CAR_Public/140515.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 96

                             Headlines


ACADEMY ENGRAVING: State Farm Cleared in Junk Fax Suit
AK STEEL: Suit v. AK RAPP Now Concluded After Settlement Payments
AK STELL: Court Approves Settlement With Direct Purchasers
ALAFAYA WOODS: July 7 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
AMERICAN EAGLE: Delivery Drivers Sue Over Improper Deductions

AMERICAN INT'L: Accused of Underreporting of WC Insurance Premium
ANCHORFREE INC: Falsely Marketed Hotspot Software, Suit Says
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Faces FLSA "Violation" Suit in Wisconsin
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Settles Warranty Suit by Homeowners
BIOMET INC: Law Firm Seeks Class Action Status for Implant Suit

BIRD TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
BLACK PEPPER PHO: Servers Sue in Colo. Over Reduced Minimum Wage
BLYTH INC: Wins Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit in Connecticut
BURLINGTON STORES: Sued for Not Paying OT for All Hours Worked
C&C PUMPING: Faces "Aiken" Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Planned Mallinckrodt Merger
CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Wolfson" Suit Over Planned Merger
CAMBREX CORP: Health Care Insurers' Suit Pending in Columbia
CASH AMERICA: Pays $18.3MM Part of Settlement in Suit Over Loans
CASH AMERICA: Faces Suits in Ohio Over Alleged Violation of OMLA

CATERPILLAR INC: MY22007 CAT Engines' CRS Is Defective, Suit Says
CIGNA HEALTH: Can't Compel Arbitration, Third Circuit Rules
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Rate Manipulation
CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces "Larsen" Suit Over Rate Manipulation
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal

CONN'S INC: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action in Texas
CONNECT AMERICA.COM: Class Has Not Received OT Wages, Suit Says
CVS CAREMARK: Faces Class Action Over Vitamin E Pills Labeling
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Reaches Agreement to Settle Calif. Labor Suit
DIRECTV INC: Calif. Appellate Opinion Raises Issue on Concepcion

DOW JONES: Illegally Disclosed User Information, Suit Says
DYNEGY INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
E-Z RENT A CAR: Violates FACTA Amendment to FCRA, Fla. Suit Says
EAST COAST WALL: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
EAST TEXAS INSULATORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Worker Claims

EL CIBAENO BAKERY: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Luciano" Suit Says
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Line 6B Crude Oil Release
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Suit for $830MM
ERNST & YOUNG: CalPERS Wins $12.75-Mil. Settlement in Lehman Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Ninth Circuit Tosses Federal Privacy Claims

FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
GENERAL MOTORS: General Counsel Gets Mix Views Amid Recall Probe
GREAT SOUTHERN: Class Action Settlement Talks Underway
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Removed "Goldberg" Suit to D. New Jersey
HERB CHAMBERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime

HESS CORPORATION: Settles Royalty Owners' Class Action
HIKO ENERGY: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
HIKO ENERGY: Faces "Sasso" Suit Over Deceptive Marketing
HSNI LLC: Sued Misleading Promotion of Kitchen Knives
JANSSEN PHARMA: Judge Upholds $11MM Verdict in Topamax Suit

JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in Labor Suit Up for Prelim. Approval
JPMORGAN CHASE: MBS Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces "Kurtz" Suit Over Flushable Wipes
L&B INDUSTRIAL: Sued for Failing to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages
LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Scesny" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law

LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Anand" Securities Suit in California
MARIE CALLENDER'S: Sued Over False Marketing of All Natural Foods
MICHAELS STORES: Fails to Secure Customer Data, "Maize" Suit Says
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Condominium Homeowners' Suit in Discovery
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Court Approves Settlement of Merger Suit

MIDLANTIC TITLE: June 10 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
MILFORD WATER: Settles Class Action Over E. Coli Contamination
MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Violating Securities Exchange Act
MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Report Exposes Jail Conditions
NEW YORK JETS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in New Jersey

NEWO CORPORATION: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Fraudulent Practices
NUTRIBULLET LLC: Illegally Called Class Members' Phone, Suit Says
OAKHURST DAIRY: Delivery Drivers File Class Action in Portland
PANDORA MEDIA: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Douglas" Suit Says
PHOENIX, AZ: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages

PINNACLE WEST: Dismissal of Consumer Suit in Calif. Under Appeal
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over False Advertising of Cosmetic Items
PRYCE BROTHERS: Has Denied Payment for Wages Earned, Suit Claims
PYOD LLC: Removed "Meyer" Suit to S.D. California
REGIS CORP: July 14 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

RFJD HOLDING: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wages in S.D. Florida
RUBY TUESDAY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Tennessee
SAFEWAY INC: Stockholder Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Cerberus Unit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed LED Tvