal.) (Bernal, J.); 1:13-cv-1016
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-1456 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald,
J.); 1:13-cv-1700 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-342 (E.D.
Va.) (Brinkema, J.); 1:13-cv-2297 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.);
4:13-cv-2244 (N.D. Cal.) (Hamilton, J.); 3:13-cv-2921 (N.D. Cal.)
(Chesney, J.); 3:13-cv-1466 (S.D. Cal.) (Lorenz, J.); 3:13-cv-
2979 (N.D. Cal.) (Tigar, J.); 4:13-cv-2149 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt,
J.); 2:13-cv-1476 (E.D. Cal.) (Mueller, J.); 1:13-cv-4018
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 2:13-cv-4352 (E.D. Pa.) (Restrepo,
J.); 4:13-cv-334 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt. J.); 4:13-cv-335 (S.D. Iowa)
(Pratt, J.); 1:13-cv-7720 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-7720
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 1:13-cv-5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas, J.);
and 1:14-cv-146 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Moves to Dismiss "Laydon" Lawsuit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the suit Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd. et al. have
moved to dismiss a second amended complaint, and briefing on the
motions to dismiss was already completed, according to Citigroup
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 April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned
LAYDON V. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on November 30, 2012, naming as defendants banks that
are or were members of the panels making submissions used in the
calculation of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain
affiliates of those banks, including Citigroup, Citibank, N.A.,
CJL and CGMJ. On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint alleging that defendants, including Citigroup,
Citibank, N.A., CJL and CGMJ, manipulated Japanese yen LIBOR and
TIBOR in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman
Act. The second amended complaint asserts claims under these acts
and for unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities that engaged in U.S.-based transactions in
Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts between January 2006 and December
2010. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages under
the Sherman Act, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive
relief. The defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint, and briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed
on October 16, 2013. Additional information concerning this
action is publicly available in court filings under the docket
number 1:12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Sued by Opt Outs in Interchange Fees Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is facing two lawsuits filed by merchants,
including large national merchants, that requested exclusion from
the class settlements in In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee And
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 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,

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases
in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE
FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-
branded payment cards as well as membership associations that
claim to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among
other things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set
the price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and
debit card transactions and to restrain trade through various
Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California
statutes. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of classes of U.S.
merchants, treble damages, including all interchange fees paid to
all Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and
MasterCard transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1,
2004, as well as injunctive relief. Supplemental complaints have
also been filed against defendants in the putative class actions
alleging that Visa's and MasterCard's respective initial public
offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's initial public offering
constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

On July 13, 2012, all parties to the putative class actions,
including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) setting forth the material
terms of a class settlement. The class settlement contemplated by
the MOU provides for, among other things, a total payment by all
defendants to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants
participating in the damages class settlement of 10 basis points
on interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa
and MasterCard networks; changes to certain network rules that
would permit merchants to surcharge some payment card
transactions subject to certain limitations and conditions,
including disclosure to consumers at the point of sale; and broad
releases in favor of the defendants. Subsequently, all defendants
and certain of the plaintiffs who had entered into the MOU
executed a settlement agreement consistent with the terms of the
MOU.

Visa and MasterCard have also entered into a settlement agreement
with merchants that filed individual, non-class actions. While
Citigroup and Related Parties are not parties to the individual
merchant non-class settlement agreement, they are contributing to
that settlement, and the agreement provides for a release of
claims against Citigroup and Related Parties.

On November 27, 2012, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements and
provisionally certified two classes for settlement purposes only.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York held a hearing on September 12, 2013 to consider whether the
class settlements should be finally approved.  On December 13,
2013, the court entered an order granting final approval to the
class settlement, and on January 14, 2014, the court entered a
final judgment. Additional information concerning these
consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under
the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.).  A number
of objectors have filed an appeal of the final approval order
with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Numerous merchants, including large national merchants, have
requested exclusion (opted out) from the class settlements, and
some of those opting out have filed complaints against Visa,
MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks.  Two
of these suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., and
SPEEDY STOP FOOD STORES, LLC, ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., name
Citigroup as a defendant.  Additional information concerning
these actions is publicly available in court filings under docket
numbers 1:13-CV-04442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.) and 13-10-
75377A (Tex. D. Ct).


CLEOPATRA SHIPPING: Faces Suit Over Galveston Bay Fuel Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
William John Patton, Sidney Langley, Pam Cage and Claude Cage,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cleopatra Shipping Agency, Ltd., and Kirby Inland Marine L.P.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00113 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2014) alleges
personal injury resulting from the March 22 fuel oil spill in
Galveston Bay.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Alan Grigg, Esq.
          Rick Leeper, Esq.
          SPIVEY GRIGG LLP
          48 East Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-6061
          Facsimile: (512) 474-1605
          E-mail: dicky@grigg-law.com
                  rick@grigg-law.com

               - and -

          Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., Esq.
          CALVIN C. FAYARD, JR. APC
          519 Florida Ave. SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Telephone: (225) 664-4193
          E-mail: calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank C. Dudenhefer, Jr., Esq.
          5200 St. Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70115
          Telephone: (504) 616-5226


COLUMBIA BANKING: Settlement in Suit Over Merger Wins Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County
entered an order approving a settlement reached in Gary M. Klein
v. West Coast Bancorp, et al., Case No. 1210-12431, according to
Columbia Banking System, 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 October 3, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah
against West Coast, its directors, and the Company challenging
the merger: Gary M. Klein v. West Coast Bancorp, et al., Case No.
1210-12431. The complaint names as defendants West Coast, all of
the former members of West Coast's board of directors, and the
Company. The complaint alleges that the West Coast directors
breached their fiduciary duties to West Coast and West Coast
shareholders by agreeing to the merger at an unfair price. The
complaint also alleges that the merger was being driven by an
unfair process, that the directors approved provisions in the
merger agreement that constitute preclusive deal protection
devices, that certain large shareholders of West Coast were using
the merger as an opportunity to sell their illiquid holdings in
West Coast, and that West Coast directors and officers would
obtain personal benefits from the merger not shared equally by
other West Coast shareholders. The complaint further alleges that
West Coast and the Company aided and abetted the directors'
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. Thereafter, a second
lawsuit challenging the merger was filed in the Circuit Court of
the State of Oregon for Clackamas County: Leoni v. West Coast
Bancorp et al., Case No. CV12100728. The two lawsuits have been
consolidated for all purposes in the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon for Multnomah County.

While the Company believes that the claims in both complaints
were without merit, the Company agreed, in order to avoid the
expense and burden of continued litigation and pursuant to the
terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus related to
the merger. Accordingly, prior to the closing of the merger on
April 1, 2013, West Coast and the other defendants in the two
actions entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle both
actions. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Plaintiffs'
counsel has conducted certain confirmatory discovery, and the
Company approved the form of a stipulation of settlement, which
has been executed by the parties. The stipulation of settlement
is subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to West Coast's stockholders. On February 18,
2014, the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah
County conducted a final hearing to consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement and entered an
order approving settlement. The order resolves and releases all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders before final approval of
the settlement.


COMSCORE INC: Trial in Consumers' Suit to Start Q2 2014
-------------------------------------------------------
Merits based discovery in a suit filed by Mike Harris and Jeff
Dunstan against comScore, Inc. is completed and trial is
anticipated to start in the second quarter of 2014, according to
the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

On August 23, 2011, the Company received notice that Mike Harris
and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other
things, violations by the Company of the Stored Communications
Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act as well as unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, including statutory damages per violation
and punitive damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys'
fees of the plaintiffs. In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint which, among other things, removed the claim
relating to alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act. On April 2, 2013, the District Court
issued an order certifying a class for only three of the four
claims, refusing to certify a class for unjust enrichment.
Merits based discovery is completed and trial is anticipated to
start in the second quarter of 2014.


DECKERS OUTDOOR: Calif. & Del. Securities Litigations Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two securities lawsuits filed against Deckers Outdoor Corporation
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California and in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware 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.

On May 31, 2012, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. On August 1, 2012, a similar purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and
certain of its officers. These actions alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and were purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between
October 27, 2011 and April 26, 2012. Both cases were dismissed
with prejudice, and no appeal was taken from either dismissal.


EBAY INC: Two Lawsuits v. PayPal Continue in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suits Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and
Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc. continue in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to eBay Inc.'s
May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and Moises
Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. These lawsuits contain
allegations related to violations of aspects of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a previous
settlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or allege that
PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise improperly
limited users' accounts. These lawsuits seek damages as well as
changes to PayPal's practices, among other remedies. A
determination that there have been violations of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations of other laws
relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to significant
liability. A lawsuit that has been filed by a consumer
association in Germany also addresses PayPal's practices to hold
users' funds and aims at more transparency in the terms and
conditions towards consumers as to when a user can expect PayPal
to impose account limitations. Any changes to PayPal's practices
resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur
significant costs and to expend substantial resources, which
could delay other planned product launches or improvements and
further harm the company's business.


EBAY INC: Lawsuits Over TCPA Violations v. PayPal Continue
----------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits alleging violations of The Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) against PayPal, Inc. continue in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, according to eBay Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containing
allegations that the company's businesses violated the TCPA.
Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in February 2012) contains
allegations that commercial advertisements for PayPal products
and services were sent via text message to mobile phones without
prior consent. In May 2013, the Court granted PayPal's motion for
summary judgment challenging the viability of plaintiff's
individual claim on grounds that plaintiff consented to receive
the text message and entered judgment in favor of PayPal.
Plaintiff has filed an appeal of this judgment. Murray v. Bill Me
Later (filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois in June 2012) contains allegations that Bill Me Later
made calls featuring artificial or prerecorded voices without
prior consent. These lawsuits, and other private lawsuits not
currently alleged as class actions, seek damages (including
statutory damages) and injunctive relief, among other remedies.
Given the enormous number of communications the company sends to
the company's users, a determination that there have been
violations of laws relating to PayPal's or Bill Me Later's
practices (or those of any of the company's other companies)
under the TCPA or other communications-based statutes could
expose the company to significant damage awards that could,
individually or in the aggregate, materially harm the company's
business.


EBAY INC: NC Appeals Court Ruling in StubHub Action Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to eBay Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in October 2007 in North Carolina Superior Court alleging
that StubHub sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale)
of concert tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the
tickets were resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum
ticket resale price law (which has been subsequently amended). In
February 2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, concluding that immunity under the
Communications Decency Act did not apply. The trial court further
held that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and
deceptive trade practices statute as it pertained to the two
named plaintiffs, and certified its decision for immediate appeal
to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In February 2012, the
North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's
decision, and the Court of Appeals' decision is now final.

eBay noted that similar actions are expected in other states and
other jurisdictions, such as Ontario. Laws and regulations
governing the resale of event tickets outside the U.S. (for
example, in Europe) may be more restrictive, and carry harsher
penalties and fines, than corresponding U.S. laws and
regulations. For example, France passed a law in 2012 prohibiting
the habitual resale of event tickets without permission from the
event organizer and Belgium passed a similar law in 2013
prohibiting habitual sale and subjecting occasional resale to a
price cap. Restrictions on ticket resale are also under
consideration by the Dutch Parliament and various state
governments in Australia. In addition, the unauthorized resale of
football (soccer) tickets is illegal in the U.K., where a StubHub
site was launched in 2011.

"While the company secured a number of commercial partnerships in
the UK in order to enable our customers to buy and sell football
(soccer) tickets, if the company is unable to maintain these
partnerships or develop new partnerships on acceptable terms, the
company's tickets business would suffer," eBay added.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge signed off on April 21 on
a settlement that calls for Experian Information Solutions Inc.
to pay $8 million to end claims that it illegally disclosed
consumers' credit reports to a towing debt collection company.

Judge Claudia Wilkin preliminarily approved the deal to resolve
claims by a certified class of consumers accusing Experian of
willfully violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by turning over
consumer reports containing their credit information to
collection agency Finex Group LLC, as it attempted to collect on
debts incurred for towed vehicles.

"The proposed settlement agreement is preliminarily approved
because it falls within the range that is fair, reasonable and
adequate," Judge Wilkin said.

The $8 million deal, submitted for approval in March, calls for
each class member with a valid claim to receive $375.  The
settlement also includes incentive awards of up to $10,000 to
each named plaintiff and $2.25 million in attorneys' fees. The
class members had initially sought damages of between $100 and
$1,000 per class member, according to court documents.

Initially certified in April 2012, the class members will include
"all consumers whose consumer reports were furnished by Experian
to Finex in connection with Finex's efforts to collect on a
towing deficiency claim from Jan. 12, 2009, to the present."

Each claimant has until Sept. 2, 2014, to either submit a claim
or exclude themselves from the deal.  They must also prove that
they owned a vehicle that was towed, that they did not initiate
the towing transaction and that the debt was not reduced to
judgment.

Excluded from the class, however, are any people who subsequently
filed for bankruptcy following the time their credit reports were
turned over by Experian, according to the settlement.

Because Experian insisted on a cap of $8 million for its total
exposure, however, the plaintiffs acknowledged that
"theoretically there could be so many claims that a pro-rata
reduction could be required," a circumstance that the class
members said could happen but that is "highly unlikely."

Filed in 2011 by named plaintiff Roane Holman and later amended
to include plaintiffs Narcisco Navarro Hernandez and Miguel A.
Alvarez, the suit also claimed that Experian failed to verify
that Finex was using the reports it received for a permissible
purpose, even though Experian had reason to believe Finex was not
doing so.

Finex, a collection agency that specializes in collecting claims
for towing companies, entered into a subscriber agreement with
Experian in January 2008 that lasted until November 2010.

During the course of the partnership, Finex received more than
40,000 Collection Advantage reports from Experian that contained
credit information taken from the credit reporting agency's
consumer credit database and contained a so-called recovery score
that ranks accounts based on the likelihood debtors will pay the
debt, according to court documents.

Finex, which was named as a defendant in the original 2011
complaint, was removed after it agreed to turn over documents
regarding its business relationship with Experian to help Holman
in the case against the credit agency in exchange for Holman
dropping her claims against Finex, according to court documents.

The heads of Finex alleged they asked Experian if they were
getting information they were not supposed to in light of a 2009
decision by the Ninth Circuit in Pintos v. Pacific Creditors
Association, which held that collection of a towing-related debt
didn't provide a permissible purpose to obtain or furnish a
credit report when it didn't constitute a transaction initiated
by the consumer and wasn't a judicially established debt,
according to court documents.

Experian allegedly told Finex the reports were legal, a
contention that Experian later disputed, according to court
documents.

An attorney representing the class members declined to comment
Wednesday on the settlement, and attorneys for Experian were not
immediately available for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie and Mark F.
Anderson of Anderson Ogilvie & Brewer LLP and Balam Osberto
Letona of the Law Offices of Balam O. Letona.

Experian is represented by Daniel J. McLoon --
djmcloon@jonesday.com -- and Michael G. Morgan --
mgmorgan@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day.

The case is Holman v. Experian Information Solutions Inc. et al.,
number 4:11-cv-00180, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


GENERAL CABLE: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuits in Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation is facing shareholder lawsuits in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky,
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.

Two civil complaints have been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by named
plaintiffs on behalf of purported classes of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities, in one case which was filed on October 21, 2013
between May 3, 2011 and October 14, 2013, inclusive, and in the
other case, which was filed on December 4, 2013, between May 2,
2011 and November 4, 2013, inclusive, against the Company,
Gregory Kenny, the company's President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Brian Robinson, its Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer. The complaints, which were transferred
to the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Kentucky, allege claims under the anti-fraud and controlling
person liability provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, alleging generally, among other assertions, that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding revenue
recognition and other Company financial matters and failed to
state material facts, including, among other things, that there
was a lack of adequate internal controls, thereby artificially
inflating the prices at which the company's securities traded.
The complaints seek damages in undefined amounts, as well as
attorney's fees, experts' fees and other costs. In addition, a
derivative complaint was filed on January 7, 2014 in the Campbell
County, Kentucky Circuit Court against all but one member of the
company's Board of Directors, including Mr. Kenny, a former
director and against Mr. Robinson and two former ROW officials,
one of whom is a former executive officer of the Company. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by knowingly failing to ensure that the Company
implemented and maintained adequate internal controls over its
accounting and financial reporting functions and by knowingly
disseminating to stockholders materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial results and
internal controls. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, appropriate equitable relief to remedy the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty, attorney's fees, experts' fees and
other costs.


GOOGLE INC: Hagens Berman Files Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, a consumer rights class-action law firm, on May 1
disclosed that it has filed a nationwide antitrust class-action
lawsuit against Google claiming the search engine giant illegally
monopolized, and financially and creatively stagnated the
American market of internet and mobile search.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleges that Google's monopoly of these
markets stems from the company's purchasing of Android mobile
operating system (Android OS) to maintain and expand its monopoly
by pre-loading its own suite of applications onto the devices by
way of secret Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA).
According to the suit, these agreements were hidden and marked to
be viewed only by attorneys.

According to the suit, Google's role in placing this suite of
apps, including Google Play, and YouTube, among others, has
hampered the market and kept the price of devices made by
competing device manufactures like Samsung and HTC artificially
high.

"It's clear that Google has not achieved this monopoly through
offering a better search engine, but through its strategic,
anti-competitive placement, and it doesn't take a forensic
economist to see that this is evidence of market manipulation,"
said Steve Berman, attorney representing consumers and founding
partner of Hagens Berman.  "Simply put, there is no lawful, pro-
competitive reason for Google to condition licenses to pre-load
popular Google apps like this."

The complaint claims that if device manufacturers bound by
Google's distribution agreements were free to choose a default
search engine other than Google, the overall quality of Internet
search would improve.

"The more use an internet or mobile search engine gets, the
better it performs based on that use," Mr. Berman said.  "Instead
of finding a way to legitimately out-compete other internet and
mobile search providers, they instead decided to choke off
competition through this cynical, anti-consumer scheme."

The complaint notes that Google's monopoly not only suppresses
its competition but also keeps the company itself from improving.

"This comes down to a combination of Google's power in the U.S.
general mobile search market and their power in the realm of
tablet and smartphone manufacturers," Mr. Berman said.  "As a
result of the pricing conspiracy, everyone loses.  Google and its
competitors face an uncompetitive, stagnant market, and consumers
are forced into one option."

According to the lawsuit, Google's MADAs are contracts in
restraint of trade that are designed to maintain and extend its
monopolies in general search and handheld general search.

The lawsuit claims Google is in violation of a variety of federal
and state antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, the Clayton
Antitrust Act, California Cartwright Act and California Unfair
Competition Law.

The named plaintiffs include Gary Feitelson, a resident of
Louisville, Kentucky and owner of an HTC EVO 3D mobile phone, and
Daniel McKee, a resident of Des Moines, Iowa and owner of a
Samsung Galaxy S III mobile phone.  According to the complaint,
in both situations, the owners' phones should have cost less and
had better search capabilities as the result of competition that
would have ensued, had Google's MADA restraints not existed.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all U.S. purchasers of any Android
OS mobile telephone or tablet as to which Google and the
manufacturer of such device has entered into a contract or
contracts, including the MADA, by which Google has conditioned
the right to pre-load any application from a suite of Google
applications on to manufacturer's mandatory acceptance.

The lawsuit seeks damages for individuals who have purchased
these devices at an artificially high price due to Google's
alleged price-fixing, anticompetitive restrictions.

Concerned consumers are encouraged to contact a Hagens Berman
attorney by emailing Google@hbsslaw.com or calling (206) 623-
7292.

Additional information about the investigation is available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/cases/Google

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with offices nine cities.


HEALTH NET: Removes MFLC Classification Suit to Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. removed a case relating to the independent
contractor classification of Military Family Life Consultants
from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce
County to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, 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 a defendant in three related litigation matters
pending in Washington state court and California federal court
relating to the independent contractor classification of Military
Family Life Consultants ("MFLCs") who contracted with the
company's subsidiary, Managed Health Network Government Services,
Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non-medical counseling at
U.S. military installations throughout the country.

On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce
County against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a
MHN Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who
have performed services as independent contractors in the state
of Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim
that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under
Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay
that they would have received had they been classified as non-
exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. The company
moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the
motion on September 30, 2011. The company appealed the decision.
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision
on August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the company removed
this case to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act.


HEALTH NET: Pursues Arbitration of Cal. MFLF Classification Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. is pursuing to compel arbitration in a suit
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California over the classification of Military Family
Life Consultants, 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 May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington
action, as well as twelve other named plaintiffs, filed a
proposed collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors
nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege
misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek
penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court
has since transferred the case to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern
District of California") to relate it to a virtually identical
suit filed on October 2, 2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health
Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also a subsidiary).

The October 2012 Northern District of California suit alleges
misclassification under the FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class,
as well under several state laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in
California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and
North Carolina. On October 24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll
the statutes of limitations for overtime violations in the
following states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania.

On November 1, 2012, the company moved to compel arbitration in
the Northern District of California, and the court denied the
motion on April 3, 2013. The company noticed its appeal of that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court
granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective action
certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective
action members. The court stayed all other proceedings pending
the Ninth Circuit appeal. On September 13, 2013, Plaintiffs moved
to dismiss the appeal based on collateral estoppel in light of
the Washington Supreme Court's August 15, 2013 ruling. The
company opposed that motion. The appeal and Plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss are currently pending.


HEALTH NET: June 4 Hearing Set in Info Security Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is set June 4, 2014 for the settlement
of three related litigation matters pending against Health Net,
Inc. in California state and federal courts relating to
information security issues, 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 21, 2011, International Business Machines Corp.
("IBM"), which handles the company's data center operations,
notified the company that it could not locate several hard disk
drives that had been used in the company's data center located in
Rancho Cordova, California. The company since determined that
personal information of approximately two million former and
current Health Net members, employees and health care providers
is on the drives. Commencing on March 14, 2011, the company
provided written notification to the individuals whose
information is on the drives. To help protect the personal
information of affected individuals, the company offered them two
years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity
theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit
files services, if needed.

On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this
incident was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (the "Central District of
California"), and similar actions were later filed against the
company in other federal and state courts in California. A number
of those actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California (the
"Eastern District of California"), and the two remaining actions
are currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Francisco ("San Francisco County Superior Court") and the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Sacramento
County Superior Court"). The consolidated amended complaint in
the federal action pending in the Eastern District of California
was filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000 of the
company's current or former members who received the written
notification, and also named IBM as a defendant. It sought to
state claims for violation of the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act and the California Customer Records Act,
and sought statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each class
member, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and other relief. On August 29, 2011, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 20,
2012, the district court issued an order dismissing the
consolidated complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing to bring their action in federal court. On April 20,
2012, an amended complaint with a new plaintiff was filed against
the company but no longer asserted claims against IBM. The
amended complaint asserted the same causes of action and sought
the same relief as the earlier complaint. On June 18, 2012, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is
currently pending.

The San Francisco County Superior Court proceeding was instituted
on March 28, 2011 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California residents who received the written notification, and
seeks to state similar claims against the company, as well as
claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and
seeks similar relief. The company moved to compel arbitration of
the two named plaintiffs' claims. The court granted the company's
motion as to one of the named plaintiffs and denied it as to the
other. The company appealed the latter ruling, but subsequently
dismissed the appeal.

Thereafter, the plaintiff as to whom the company's motion to
compel arbitration was granted filed a petition for a writ of
mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of
that ruling. On July 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a
peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to vacate
its order granting the motion to compel arbitration and to enter
an order denying the motion to compel.

The Sacramento County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on
April 3, 2012 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California members whose information was contained on the
unaccounted for drives. The action contains the same claims and
seeks the same relief as the case pending in the Eastern District
of California. On June 18, 2012, the company filed a demurrer
seeking dismissal of this complaint, which is currently pending.

In July 2013, the company entered into a settlement agreement
(the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs in the three
putative class actions described above. On October 23, 2013,
counsel for the named plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement with the Sacramento County
Superior Court. The Court granted that motion on November 21,
2013, and has scheduled the final approval hearing for June 4,
2014. On January 21, 2014, notices were sent to class members
advising them of the Settlement Agreement and providing them with
information regarding the benefits available to them, as well as
their rights to object or opt out of the Settlement Agreement. In
the event the Settlement Agreement receives final approval, each
of the three putative class actions described will be dismissed
with prejudice, and all class members who do not opt out will
release all claims they may have related to or arising from the
unaccounted-for server drives. Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, which would cover all individuals whose personal
information was identified as being on the unaccounted-for server
drives, class members who did not previously accept the company's
offer of the credit monitoring and related services described
would be eligible to receive such credit monitoring and related
services for a period of two years at no cost to them. Class
members who previously accepted the company's original offer
would be eligible to receive one additional year of such
services. In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, class
members would be eligible to receive reimbursement for certain
unreimbursed losses arising from identity theft during a
specified time period, up to a cap of $50,000 per class member,
and $2 million in the aggregate. The Settlement Agreement also
provides that the company will continue the company's ongoing
activities to enhance the company's information security
measures, including the encryption of data at rest on the
company's servers and storage area networks. The company will
also be responsible for the payment of the award by the
Sacramento County Superior Court of approximately $2.3 million in
fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel for the three class
actions.

Finally, the company will be responsible for the costs of
administering the Settlement Agreement. In the event that the
Sacramento County Superior Court does not grant final approval of
the Settlement Agreement, and the parties are unable to negotiate
a revised settlement agreement that is finally approved by the
Court, the pending litigation described will continue. In the
event the Settlement Agreement described receives final approval,
the company does not believe that the terms of the Settlement
Agreement would have a material impact on the company's
consolidated financial statements.


HEADWATERS INC: Hearing This Month on "Edwards" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for preliminary approval of a settlement reached in a
suit filed by James W. Edwards against Headwaters Incorporated is
set to be heard by the United States District Court for the
District of Utah in May 2014, according to the company's May 1,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In May 2013, James W. Edwards, purportedly a stockholder of
Headwaters Incorporated, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah against current and
former members of the Board of Directors of the Company and
against Headwaters Incorporated. The complaint alleges that the
Board breached its fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets
in connection with the Compensation Committee's grant of certain
stock appreciation rights to the Company's Chief Executive
Officer in November 2011 under the 2010 Incentive Plan (Plan).
The complaint alleges that the 2011 grant exceeded Plan limits
and that the 2013 Proxy Statement in connection with the
Company's 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders contained false and
misleading information concerning the 2011 grant. The complaint
seeks an order rescinding the 2011 grant, unspecified damages and
other remedies, plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. The
complaint is brought derivatively on behalf of Headwaters
Incorporated and as a purported class action on behalf of all
shareholders of record as of December 31, 2012.

Defendants filed their initial response to the complaint in
January 2014. The parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement in February 2014 and an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of settlement is set to be heard by the
District Court in May 2014. If an order of preliminary approval
is granted, the parties will proceed with additional steps
towards a settlement and thereafter file a motion for final
approval of the settlement.


HEADWATERS INC: Ruling in Suit Over Davidson Technology Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee with regards to compensatory damages award
in a suit related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by
James G. Davidson, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 1998, Headwaters entered into a technology purchase agreement
with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The transaction
transferred certain patent and royalty rights to Headwaters
related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by Davidson. In
2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee filed
by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other things,
fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent
infringement and interference with contract arising out of the
1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson
and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other. All
claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial proceedings
except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust. The District
Court certified a class comprised of substantially all purported
stockholders of Adtech, Inc. The plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of $43.0
million plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages. In June
2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of $8.7
million for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion of
the class members. In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict
after a trial for the remaining 46 members of the class in the
amount of $7.3 million. In April 2011, the trial court entered an
order for a constructive trust in the amount of approximately
$16.0 million (the same amount as the sum of the previous jury
verdicts), and entered judgment against Headwaters in the total
approximate amount of $16.0 million, in accordance with the
verdicts and order on constructive trust. Headwaters filed a
supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from the judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Plaintiffs also filed notice of an appeal. The Federal Circuit
transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit on the basis of jurisdiction. A panel of the
Sixth Circuit held oral arguments in March 2013 and in April 2014
affirmed the judgment of the District Court in a divided
decision.


HEADWATERS INC: Suit by Archstone v. Eldorado Stone in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a complaint filed by Archstone in the
Nassau County Supreme Court of the State of New York, seeking
among others, class action defense fees accrued as a result of
construction damage to its apartment complex, according to
Headwaters Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York.
Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope
and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began
to rot and grow mold. In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and
began repairing the 21 apartment buildings. Also in 2008,
Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of
the State of New York against the prime contractor and its
performance bond surety, the designer, and Eldorado Stone, LLC
which supplied architectural stone that was installed by others
during construction. The prime contractor then sued over a dozen
subcontractors who in turn sued others. Most parties filed cross-
claims for contribution and indemnity against Eldorado Stone and
others. Archstone claims as damages approximately $36.0 million
in repair costs, $19.0 million in lost lease payments and rent
abatement, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued Archstone, and
$7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus prejudgment
interest and attorney's fees. Eldorado Stone answered denying
liability and tendered the matter to its insurers who are paying
for the defense of the case. Eldorado Stone sought summary
judgment on three of Archstone's four claims. After an
interlocutory appeal, the three claims were dismissed. Archstone
is seeking further review. The remaining Archstone claim of
common law indemnification applies to damages paid to the tenants
and associated attorney's fees. Meanwhile, discovery is underway.


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Has MoU to Settle Litigation Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Financial Corporation entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding for the settlement of the putative shareholder
class action lawsuit In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, according to
Heritage's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 4, 2014, Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the
plaintiffs providing the terms of an agreement in principle among
Washington Banking, its directors, Heritage and the plaintiffs
for the settlement of the putative shareholder class action
lawsuit captioned In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, pending before the
Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County
(the "Action"). The Action alleges that Washington Banking's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Washington Banking
and its shareholders in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October
23, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), under which Washington Banking
and Heritage will combine their organizations in a strategic
combination, with Washington Banking merging with and into
Heritage (the "Merger"). The Action also alleges, among other
things, that Heritage aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by Washington Banking's directors and that the
public disclosures concerning the Merger are misleading in
various respects.

Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved
the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs. If the
Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the
lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. There can be no
assurance, however, that the parties will ultimately enter into a
definitive settlement agreement or that the Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties enter into such an agreement.
In the absence of either event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement of the Action will not affect the Merger
consideration to be paid to Washington Banking's shareholders in
connection with the proposed Merger.


IMPERVA INC: Issued False and Misleading Statements, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Viswanath V. Shankar, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Imperva, Inc., Shlomo Kramer and Terrence
J. Schmid, Case No. 4:14-cv-01680-PJH (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2014)
alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations and business and its financial results.

Imperva is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Redwood
Shores, California.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.  Imperva provides data security
solutions focused on providing visibility and control over
business data across systems within the data center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West A Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com


KANE COUNTY, IL: Farmers Insurance Files Flood Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Schory, writing for Kane County Chronicle, reports that
Farmers Insurance Co. is suing Kane County and 12 of its
municipalities in a class-action lawsuit, alleging that the local
governments failed to take adequate steps to prevent flood damage
from torrential rains in April 2013.

Farmers Insurance sues Kane, municipalities over 2013 flooding
Also named in similar class-action lawsuits filed are Cook, Will,
DuPage, Lake and McHenry counties and all or nearly all their
municipalities.

The Kane lawsuit -- filed on behalf of the insurance company,
those insured with the company and property owners who sustained
extensive flood damage -- alleges the county and local
governments had "adequate time and opportunity" to take action
before the flooding that took place April 17 and 18, 2013.

Named as defendants are Kane County, Batavia, Geneva, St.
Charles, North Aurora, Sugar Grove, South Elgin, Gilberts,
Aurora, Montgomery, Elgin, Dundee Township and Big Rock.  The
suit claims that local governments ignored the effects of climate
change on rainfall and took no steps, or inadequate ones, to
address the problem.

"During the past 40 years, climate change in Kane County has
caused rains to be of greater volume, greater intensity and
greater duration than pre-1970 rainfall history evidenced,"
according to the lawsuit.  "Rendering the rainfall frequency
return tables employed by the reclamation district and each named
municipal defendant inaccurate and obsolete."

As recently as 2008, municipalities "adopted the scientific
principle that climate change caused increases in rainfall
amount, intensity and duration . . . as evidenced by their
adoption of the Chicago Climate Action Plan," the lawsuit states.

Last April's rains were "not an 'Act of God' " but within "the
climate-change adjusted 100-year rainfall return frequency,
relating to the Chicago Climate Action Plan."

"Many sanitary sewer water invasions . . . were so rapid that
geysers of sewer water shot out from floor drains, toilets,
showers and other basement floor openings," the suit states.

Farmers attorney Stuart Brody did not return phone messages
seeking comment.  Trent Frager, spokesman for Farmers Insurance,
would not say how much the company is trying to recover in
damages.

Mr. Frager said the company filed the lawsuit because officials
believe the damage caused was "completely preventable."

"Farmers has taken what we believe is the necessary action to
recover payments made on behalf of our customers, for damages
caused by what we believe to be a completely preventable issue,
as well as to prevent it from happening again," Mr. Frager said
in a statement.

Kane County Chairman Chris Lauzen and Geneva Mayor Kevin Burns
said they had not seen the complaint and could not comment about
it.

Sugar Grove Village President Sean Michels said he knew of only a
handful of houses in a couple of subdivisions that were flooded
last year.  He said there were fewer flooding incidents because
the village had taken steps to mitigate them.

"I wonder why they're in the insurance business if they do not
want to assume the risk," Mr. Michels said.  "Obviously, this is
something the attorneys will get wealthy over, and we will pay
higher premiums."

"Anybody can sue anybody for anything," Batavia Mayor
Jeff Schielke said.

"After the 1996 flood event, Batavia spent several million
dollars and totally rebuilt much of our sewer systems," Mr.
Schielke said. "Every area that was impacted, we spent the money
. . . and have not had any major problems I'm aware of in recent
years."

Mr. Schielke said building additional flood control measures
would amount to a major property tax hike to pay for it.

The case is scheduled to be in Kane County Court on July 3.


LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 1 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Lihua
International, Inc. common stock during the period from August 9,
2012 through April 30, 2014, seeking to recover damages for
violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the Lihua class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The lawsuit asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Lihua and certain of its officers and directors for
issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's
business and financial condition.  The Complaint alleges that:
(1) Lihua's business experienced a significant downturn starting
from late 2012; (2) Lihua's production activities slowed down
dramatically in 2013, and have almost ceased after January 31,
2014; (3) Lihua's warehouse has been seized by the local PRC
court; (4) Defendant Jianhua Zhu, Lihua's Chairman and CEO,
attempted to move inventory in order to hide them from creditors,
and is now being investigated by the police for larceny.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 30, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


LIN MEDIA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger With Media General
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
LIN Media LLC, John R. Muse, Royal W. Carson III, Peter S.
Brodsky, William H. Cunningham, Vincent L. Sadusky, Michael A.
Pausic, Douglas W. McCormick, William S. Banowsky, Jr., HM
Capital Partners LLC, Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III,
L.P., HM3 Coinvestors, L.P. Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund
IV, L.P., Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.,
HM4-EQ Coinvestors, L.P., Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P., Muse
Family Enterprises, Ltd., JRM Interim Investors, L.P., Media
General, Inc., Mercury New Holdco, Inc., Mercury Merger Sub 1,
Inc., Mercury Merger Sub 2, LLC, Case No. 9538-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct.,
April 15, 2014) alleges that the Board of Directors of LIN Media
violated fiduciary duties to all LIN Media Stockholders.

The case arises, according to the complaint, because HM Capital
Partners LLC, which is reportedly shutting down and, thus,
looking to liquidate its portfolio investments, has used its
control of the Lin Media Board to ensure that a corporate sale to
Media General will let HMC exchange its entire Lin Media stake
for cash, while the Company's public investors are left to accept
principally Media General stock.  Private equity firm HM Capital,
previously known as Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, Inc., HM Capital
co-founder and Lin Media director John Muse together hold
approximately 38% of the economic interests of Lin Media.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund
is a holder of LIN Media LLC's Class A Common Stock.

LIN Media LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.  LIN Media
is a local multimedia company that operates or services 43
television stations and seven digital channels across 23 markets
in the United States, enabling it to reach 10.5% of U.S. homes
that have a television.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Media General, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that owns and
operates 31 network-affiliated broadcast television stations in
28 US markets.  Mercury New Holdco, Inc., a Virginia corporation,
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Media General, but will be the
resulting parent company if the proposed merger with LIN Media is
consummated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          Jeff A. Almeida, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street, Suite 700
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
                  gjarvis@gelaw.com
                  jalmeida@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail:  markl@blbglaw.com


LIN MEDIA: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed Media General Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Pryor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lin Media LLC, John R. Muse, Royal W. Carson III,
Peter S. Brodsky, William H. Cunningham, Vincent L. Sadusky,
Michael A. Pausic, Douglas W. Mccormick, William S. Banowsky,
Jr., HM Capital Partners LLC, Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity
Fund III, L.P., HM3 Coinvestors, L.P. Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst
Equity Fund IV, L.P., Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity
Fund IV, L.P., HM4-EQ Coinvestors, L.P., Hicks, Muse & Co.
Partners, L.P., Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd., JRM Interim
Investors, L.P., Media General, Inc., Mercury New Holdco, Inc.,
Mercury Merger Sub 1, Inc., Mercury Merger Sub 2, LLC, Case No.
9577-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct., April 25, 2014) arises from the merger of
the Company with Media General.

On March 21, 2014, the Lin Media Board approved a merger
transaction in which Media General ostensibly agreed to pay
$27.82 per Lin Media share.

LIN Media LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.  LIN Media
is a local multimedia company that operates or services 43
television stations and seven digital channels across 23 markets
in the United States, enabling it to reach 10.5% of U.S. homes
that have a television.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Media General, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that owns and
operates 31 network-affiliated broadcast television stations in
28 US markets.  Mercury New Holdco, Inc., a Virginia corporation,
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Media General, but will be the
resulting parent company if the proposed merger with LIN Media is
consummated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          Jeff A. Almeida, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street, Suite 700
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
                  gjarvis@gelaw.com
                  jalmeida@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com


LIVE NATION: Sued Over Bruce Springsteen's Wrecking Ball Tour
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Forst, on behalf of herself and the Putative class v.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.,
Live Nation Concerts, Live Nation Ticketing LLC and ABC Corp. 1-
20, Case No. 3:14-cv-02452-AET-TJB (D.N.J., April 17, 2014)
alleges that Live Nation withheld more than 5% of the tickets
available for the Bruce Springsteen's 2012 Wrecking Ball tour, in
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
          Greg Michael Kohn, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
                  gkohn@nagelrice.com


MANNKIND CORP: Cal. Securities Lawsuit Closes After Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Consolidated Securities Action against MannKind Corporation
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has now concluded after it settled for $16.0 million, 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 January 31, 2011, several complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and four of the company's officers -- Alfred
E. Mann, Hakan S. Edstrom, Dr. Peter C. Richardson (a former
officer) and Matthew J. Pfeffer -- on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaints include
claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and were brought as purported shareholder class actions. In
general, the complaints alleged that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and prospects for
AFREZZA, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's common stock. The U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California consolidated the pending actions for all
purposes. The consolidated action is referred to as the
Securities Action.

On July 23, 2012, the Company, while continuing to deny all
allegations of wrongdoing or liability whatsoever arising out of
the Securities Action, and without in any way admitting fault or
liability, entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve
the Securities Action. The current and former officers and
directors named as individual defendants in the consolidated
lawsuits also entered into the stipulation of settlement.

In exchange for a release of all claims by the class members,
among others, and a dismissal of the consolidated lawsuits, the
Company agreed (i) to cause the Company's insurers to pay class
members and their attorneys a total of $16.0 million; and (ii) to
issue to class members and their attorneys 2,777,778 shares of
the Company's common stock. The Company also agreed that if the
consolidated closing bid price for the Company's common stock is
below $1.00 per share on the date the U.S. District Court enters
an order of final judgment, then the Company will issue into the
Escrow Account an additional 1,000,000 shares of its common
stock. On September 12, 2012, the U.S. District Court
preliminarily approved the settlement.

On December 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued the Order
and Final Judgment, providing final approval of the settlement
for the securities action. The Order and Final Judgment consisted
of requiring the Company to cause its insurers to pay $16.0
million and to issue the 2,777,778 shares of its common stock in
accordance with the stipulation of settlement. The Order and
Final Judgment did not include the requirement of the Company to
issue the additional 1,000,000 shares of its common stock. In
late September and in early October, following the preliminary
approval of the settlement, the Company's insurers remitted
payment of the $16.0 million into the Escrow Account. On December
31, 2012, following final approval of the settlement, the Company
initiated the transfer of the 2,777,778 shares of its common
stock into the Escrow Account. The stock transfer settled on
January 2, 2013. The shares were issued pursuant to an exemption
from registration provided by Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended. As of December 31, 2012, the Securities
Action was concluded.


MASTERCARD INC: Dismissal of ATM Operators Complaints Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the "ATM Operators Complaint" have appealed the
dismissal of both their complaints and their motion to amend
their complaints against Mastercard Inc. and Visa Inc., according
to Mastercard's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and
Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules
that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM
surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and
Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the
surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the
same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief
equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a
result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their
damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in
the tens of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely
mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint,
although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of
ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and
non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of
the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages
although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens
of millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint
and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action
complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. MasterCard
moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. In
February 2013, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to
dismiss the complaints. The plaintiffs' motion seeking approval
to amend their complaints was denied by the district court in
December 2013. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of both
their complaints and their motion to amend their complaints.


MASTERCARD INC: Interchange Litigation Continues in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International Incorporated continues to face a
consolidated interchange litigation in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (MDL No. 1720), according to
Mastercard Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints are styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International
Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service
Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken
together, the claims in the complaints are generally brought
under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege,
among other things, that MasterCard, Visa, and certain financial
institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees,
enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no
surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in
unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services. The
cases have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL
No. 1720. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.


MASTERCARD INC: U.S. Securities Suit Settlement Faces Objections
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court granted final approval to a settlement reached in a
securities suit filed against Mastercard Inc. in the United
States, and objectors have filed appeals against the settlement,
according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. In November
2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety with leave
to file an amended complaint. The class plaintiffs repled their
complaint. The causes of action and claims for relief in the
complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO-
related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to
expand their factual allegations based upon discovery that has
been garnered in the case. The class plaintiffs seek treble
damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an
order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In July 2009, the class
plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs served confidential expert
reports detailing the plaintiffs' theories of liability and
alleging damages in the tens of billions of dollars. The
defendants served their expert reports in December 2009 rebutting
the plaintiffs' assertions both with respect to liability and
damages.

In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International
Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment
sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa
U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement
and judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial
institutions.  The agreements provide for the apportionment of
certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties
and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or
severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of
one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations.  Among a
number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of
a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial
institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12% of the
monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement
involving only MasterCard and the financial institutions with
respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would
pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation and the
defendants separately entered into a settlement agreement with
the individual merchant plaintiffs (the terms of which were
consistent with a memorandum of understanding that was executed
by the parties in July 2012). The settlements included cash
payments that were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to
the omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement.
MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge
Rule. The court granted final approval of the settlement in
December 2013, which has been appealed by objectors to the
settlement.

Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard
and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt
out of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of
the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will
initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 25
opt-out complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous
merchants in various jurisdictions. Those cases are in the early
stages and the defendants have consolidated all of these matters
(except for one state court action) in front of the same court
that is overseeing the approval of the settlement. In addition,
certain competitors have raised objections to the settlement,
including Discover.  Discover's objections include a challenge to
the settlement on the grounds that certain of the rule changes
agreed to in the settlement constitute a restraint of trade in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the
fourth quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax
charge in the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement
agreements. In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with respect to
the settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a qualified
cash settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation. At
December 31, 2013, MasterCard had $723 million in the qualified
cash settlement fund classified as restricted cash on its balance
sheet. The class settlement agreement provided for a return to
the defendants of a portion of the class cash settlement fund
based upon the percentage of purchase volume represented by the
opt out merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash
settlement fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and
reclassified at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash
equivalents. In the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded
an incremental net pre-tax charge of $95 million related to these
opt out merchants, representing a change in its estimate of
possible losses relating to these matters.  Accordingly, as of
December 31, 2013, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $818
million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and
the filed and anticipated opt out merchant cases.

The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt out
merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if
the opt out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome,
in which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability.
MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may
change depending on progress in settlement negotiations or
depending upon decisions in any opt out merchant cases. In
addition, in the event that the merchant class litigation
settlement approval is overturned on appeal, a negative outcome
in the litigation could have a material adverse effect on
MasterCard's results of operations, financial position and cash
flows.


MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Face Merchant Fees Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Inc. provides updates on purported class actions filed
against it in Canada alleging it engaged in a conspiracy to
increase or maintain fees paid by merchants on credit card
transactions at its May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

In December 2010, the Canadian Competition Bureau (the "CCB")
filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal to
strike down certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules. In July 2013, the Competition Tribunal issued a decision
in MasterCard's favor and dismissed the CCB's application, which
was not appealed. In December 2010, a complaint styled as a class
action lawsuit was commenced against MasterCard in Quebec on
behalf of Canadian merchants. That suit essentially repeated the
allegations and arguments of the CCB application to the Canadian
Competition Tribunal and sought compensatory and punitive damages
in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In March
2011, a second purported class action lawsuit was commenced in
British Columbia against MasterCard, Visa and a number of large
Canadian financial institutions, and in May 2011 a third
purported class action lawsuit was commenced in Ontario against
the same defendants. These suits allege that MasterCard, Visa and
the financial institutions have engaged in a conspiracy to
increase or maintain the fees paid by merchants on credit card
transactions and establish rules which force merchants to accept
all MasterCard and Visa credit cards and prevent merchants from
charging more for payments with MasterCard and Visa premium
cards. The British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory
damages of $5 billion. The British Columbia and Ontario suits
also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as
injunctive relief, interest and legal costs. In April 2012, the
Quebec suit was amended to include the same defendants and
similar claims as in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. With
respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) the Quebec suit has
been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being temporarily suspended
while the British Columbia suit proceeds, and (3) the British
Columbia court held a class certification hearing in April 2013.
Additional complaints styled as class actions have been filed in
Saskatchewan and Alberta. The claims in these complaints largely
mirror the claims in the British Columbia and Ontario suits.


MARICOPA COLLEGE DISTRICT: Sued Over Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Greg Argos, writing for CBS5, reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed against the Maricopa County Community College
District alleging the district has not done enough for the
victim's of last year's security breach.

The complaint, filed April 28, alleges the district had known
about vulnerabilities in its information technology systems for
years, but had "negligently, recklessly and/or knowingly failed
to take appropriate steps to remediate those vulnerabilities."

"In broad brush strokes, we are asking for compensation for the
victims, (and) protection for the victims," said Mark Fuller, an
attorney for Gallagher & Kennedy, the firm which filed the
complaint.

Mr. Fuller described the information exposed as much more than
simple credit card numbers.

"It's a gift-wrapped pack of information," he said.

"It's dates of birth, addresses, names, social security numbers
and a wide variety of other information, some of which has not
been disclosed by the district.  We still don't know the full
extent of (the breach)," he said.

One of the plaintiffs named in the complaint is Gary Vigneault.
Mr. Vigneault, a retired Phoenix police officer, both attended
and was an adjunct professor at MCCCD.  He said his information
has been used by identity thieves to open credit cards, and even
file a tax return under his name.

If a judge certifies the complaint, the district could be forced
to pay $2,500 per person.  That would equal more than $6 billion
in pay outs, though that is unlikely as a final settlement.

Maricopa County Community Colleges refused repeated requests from
CBS 5 News for an on-camera interview.  Rather, spokesperson
Tom Gariepy released this written statement:

"We don't comment on the merits of a lawsuit that has been filed
except to say that we are prepared to defend the case
vigorously."

Gallagher & Kennedy attorneys plan to be back in the courtroom on
Monday, urging a Superior Court judge to move forward with their
application to get MCCCD to produce public records in conjunction
with their data breach case.


MAZDA MOTOR: Accused of Selling Vehicles With Defective Engines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Paschal, individually, and on behalf' of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.,
Case No. 8:14-cv-00594-AG-RNB (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2014) is
brought on behalf of all persons in the state of California, who
purchased or leased a 2004-2008 Mazda RX8 vehicle, manufactured,
distributed, and sold by Mazda Motor of America, Inc., and its
related subsidiaries or affiliates.

Because of defects in the design, manufacture, and assembly of
the engines installed in the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles,
and their engines, are by their nature susceptible to frequent
mechanical failure, Ms. Paschal contends.

Mazda Motor of America, Inc., is a California corporation.  Mazda
designs, manufactures, constructs, assembles, markets,
distributes, and sells automobiles and other motor vehicles and
motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: smh@kpclegal.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
          E-mail: robert@starrlawmail.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Infuse Product Liability Suits for $22MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alexander, writing for Star Tribune, reports that in a
first of its kind settlement, Medtronic said on May 6 it would
pay $22 million to end product liability lawsuits involving 950
people who used its controversial Infuse Bone Graft product.

But that appears to be only the beginning.  The Fridley-based
medical device company said 3,800 similar claims, some of them
not yet filed, could create settlement costs for it of $120
million to $140 million.  It plans to take a special charge for
those costs against the results of its recently-completed fiscal
fourth quarter.

Plaintiffs' attorneys allege the Infuse Bone Graft caused injury
after being used in ways that weren't approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

When the FDA approved Infuse in 2002, it was for use in the lower
back.  But many of the claims against Medtronic allege that
patients suffered ill-effects when Infuse was used on bones in
other parts of the body, such as the neck.

In addition, some of the suits allege that Medtronic misled
doctors about the safety of using Infuse for these so-called "off
label," or non-FDA-approved uses.  Doctors are free to use
medical products as they see fit, but medical device makers such
as Medtronic are not supposed to market the product for off-label
purposes.

In one of the product liability suits filed in Minnesota,
Hennepin County Judge Laurie Miller noted that a doctor was
willing to testify that Medtronic-affiliated physicians
misrepresented the safety of Infuse in non-FDA-approved uses.

The settlements follow a report last year that two independent
university studies found Medtronic overstated the benefits of
Infuse.  And in 2012, Medtronic agreed to an out-of-court
settlement in which it paid $85 million to disgruntled investors
who said the company had inflated its stock price by not
disclosing that Infuse was being used largely in ways that were
not approved by the government.

The product liability settlements also are occurring at a time
when Medtronic had begun losing one of its most effective
arguments for avoiding trials in the Infuse cases.  It had
invoked U.S. Supreme Court decisions that usually exclude people
injured by federally-approved medical devices from suing their
makers, convincing judges that the company was protected by law
from the Infuse suits.

But judges in some state and federal courts decided to let Infuse
cases go forward because of the special circumstances involved:
the bone grafts were used in ways not approved by the FDA.

Still, Medtronic in April avoided trial in the first Infuse
product liability case to get that far.  It won a summary
judgment after the plaintiff dropped Medtronic from her product
liability lawsuit in California Superior Court; she continued to
sue other medical companies in connection with her injuries.

The university studies critical of Medtronic came about after
spine experts and U.S. lawmakers charged that Medtronic-sponsored
studies of Infuse overstated the product's benefits and
downplayed its risks.  To clear the air, Medtronic commissioned
two independent reviews.

Last June, the reviews, conducted by University of York in
England and at Oregon Health and Science University, concluded
that Infuse was no more effective than the older, traditional
method of spurring bone growth.  But the Oregon group said that
Medtronic-sponsored publications had reported Infuse test results
in a way to make it look as if Infuse were more effective than
traditional treatment.

Medtronic said last June that the two studies confirmed what the
company had long claimed: That Infuse was a safe and effective
product, although it posed some risks that must be considered by
patients and doctors.


MISSOURI: Social Services Department Faces Medicaid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Phillips, writing for KY3, reports that a Dallas County
woman is at the front end of a $7.6 million dollar class action
settlement with the Missouri Department of Social Services.
Romona Willhoite is the named client in what became a 14,000
person class action Medicaid lawsuit in Willhoite v Missouri
Department of Social Services, et al.

Craig Heidemann -- cheidemann@bolivarlaw.com -- of Douglas, Haun
and Heidemann in Bolivar was one of the lead attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the case. He says the state was violating federal
law with its practice of placing liens on Medicaid recipients'
personal injury settlements in order to recoup medical charges.
The suit relied on the 2006 United Supreme Court decision,
Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ahlborn.

Mr. Heidemann says, "While the Department is legally obligated to
seek reimbursement for medical charges it paid on behalf of
Medicaid recipients, federal law prohibits states from using
certain methods to recover these funds.  The State of Missouri
recovered money from the settlements in excess of the amounts
they received as reimbursement for their medical bills by
asserting liens on their entire settlements."

Mr. Heidemann says his clients won summary judgments from federal
judges twice, which he says forced the state to the bargaining
table for settlement talks.  The settlement announced this week
comes after a couple of months of negotiations.  Mr. Heidemann
says the 14,000 people come from Missouri and many other states.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Missouri Department of
Social Services will reimburse class members for amounts taken
using the unlawful lien procedures.  Additionally, the Department
agreed to change its process for recovering funds from Medicaid
clients.

Mr. Heidemann says the individual settlement amounts range from
$50 to as much as $50,000.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Works to Settle Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California entered an Order staying a consolidated securities
suit against Monster Beverage Corporation to allow the parties
time to complete their negotiations and to prepare and file
papers seeking approval of any proposed 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.

On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action
complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court"). On September 17, 2008, a
second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v.
Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District
Court. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and
appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of
Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the
"Consolidated Class Action Complaint").

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during
the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class
Period"). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks,
Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally
alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false
and misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution
coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its
sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of
shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public
information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial
statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain
promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint
alleged 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, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff
thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the
"Amended Class Action Complaint"). While similar in many respects
to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class
Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made certain new
allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel
stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or
misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other
statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer
named Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.

On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the
claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including
plaintiff's allegations relating to promotional expenses, but
denied defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the majority
of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's channel stuffing
allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification
on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice,
on January 17, 2014. Fact discovery in the action was stayed
pending resolution of the class certification motion.

Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the
parties are currently negotiating the terms of a possible
settlement of the action.  On February 11, 2014, the District
Court entered an Order staying the action to allow the parties
time to complete their negotiations and to prepare and file
papers seeking approval of any proposed settlement. A status
conference is scheduled for March 13, 2014.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Faces Lawsuit Over Monster Energy Label, Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage Corporation has been named as a defendant in
various false advertising putative class actions and in a private
attorney general action, 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 these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly
labeled and advertised Monster Energy brand products that
allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits
(including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products
do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The
plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy brand products
at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients
that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In
connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs
claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings
and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific
statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse
reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink
products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain
ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with
other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure,
palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects
and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these
allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state
consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and
false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. The
Company regards these cases and allegations as having no merit.
Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to
time in the normal course of business, including intellectual
property litigation and claims from terminated distributors.
Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of such
litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, management
believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations.


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Mass. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts held a hearing on the motion of ModusLink Global
Solutions, Inc. to dismiss a securities suit filed against it,
but the court has not yet issued a decision, according to the
company's March 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 31,
2013.

On June 11, 2012, the company announced the pending restatement
of the Company's financial statements for the periods ending on
or before January 31, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"),
related to the Company's accounting treatment of rebates
associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. The
restated financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013.
After the June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders of the Company
commenced three purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the
circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the
"Securities Actions"), entitled, respectively:

     (i) Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June
12, 2012 (the "Collier Action");

    (ii) Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All
Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.,
Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC,
filed June 18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and

   (iii) Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C.
Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July
11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action").

Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf
of those persons who purchased shares of the Company between
September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class
Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues
raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period
rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's
financial condition materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The
Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013.
On November 8, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the Company's
motion, but it has not yet issued a decision.


MOODY'S CORP: Appeal Filed in Now Settled "Cheyne SIV" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two plaintiffs whose claims were not covered by a settlement
reached in a suit filed by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank against
subsidiaries of Moody's Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking
reversal of the Court's denial of class certification, according
to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint.

In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary
judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud
claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case
law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims.

In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except
for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19,
2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the
negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court
ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting
fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims
of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud
claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those
plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The
court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and
abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were
dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7,
2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the
claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed.

On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April
24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14
plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated
to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as
against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation
on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of
two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed by the Court. On
May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their
claims and also seeking reversal of the Court's denial of class
certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in
earlier proceedings, they seek approximately $76 million in total
compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue
on the appeal.


MOODY'S CORP: Rhinebridge SIV Rating Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement in a suit over
the rating of securities issued by a structured investment
vehicle called Rhinebridge Plc, plaintiffs stipulated to the
voluntary dismissal of putative class actions, according to
Moody's Corp.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington and Iowa
Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially
identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other
defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche
Industriebank AG. These actions arose out of investments in
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called
Rhinebridge Plc (the "Rhinebridge SIV") and sought, among other
things, compensatory and punitive damages. Each complaint
asserted a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency
defendants, alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings
assigned to the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were
false and misleading. The case was assigned to the same judge
presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV,
described above. In April 2010, the court denied the rating
agency defendants' motion to dismiss. In June 2010, the court
consolidated the two cases and the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that, among other things, added Morgan Stanley & Co. as
a defendant.

In January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the
court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that
asserted claims against the rating agency defendants for breach
of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the
rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the
new claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim and a
claim for aiding and abetting fraud; on September 28, 2012, after
further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs did not seek class
certification. On September 7, 2012 the rating agencies filed a
motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims
against them. On January 3, 2013, the Court issued an order
dismissing the claim for aiding and abetting fraud against the
rating agencies but allowing the claim for fraud to proceed to
trial. In June 2012 and March 2013, respectively, defendants IKB
Deutsche Industriebank AG (and a related entity) and Fitch, Inc.
informed the court that they had executed confidential settlement
agreements with the plaintiffs.

On April 24, 2013, pursuant to a confidential settlement
agreement, the plaintiffs stipulated to the voluntary dismissal,
with prejudice, of all remaining claims as against the remaining
defendants, including Moody's, and the Court so ordered that
stipulation on April 26, 2013.


NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Resolves Suit Over Safety of Model Car Seat
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported national Canadian class action alleging that a
certain model car seat sold by an affiliate of Newell Rubbermaid
Inc. did not satisfy all requisite government safety standards
was resolved in 2013, 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 was a party to three purported state class actions
and one purported national Canadian class action. The cases
included allegations that a certain model car seat sold by an
affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government
safety standards. Each of these actions was resolved in 2013 on
terms favorable to the Company.

The City of Sao Paulo's Green and Environmental Office (the "Sao
Paulo G&E Office") was seeking fines of up to approximately $4.0
million related to alleged improper storage of hazardous
materials at the Company's tool manufacturing facility located in
Sao Paulo, Brazil. In December 2013, the Company received notice
from the Sao Paolo G&E Office that the notice of fine had been
canceled, thus resolving the matter.


OIL STATES: Fails to Pay Overtime to Oilfield Workers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oil States Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00126
(S.D. Tex., April 15, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff, and
others workers like him, were typically scheduled for 12 hour
shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time out in the oilfield
but they never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
in a single work week.

Oil States Industries, Inc. performs substantial business
activities in the Southern District of Texas, including
throughout the Corpus Christi Division.  Oil States is a global
oilfield services and manufacturing company with significant
completion and land drilling operations in every major United
States shale basin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          State Bar No. 24078444
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


ON ASSSIGNMENT: Accrues $2.1MM to Resolve Lawsuit Over Nurse Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Assignment, Inc. accrued approximately $2.1 million for a
settlement to resolve an alleged class action dispute regarding
the payment of certain of its nurses, 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 legal proceedings, claims and
litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. The
Company has accrued approximately $2.1 million for a settlement,
inclusive of all plaintiffs' costs and legal expenses, to resolve
an alleged class action dispute regarding the payment of certain
of the company's nurses when the company owned a Nurse Travel
division from 2008 to 2013.


OPKO HEALTH: Still Faces Litigation Over Acquisition of PROLOR
--------------------------------------------------------------
In re PROLOR Biotech, Inc. Shareholders' Litigation (Case No. A-
13-680860-B) continues, according to OPKO Health, Inc.'s March 3,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Several lawsuits have been filed against PROLOR, the members of
PROLOR's Board of Directors, and OPKO challenging the merger, and
an adverse judgment in any such lawsuit may have a material
adverse effect on the company's financial condition as well as
divert the attention of the company's management and resources
generally.

Six putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the company's acquisition of PROLOR. In July 2013, the
individual actions were consolidated for all purposes into an
amended class action complaint as part of the In re PROLOR
Biotech, Inc. Shareholders' Litigation (Case No. A-13-680860-B).
The lawsuit names PROLOR, the members of PROLOR's Board of
Directors, and OPKO as defendants. The lawsuit is brought by
purported holders of PROLOR's common stock, both individually and
on behalf of a putative class of PROLOR's stockholders, asserting
claims that (i) PROLOR's Directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed Merger by, among other
things, purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, (ii)
PROLOR and its Board of Directors failed to disclose material
information concerning the proposed Merger, and (iii) OPKO aided
and abetted PROLOR's Directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary
duties. The lawsuit seeks various damages, an award of all costs,
and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as certain equitable
relief, including rescission of the merger. Although the company
believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend such claims vigorously; there can be no
assurance that the company will prevail. An unfavorable
resolution of any such litigation surrounding the acquisition
could have a material adverse impact on the company's financial
condition. In addition, the cost of defending the litigation,
even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Such litigation
could also substantially divert the attention of the company's
management and resources in general.


OPKO HEALTH: Faces Suit by PROLOR Biotech Shareholders in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. continues to face a consolidated suit filed by
PROLOR Biotech, Inc. shareholders in the Eighth Judicial District
Court in and for Clark County, Nevada, according to OPKO's March
3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 29, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada
against PROLOR Biotech, Inc. ("PROLOR"), the members of the
PROLOR Board of Directors, individually (including Drs. Frost and
Hsiao and Steven Rubin), and the Company. From May 1, 2013
through May 6, 2013, the company was named in an additional five
putative class actions lawsuits filed in the Eight Judicial
District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada against the same
defendants. On July 17, 2013, these six suits were consolidated,
for all purposes, into an amended class action complaint, and on
or around October 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint. The lawsuit is brought by
purported holders of PROLOR's common stock, both individually and
on behalf of a putative class of PROLOR's stockholders, asserting
claims that PROLOR's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger by purportedly failing to
maximize stockholder value, that PROLOR and its Board of
Directors failed to disclose material information to PROLOR's
stockholders, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages,
including increased consideration to PROLOR's stockholders,
equitable relief, including, among other things, rescission of
the Merger Agreement along with rescissionary damages, and an
award of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.


PACIFIC GAS: Dismissal of Calif. Customers' Lawsuit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit filed on behalf of all California
residents who were customers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas
and Electric Company have appealed the dismissal of the case to
the California Court of Appeal, according to the company's May 1,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco
Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the Utility (and
other unnamed defendants) by individuals who seek certification
of a class consisting of all California residents who were
customers of the Utility between 1997 and 2010, with certain
exceptions.  The plaintiffs allege that the Utility collected
more than $100 million in customer rates from 1997 through 2010
for the purpose of various safety measures and operations
projects but instead used the funds for general corporate
purposes such as executive compensation and bonuses.  The
plaintiffs allege that PG&E Corporation and the Utility engaged
in unfair business practices in violation of California state
law.  The plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement, as well
as compensatory and punitive damages.  PG&E Corporation and the
Utility contest the plaintiffs' allegations.  In May 2013, the
court granted PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's request to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the CPUC has exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the plaintiffs'
allegations.  The plaintiffs have appealed the court's ruling to
the California Court of Appeal.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Reinstates $10.1BB Class Action Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that the Fifth District Appellate Court has reinstated a $10.1
billion Madison County bench verdict in a class action lawsuit
against Philip Morris USA that alleges the company misled
consumers about "light" and "low tar" cigarettes.

The class action lawsuit, which was filed in 2000 by attorney
Stephen Tillery, alleged Philip Morris deceptively marketed light
cigarettes.  The lawsuit was the nation's first to accuse a
tobacco company of consumer fraud, and the original verdict
awarded Mr. Tillery's team almost $2 billion in fees.

Reaching its decision to reinstate the 2003 verdict, the panel
concluded that Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth exceeded
the scope of his Section 2-1401 review when he "attempted to
predict how the supreme court would rule on the question of
damages."

Contrary to the tobacco giant's assertion, the appeals panel
determined that Ruth's discussion of what the Illinois Supreme
Court would have decided had it addressed certain issues is
"inherently speculative in a way its discussion of the impact of
the new information on the issue it actually did decide is not."

"For these reasons, the order denying the petition for relief
from judgment must be reversed," Justice Melissa Chapman wrote
for the panel.

Justices Bruce Stewart and S. Gene Schwarm, who took over for
Justice James Wexstten on the panel following his retirement in
December, concurred in the 30-page ruling.

Philip Morris, which is owned by Altria Company, said it would
seek immediate review by the Illinois Supreme Court.  While the
review is pending, the appellate court's decision is stayed
automatically.

"Almost 10 years ago, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
Price judgment as contrary to Illinois law," said Murray Garnick,
Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate
general counsel.  "The Fifth District Court of Appeals' decision
. . . conflicts with that ruling and essentially overrules a
decision of a higher court."

In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the judgment
against Philip Morris, which was imposed by former Madison
Circuit Judge Nicholas G. Byron, sitting without a jury.

The original case, which was filed on behalf of Sharon A. Price
alleged that Illinois smokers were deceived in purchasing
Marlboro "Lights" and Cambridge "Lights" cigarettes and were
entitled to a refund.

The Illinois Supreme Court later threw out the verdict, saying
the Federal Trade Commission allowed companies to characterize or
label their cigarettes as "light" and "low tar."  The state
Supreme Court ruled that Philip Morris could not be held liable
under state law even if the terms were misleading or false.

The U.S. Supreme Court let that ruling stand in 2006, and
Judge Byron dismissed the case the next month.  However, in a 5-4
decision in 2008, the nation's high court ruled in favor of three
Maine residents who said smokers should be able to use state
consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for promoting
"light" and "low tar" brands.

Mr. Tillery said that that decision counted as new evidence and
could be applied to reinstate his case, and the Fifth District on
Tuesday agreed.

The class action lawsuit claims that Philip Morris knew when it
introduced light cigarettes in 1971 that they were no healthier
than regular cigarettes and that the light version actually
contained a more toxic form of tar.

The suit claimed that the tobacco company deceptively promoted
health benefits of light and lowered tar and nicotine cigarettes.

The defendant argued during the appeals process that while the
trial court can grant relief from its own order dismissing the
petition, it cannot grant relief from the Supreme Court's order
reversing the judgment.

"The flaw in this argument is that the only ruling the supreme
court actually reversed was the trial court's ruling on the
defendant's section 10b(1) defense," the opinion states.

"Although it is true that the court may well have reversed the
judgment on other grounds, it would not have done so without
considering the merits of those issues. We find that granting
relief from judgment has the effect of reinstating the
proceedings with the verdict intact."

Mr. Garnick said the law does not allow the Fifth District to
reopen a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court based on
speculation about the possible impact of subsequent events on the
higher court's ruling.

"In addition, the Fifth District erred in ordering reinstatement
despite the fact that the Illinois Supreme Court previously
raised other problems with the judgment, including whether the
case was properly certified as a class action," Mr. Garnick said
in a press release.

Mr. Tillery said in a statement: "We are pleased with the Fifth
District's well-reasoned decision and are happy that Philip
Morris will finally be held accountable for deceiving Illinois
consumers."

Mr. Garnick said that if the Illinois Supreme Court declines to
review the case at this point, Philip Morris will pursue an
appeal, to which a $250 million bond cap would apply.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now prohibits the use of
"Lights" and other descriptors unless a manufacturer receives
authorization to use the terms.

The FDA began regulating tobacco products in 2009 with the
passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

The $10.1 billion verdict included $1.8 billion in attorneys
fees.


POLYCOM INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the suit Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case
No.3:13-cv-03476-SC filed motions to dismiss an amended
complaint, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following the July 23, 2013 announcement regarding the departure
of the Company's former CEO, the SEC initiated an investigation,
a class action lawsuit was filed, and derivative lawsuits were
filed.

In July 2013, the Company was informed that the SEC was
investigating the Audit Committee's review of Mr. Miller's
expenses and his resignation. The investigation is ongoing, and
the SEC has requested information from the Company. The Company
is cooperating with the investigation.

On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, captioned
Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No.3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. On December 13, 2013, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel.
On February 24, 2014,the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleges that, between January
20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false
and misleading statements or failed to disclose information
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies, including with respect to its former Chief Executive
Officer's expense submissions and the Company's internal
controls. The lawsuit further alleges that the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading. The
amended complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: ERISA Claim Certification in "Seibert" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's motion for class certification of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act claim in Seibert v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was denied, according to the
company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the
Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey
state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide
who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were
terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among
other things, unspecified damages. The defendants removed the
complaint to the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added
claims under ERISA. The Company filed a motion seeking to limit
the application of the NJLAD to only those members of the
purported class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the
individual defendants. The motion was granted. The only remaining
NJLAD claim is that of the named plaintiff. Both parties have
filed summary judgment motions. The defendants' motion was
granted in part, but denied as to an ERISA claim, and the
plaintiff's motion was denied. The plaintiff's motion for class
certification of the ERISA claim was denied.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Motion to Dismiss Celera Stock Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's motion to dismiss In re Celera
Corp. Securities Litigation was denied, according to Quest's
May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former
officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that
from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations
regarding a financial restatement. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers
of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged
misrepresentations were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint was denied.

In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia seeking various
business records, including records related to the Company's
compliance program, certain marketing materials, certain product
offerings, and test ordering and other policies. The Company is
cooperating with the request.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Beery" Suit by Female Sales Reps Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostics Incorporated's motion to compel arbitration in a suit
filed on behalf of female sales representatives was granted and
the case was dismissed, according to the company's May 1, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a
subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives
employed by the defendants from February 17, 2010 to the present.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate
against these female sales representatives on account of their
gender, in violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay
acts, and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and
monetary damages. The Company's motion to compel arbitration was
granted and the case was dismissed. In the arbitration, the
plaintiffs requested to proceed on a class basis. The Company
objected to the plaintiffs' request. The arbitrator denied the
plaintiff's request.


SAFETY-KLEEN SERVICES: Certification Hearing in Fees Suit Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on class certification in a suit alleging that Safety-
Kleen Services, Inc. improperly assessed fuel surcharges and
extended area service fees is now scheduled to be held in early
to mid-2014, according to Clean Harbors, 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 October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel
surcharges and extended area service fees. Safety-Kleen disputes
the basis of the claims on numerous grounds, including that
Safety-Kleen has contracts with numerous customers authorizing
the assessment of such fees and that in cases where no contract
exists Safety-Kleen provides customers with a document at the
time of service reflecting the assessment of the fee, followed by
an invoice itemizing the fee. It is Safety-Kleen's position that
it had the right to assess fuel surcharges, that the customers
consented to the charges and that the surcharges were voluntarily
paid by the customers when presented with an invoice. The lawsuit
is still in its initial stages of discovery, with the focus being
whether a class will be certified. The class certification-
related fact discovery cutoff was September 4, 2013, and a
hearing on class certification is now scheduled to be held in
early to mid-2014. The 79 plaintiff has filed a motion to extend
the discovery cutoff and trial date, but the court has not ruled
on these requests. In late June 2012, a nearly identical lawsuit
was filed by the same law firm on behalf of a California-based
customer. That lawsuit contends, under various state law
theories, that Safety-Kleen impermissibly assessed fuel
surcharges and late payment fees and seeks certification of a
class of California customers only. Safety-Kleen will assert the
same defenses as in the Alabama litigation. In December 2012, a
similar suit was filed by the same law firm on behalf of a
Missouri-based customer which contends under various state law
theories that Safety-Kleen impermissibly assessed fuel surcharges
and seeks certification of a class of Missouri customers only.
Safety-Kleen will assert the same defenses as in the Alabama and
California cases. The Company is unable to ascertain the ultimate
aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with
respect to these matters as of December 31, 2013, and no reserve
has been recorded.


SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Seeks to Amend Antitrust Claims Anew
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ritz Camera & Image, LLC sought leave to file a fourth amended
complaint in a suit alleging Sandisk Corporation violated federal
antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize the market for flash
memory products, according to Sandisk's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2013.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct
purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint
ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the
present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and
maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using
them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other
patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the
District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in
part the Company's motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr.
Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the
Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the
"Federal Circuit") for the portion of the District Court's Order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of
standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October
27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case
pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition.
On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2,
2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case
to the District Court. Discovery is now open in the District
Court. On February 20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that
Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy
estate, be substituted as the plaintiff in this case, which the
District Court granted on July 5, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the
District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and
E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On December 17,
2013, Ritz sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which
would add a cause of action for attempted monopolization and add
another named plaintiff.


SANDISK CORP: Dismissal of "Oliver" Suit Over SD Cards Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the complaint Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al. filed on
behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards
are appealing the dismissal of the case, according to Sandisk
Corp.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

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


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action complaints were filed against Sarepta
Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 27,
2014 (Corban v. Sarepta et al) and January 29, 2014 (Baradanian
v. Sarepta et al), 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 plaintiffs are alleged purchasers of Company common stock who
seek to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or
entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company
between July 24, 2013 and November 12, 2013. The complaints
allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen, the
Company's lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and seek damages in
an unspecified amount. Given the relatively early stages of the
proceedings in the purported claims, at this time, no assessment
can be made as to the likely outcome of these claims or whether
the outcomes would have a material impact on the Company.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit Proceeds as Part of MDL No. 2179
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action originally filed as John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 is now part of
the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil
Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, according to SEACOR
Holdings 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 July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K)
(the "Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other
theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his
exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection
with the provision of remediation, containment and response
services by ORM, a subsidiary of the Company prior to the ORM
Transaction, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and
clean-up in the U.S Gulf of Mexico. The action now is part of the
overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("MDL"). The
complaint also seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised
medical monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in
BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or
Horizon Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries
similar to those of Mr. Wunstell.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM, NRC Await Ruling in Motions Related to MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
A decision is still pending on motions of O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. and National Response Corporation for summary
judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied
preemption arguments in one of several consolidated "master
complaints" that have been filed in the overall multi-district
litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon",
MDL No. 2179, according to SEACOR Holdings 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 December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC, subsidiaries of the Company
prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction,
respectively, were named as defendants in one of the several
consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the
overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts
various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple
defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the
use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell
Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the
referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims
asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no
merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all
claims against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On
September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended
decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several
grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original
order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced
master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did
recognize the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied
preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM
and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to
support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments.
The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain
other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master
complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have
failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for
limited discovery and motion practice was established by the
Court and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed
for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and
implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were
argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. In
addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to
contractual agreements with the responsible party, the
responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential
limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection
with these claims in the MDL.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Exposure to E&P, Medical Settlements Reduced
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. believes the Economic and Property Damages
Class Action Settlement and the Medical Benefits Class Action
Settlement have reduced the Company and O'Brien's Response
Management Inc.'s potential exposure to these suits, according to
SEACOR'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 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP
America Production Company ("BP America") (collectively "BP") and
the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two
proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other
things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related
claims against BP. The parties filed their proposed settlement
agreements on April 18, 2012 along with motions seeking
preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court held a hearing
on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and preliminarily
approved both settlements on May 2, 2012. A final fairness
hearing took place on November 8, 2012. The Court granted final
approval to the Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement ("E&P Settlement") on December 21, 2012, and granted
final approval to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
("Medical Settlement") on January 11, 2013. Both class action
settlements were appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Following
briefing and remand to the MDL court concerning a specific issue,
the Medical Settlement appellants moved to voluntarily dismiss
their appeals, which the Fifth Circuit granted on December 4,
2013. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the MDL Court's decision
concerning the E&P Settlement on January 10, 2014. Although
neither the Company, ORM, or NRC are parties to the settlement
agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as released
parties on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements.
Consequently, barring any further appeal, class members who did
not file timely requests for exclusion will be barred from
pursuing economic loss, property damage, personal injury, medical
monitoring, and/or other released claims against the Company,
ORM, and NRC. The Company believes these settlements have reduced
the Company and ORM's potential exposure, if any, from some of
the pending actions, and continues to evaluate the settlements'
impacts on these cases.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Provides Updates on "DPH FLSA Actions" v. ORM
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its March 3, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, SEACOR
Holdings Inc. provided updates on three collective action
lawsuits filed against O'Brien's Response Management Inc. over
alleged failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who
provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response

ORM is defending against three collective action lawsuits, each
asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who
provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response (the
"DPH FLSA Actions") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
These cases -- Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management
Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action");
Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc.
et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the "Singleton
Action"); and Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management
Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite
Action") -- were each brought on behalf of certain individuals
who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who
were classified as independent contractors.  The Prejean,
Himmerite and Singleton Actions were each filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and
then subsequently consolidated with the overall MDL, in which the
Himmerite and Singleton Actions were stayed pursuant to
procedures of the MDL.  However, all three cases were severed
from the MDL on September 19, 2013, and referred to a Magistrate
Judge for pretrial case management, including issuing a
scheduling order, overseeing discovery, and any other preliminary
matters.  On October 31, 2013, ORM filed an answer in both the
Himmerite and Singleton Actions.  In the Himmerite and Singleton
Actions, pursuant to an earlier tolling order entered by the
Court, the limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in
to those actions have been tolled pending further action by the
Court.  In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the complaint and
a scheduling order has been issued. On November 6, 2013, the
Court conditionally certified a collective class in the Prejean
Action.  On December 9, 2013 the Court approved a jointly-
submitted form notice and authorized the issuance of notice to
all members of the conditionally certified class in the Prejean
Action. On December 20, 2013, ORM served plaintiffs' counsel with
a list containing information for approximately 330 potential
class members in the Prejean Action. Pursuant to the schedule
entered by the Court, potential class members have until February
28, 2014 to opt into the class by submitting consent forms to
their attorneys. Plaintiffs' counsel has until March 10, 2014 to
file all executed consent forms with the Court. Although the
Court has conditionally certified the Prejean class, the Court
has not made a final ruling on whether a class exists. The
Company intends to vigorously defend its position that a class
should not be certified, and intends on filing a motion to
decertify the Prejean class. The Court has also not yet ruled on
any of the merits of Plaintiffs' claims. On February 11, 2014,
the parties in the Singleton Action reached a full and final
settlement agreement with respect to all of the Plaintiff's
individual claims, which is pending final execution by certain
parties.  Once executed, the settlement agreement will be filed
with the Court for approval.


SERVICE CORP: "Moulton" Suit Stayed Pending Amended Claim Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans granted a joint
motion by all parties in the suit filed by Karen Moulton against
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. to extend all deadlines and stay all
action in the lawsuit until the filing by plaintiffs of a Second
Amended Petition within 14 days after publicizing the closing of
the merger between Service Corporation International (the
Company) and Rio Acquisition Corp., according to Service's March
3, 2014, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On June 13, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the Civil
District Court of the Parish of Orleans by Karen Moulton, an
alleged shareholder of the Company (Karen Moulton, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. et al., Case No. 2013-5636). A subsequent
similar suit and interventions have been consolidated with the
Moulton case.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, (i) the Company's board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties by conducting a
conflicted process to sell the Company, by agreeing to inadequate
consideration, and by agreeing to terms in the merger agreement
that impose deal protection devices that preclude other bidders
from making a successful competing offer, (ii) the Company's
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by failing to
disclose material information concerning the proposed
transaction, and (iii) that Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and Rio Acquisition Corp. aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the merger, and award the plaintiffs costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees. The Company and director defendants
believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend
themselves vigorously.

On August 9, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction to enjoin the special meeting of
shareholders on August 13, 2013.

On September 20, 2013, the court maintained an Exception of No
Cause of Action filed by Service Corporation International and
Rio Acquisition Corp., dismissing the claims against them for
aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
Company's directors, but allowing plaintiffs leave to amend their
petition. On October 14, 2013, the court granted a joint motion
by all parties extending all deadlines and staying all action in
the lawsuit until the filing by plaintiffs of a Second Amended
Petition within 14 days after the filing of a notice on
Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-K (or similar filing)
publicizing the closing of the merger between the Company and Rio
Acquisition Corp.  The court's order also provides a schedule for
certain procedural matters in the event of the filing of a Second
Amended Petition after the closing of the merger.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Chinese Drywall Poses Ongoing Risk to Families
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Virginian-Pilot reports that the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention has confirmed what families who lived in
homes made with Chinese drywall have known for years: They're at
risk for respiratory problems, headaches, nosebleeds, fatigue and
other health problems because of the toxic material in their
walls.

Researchers from the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry tested 30 Chinese drywall samples and used the
results to estimate levels of sulfur compounds -- including
hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide -- found indoors.

It's the first report that details the health issues stemming
from the defective drywall that was shipped to the United States,
American Samoa and Puerto Rico from China during the building
boom of the early 2000s.

Sadly, it's not clear that the report will help the thousands of
victims who have tried unsuccessfully to recover damages from the
drywall manufacturer.

Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., the China-based company responsible for
the toxic wallboard used in Virginia, has refused to acknowledge
that American courts have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.  As
The Pilot's Sarah Kleiner Varble reported, attorneys for the
homeowners believe the CDC's report will make it easier to set
aside money for medical expenses -- "if Taishan agrees to settle
or courts order the seizure and sale of the company's assets."

The defective wallboard, imported after Hurricane Katrina in 2005
and during the housing boom in 2006, damaged 300 to 400 homes in
Virginia and between 10,000 and 12,000 total.  The drywall
smelled like rotten eggs and emitted noxious gases that corroded
metals and caused major appliances to fail.

Until now, lawsuits filed in an attempt to recover damages and
hold the company accountable focused on property losses.  A few
of the companies involved in importation and installation have
settled with some of the homeowners, but the money is only a
fraction of what they lost.

Forbes magazine, estimating that the cost of repairing homes
could reach $5.4 billion, has called it one of the largest
product-safety cases in history.  It prompted a new federal law
last year requiring all drywall used in the United States to bear
a label with the name of the manufacturer so defective products
can be traced, and limiting the amount of sulfur.

The law also urged Chinese manufacturers -- some of which are
state-owned -- to make restitution to the thousands of Americans
whose houses were contaminated, but it has resulted in no
settlement.

As trade agreements evolve between China and the United States,
it's worth a reminder -- and a legal requirement: If Chinese
companies are going to do business here, they must meet basic
environmental and health standards and be held accountable when
they don't.


TIER REIT: Texas Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas granted a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
lawsuit filed against TIER REIT, Inc., according to the company's
May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On each of September 17 and November 28, 2012, lawsuits seeking
class action status were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).  On
January 4, 2013, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the
Court. The plaintiffs purported to file the suit individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, referred to herein as
"Plaintiffs."

Plaintiffs named the company, Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC,
the company's previous sponsor, as well as the directors at the
time of the allegations: Robert M. Behringer, Robert S. Aisner,
Ronald Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W. Partridge
(individually a "Director" and collectively the "Directors") and
Scott W. Fordham, the Company's President and Chief Financial
Officer, and James E. Sharp, the Company's Chief Accounting
Officer (collectively, the "Officers"), as defendants. In the
amended complaint filed on February 1, 2013, the Officers were
dismissed from the consolidated suit.

Plaintiffs alleged that (1) the Directors each individually
breached various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Plaintiffs,
(2) the Directors violated Sections 14(a) and (e) and Rules 14a-9
and 14e-2(b) of and under federal securities law and (3) the
defendants were unjustly enriched by the purported failures to
provide complete and accurate disclosure regarding, among other
things, the value of the company's common stock and the source of
funds used to pay distributions.

On March 27, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas granted the motion to dismiss the
lawsuit with prejudice from which no appeal was taken.


TRIPLE LEAF: Accused of Deceiving Slimming Herbal Tea Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eunice Johnson, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-01570-MMC (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2014) arises from the
Company's alleged claims about its Dieter's products.

Triple Leaf is a California corporation headquartered in San
Francisco.  Triple Leaf advertised, marketed, distributed, and
sold mixtures of botanicals, in tea bags, for the preparation of
herbal teas.  In particular, the Defendant advertised, marketed
and distributed three products, each comprised of senna leaf and
Chinese mallow, which the Defendant calls "Dieter's Green Herbal
Tea," "Ultra Slim Herbal Tea," and "Super Slimming Herbal Tea."

The Product's packaging claimed, inter alia, that the Product was
effective for weight-loss, Ms. Johnson says.  However, she
contends, because the Senna Diet Products contain no weight loss
ingredients or fat burners, it is are not an effective treatment
for weight loss or appetite suppression and does not, in fact,
work as advertised.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 546-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  skye@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com


USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge gave his blessing April 28 to a $3.5 million settlement in
a class action brought against USS-Posco Industries by a former
steel plant worker who accused the company of failing to provide
required meal and rest breaks and to pay workers for preshift
activities.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar's order approving the deal and
wrapping up the case also awarded class counsel from Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP and Brown Poore LLP $1.1 million in
fees and costs and handed enhancement payments of $8,000 and
$1,500 to named plaintiff Carl Cordy and subclass representative
Donald Jones, respectively.

"The court held a final fairness hearing on April 24, 2014, and
no one appeared at the hearing to object to the settlement.
Therefore, the court reaffirms its conclusions that the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and that the class is
certifiable . . . and therefore issues its final approval of the
parties' settlement agreement," Judge Tigar said.

Approval of the settlement comes after Judge Tigar refused to
sign off on a deal between Mr. Cordy and UPI in July, and Mr.
Cordy followed up with a revamped bid for approval in October
aimed at addressing the court's concerns. The deal garnered the
court's preliminary approval in January.

Mr. Cordy filed the case in Feb. 2012 against UPI, U.S. Steel
Corp., Posco-California Corp. and Pitcal Inc. under California
law. UPI is a general partnership of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-
based U.S. Steel and South Korea-based Pohang Iron & Steel Co.
Ltd. that has steelmaking facilities in California, which was
where Mr. Cordy worked, according to the complaint.

Mr. Cordy claimed UPI made workers clock in six minutes before
their shifts to don gear and get other tasks out of the way, but
didn't pay for that time.  He also said employees were denied
meal and rest breaks and that UPI didn't provide itemized wage
statements and failed to make timely payment of wages upon
termination or resignation.

Subclasses were certified for each of those four claims, all of
which covered nonexempt production and maintenance workers at
UPI's steelmaking plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California.

Under the deal, a net settlement amount of more than $2.1 million
was available for distribution to members of the four subclasses,
with the itemized wage statement class in line for the biggest
share: more than $1.1 million.

Plaintiffs' counsel had asked for slightly more in fees than the
court ultimately awarded, seeking $1,155,000, or 33 percent of
the gross settlement.  Judge Tigar started with a presumption
that 25 percent of the settlement amount was an appropriate
award, but he said special circumstances like the "vigorousness
of the litigation" and the fact that no class members objected to
the requested award warranted an upward adjustment.  The judge
concluded that $1,050,000, or 30 percent of the gross settlement,
was the right number.

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP's Carolyn Cottrell said in
an email Wednesday that the deal not only afforded the workers a
monetary recovery, but included injunctive relief that would help
ensure UPI complies with the law.

"Our clients are extremely pleased with the Court's approval of
this settlement, the results of which will benefit the
hardworking steelworkers at UPI's Pittsburg, California,
facility," Cottrell said.

The classes are represented by Scott Brown of Brown Poore LLP and
Todd Schneider and Carolyn Cottrell --
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- of Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP.

UPI is represented by Francis Ortman, Cassandra Carroll and Emily
Barker of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Cordy v. USS-Posco Industries et al., case number
3:12-cv-00553, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed by the San Francisco labor law
attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik against Veolia
Transportation Services.  The complaint, filed on April 23, 2014
, alleges that Veolia misclassified their employees employed in
the position of a Safety & Training Manager as exempt from
overtime pay and as a result, allegedly failed to pay overtime
wages and provide meal and rest breaks.  The proposed class
action lawsuit entitled, Rivers, et al. v. Veolia Transportation
Services, Inc., Case No. SW 255350 is currently pending in the
Sonoma County Superior Court for the State of California.

The class action Complaint alleges that the Safety & Training
Managers mostly engaged in non-exempt tasks throughout their
workday, including logging incidents and accidents into tracking
reports, following the company's training manual to teach people
how to drive buses, and entering into spreadsheets daily safety
messages received from dispatchers.  The Complaint asserts that
as a result of the job tasks that the Safety & Training Managers
were required to engage in, these employees should have allegedly
been paid overtime wages for any hours worked in excess of eight
in a workday and more than forty in a workweek.

The San Francisco employment law lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik dedicate their practice to helping people
who have been wrongfully classified as salaried employees exempt
from receiving overtime pay and other claims including violation
of California labor laws.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Securities Litigations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. continues to face two purported
securities class actions, according to the company's May 1, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In August 2013, Vocera and other related parties were named as
defendants in two purported securities class actions, alleging
claims for allegedly misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.

As the cases progress, the company may encounter more significant
legal costs for the company's defense. The company's projections
of net income/ (loss), and non-GAAP earnings/loss per diluted
share for the full year and second quarter 2014 do not give
effect to any such future legal expenses because the company does
not regard them as reflective of the costs the company incurred
to operate the company's business.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Mediation Considered in Calif. Commercial Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held a Mediation
Assessment Conference in the commercial litigation filed by
Merkin & Smith, et al. against Vonage America, Inc., according to
Vonage Holdings Corp.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a United
States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge. On November 26,
2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint.  On December 4,
2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On February 4,
2014, the Court denied Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On
March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the decision denying
Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration.  On March 6, 2014, Vonage
moved to stay the district court proceedings pending its appeal;
the Court granted Vonage's stay motion on March 26, 2014.  On
April 30, 2014, the Ninth Circuit held a Mediation Assessment
Conference.


WAL-MART: Fails to Pay Sick Time Wages, Claims Associate Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadine Miranda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC542040 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., April 8, 2014) alleges breach of contract and
failure to pay sick time wages, in violation of the Labor Code.

Ms. Miranda is working as a claims associate/accounting associate
for the Defendants.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com


WELLS FARGO: Wins Prelim. OK of Force-Placed Insurance Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California has issued an order granting
preliminary approval of an agreement to settle a class action
lawsuit initiated by Mercedes Guerrero.

According to the complaint, because Ms. Guerrero's home was
located in a flood-hazard area, she was required to maintain
adequate flood insurance; otherwise, Wells Fargo was authorized
to (and did) force-place flood insurance on her property.  In
doing so, however, Wells Fargo allegedly entered into exclusive
purchasing agreements with two insurers -- American Security
Insurance Company and QBE Insurance Corporation -- so that ASIC
and QBE would pay "kickbacks" in unearned commissions to a Wells
Fargo affiliate.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angela Mann, Esq.
          Jack Wagoner, III, Esq.
          WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1320 Brookwood, Suite D
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 663-5225
          Facsimile: (501) 660-4030
          E-mail: angela@wagonerlawfirm.com
                  jack@wagonerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sheri L. Kelly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY
          31 E. Julian Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 287-7712
          Facsimile: (408) 583-4249
          E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com

               - and -

          T. Brent Walker, Esq.
          WALKER LAW PLC
          502 Dogwood Meadows
          Austin, AR 72007
          Telephone: (501) 605-8595
          E-mail: bwalker@walkerlawplc.com

               - and -

          Alexander Phillip Owings, Esq.
          Steven A. Owings, Esq.
          OWINGS LAW FIRM
          1400 Brookwood Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 661-9999
          Facsimile: (501) 661-8393
          E-mail: apowings@owingslawfirm.com
                  sowings@owingslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas Eric Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: sean@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonah Sampson VanZandt, Esq.
          Laura R. Jacobsen, Esq.
          Michael Jan Steiner, Esq.
          SEVERSON AND WERSON
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: jvz@severson.com
                  lrj@severson.com
                  mjs@severson.com

The case is Lane, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 3:12-
cv-04026-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Petitions for Writ in Natural Gas Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court after a Circuit Court
remanded cases filed by purchasers of natural gas to the district
court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their state antitrust
claims, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed class actions against WPX and others alleging the
manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking
unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to
the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery
and pre-trial issues.

In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions
for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims
because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs
appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded
the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to
pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that
were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.
On August 26, 2013, WPX and the other defendants filed their
petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Battles Flint Hills Over Indemnification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. and Flint Hills Resources Alaska,
LLC are both seeking summary judgment for contractual
indemnification claims they filed against each other in relation
to the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska, according
to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

In January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state
court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property
owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly
emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole,
Alaska. The suit named the company's subsidiary, Williams Alaska
Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC
(FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. The
company owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when the
company sold it to FHRA. The company and FHRA have made claims
under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in
connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. The
company and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking,
among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the
other party caused the sulfolane contamination.
In 2011, the company and FHRA settled the James West claim. The
company and FHRA subsequently filed motions for summary judgment
on the other's claims. On November 5, 2013, the court ruled that
the applicable statute of limitations bars all FHRA's claims
against the company and dismissed those claims with prejudice.
FHRA has asked the court to reconsider and clarify its ruling,
and the company anticipates that FHRA will appeal the court's
decision.

The company currently estimates that its reasonably possible loss
exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount
up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might
cause the company's exposure to exceed that amount.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. BioMimetic Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld
the dismissal of the securities suit Paula Kuyat, et al. versus
BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. et al., according to Wright Medical
Group, Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

On July 6, 2011, a purported federal securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against BioMimetic Therapeutics,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, alleging
BioMimetic was unduly positive in its public statements about the
prospects for FDA approval of Augment Bone Graft. The company
acquired BioMimetic in March 2013. In January 2013, the Court
granted BioMimetic's, and the other named defendants', motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, known as Paula Kuyat, et al. versus
BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. et al., without leave to amend the
complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter Judgment or
Amend Order and Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, seeking
reconsideration of the Court's dismissal decision. This motion
was denied. Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's
dismissal of the case to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
December 4, 2013. During the quarter ended March 31, 2014, the
dismissal of the BioMimetic securities class action was upheld by
the Sixth Circuit.


XEROX CORP: Summary Judgment Order in Stock Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal process against the grant of summary judgment
to defendants in In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation is
ongoing, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut. Defendants are the Company, Barry Romeril, Paul
Allaire and G. Richard Thoman. The consolidated action is a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Xerox
Corporation common stock during the period October 22, 1998
through October 7, 1999 inclusive (Class Period) and who suffered
a loss as a result of misrepresentations or omissions by
Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs (the "Class"). The Class
alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (1934 Act), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the Company's operations and revenues. The complaint further
alleges that the alleged scheme: (i) deceived the investing
public regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies,
growth, operations and the intrinsic value of the Company's
common stock; (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as
the named individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
common stock of the Company while in possession of materially
adverse, non-public information; and (iii) caused the individual
plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class to
purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against
all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained
as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest
thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
the action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling. In
February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No.
164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius (Agius) and Georgia Stanley to
appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs. In July 2007, the
Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification,
without prejudice to renewal after the Court holds a pre-filing
conference to identify factual disputes the Court will be
required to resolve in ruling on the motion.

After that conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff
and proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs
filed a second renewed motion for class certification. In April
2008, defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify
Milberg LLP as a lead counsel. On September 30, 2008, the Court
entered an order certifying the class and denying the appointment
of Milberg LLP as class counsel. Subsequently, on April 9, 2009,
the Court denied defendants' motion to disqualify Milberg LLP.

On November 6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. On March 29, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion
for summary judgment in its entirety. On April 26, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal process is ongoing.


ZYGO CORP: Faces Stockholder Suit Over Acquisition by Ametek
------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Gordon, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Zygo Corporation, Michael A. Kaufman,
Stephen D. Fantone, Samuel H. Fuller, Seymour E. Liebman, Carol
P. Wallace, Gary K. Willis, Robert B. Taylor, Ametek, Inc., and
Ametek Matterhorn, Inc., Case No. 9561-VCN (Del. Ch. Ct., April
21, 2014) is a stockholder class action brought on behalf of
public stockholders of Zygo in connection with Ametek's proposed
acquisition of all the outstanding stock of Zygo.

Based in Middlefield, Connecticut, Zygo provides optical-
metrology instruments, high-precision optical components, and
electro-optical systems design and manufacturing services for the
medical, scientific and industrial fields.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Ametek is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in
Berwyn, Pennsylvania.  Ametek is a leading global manufacturer of
electronic instruments and electromechanical devices.  Merger Sub
is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ametek, and was created for the purposes of effectuating the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Banko, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
          E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  mschreiner@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

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


* Class Action Among Reasons for Hike in Bank Customer Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Vaughan, writing for interest.co.nz, reports anti-money
laundering legislation, bank fees class action, and the Reserve
Bank's restrictions on banks' high loan-to-value ratio (LVR) home
loans are the reasons behind a decent chunk of the increasing
number of bank customers turning to the Banking Ombudsman.

Banking Ombudsman Deborah Battell says with her office's third
quarter statistics now available, they've completed nearly 300
more cases in the 2013-14 year to-date (July 1, 2013 - March 31,
2014) at 2,442 than at the same stage of the previous year.

"The increase can largely be accounted for in the enquiries area
which has had a 23% increase in cases, from 1,390 in 2012/13 to
1,719 in the current financial year.  The increase does not
appear to relate to any one issue or bank.  Disputes completed so
far this year have dropped by 22%, from 222 last year to 173.
The number of complaints dealt with remains almost exactly the
same as last year, at 550," Ms. Battell says.

Complaints are issues raised with the Banking Ombudsman that are
referred onto banks. Enquiries are where the Banking Ombudsman's
office gives the enquirer some information, or asks for more
information, before referring the complainant to their bank.
Disputes are complaints that have been through a bank's internal
complaints process and been unable to be resolved.  They go to
the Banking Ombudsman for investigation or resolution.

Pushed for further information on what's behind the increase in
enquiries, a spokeswoman for the Banking Ombudsman's office told
interest.co.nz there had been an overall increase across a range
of areas.

"Anti-money laundering legislative changes, bank fees class
action, and LVR restrictions account for 20% of the increase,"
she said.

All three of these factors have come into play over the past year
or so.  The anti-money laundering regime took effect from June 30
last year, the Fair Play on Fees group declared its intention to
take representative legal action against the big five banks over
so-called exception fees in March last year and has since filed
cases against ANZ and Kiwibank, and the Reserve Bank enforced LVR
restrictions took effect on banks' home lending from October 1
last year.

Meanwhile, Ms. Battell says there were 59 complaints about
KiwiSaver in the nine months to 31 March, up 51% from 39 in the
same period of the previous financial year.  She has therefore
issued a new guide on KiwiSaver covering who to complain to, the
main areas of complaint, and how the Banking Ombudsman Scheme
approaches compensation.

"The majority of complaints are about the inability to withdraw
funds, especially on hardship grounds.  The quick guide sets out
the circumstances in which funds can be accessed -- financial
hardship, purchasing a first home, serious illness, or permanent
move overseas," says Ms. Battell.

"The guide also deals with how we compensate customers where we
consider inadequate information about KiwiSaver has been
provided."


                             *********

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  * * *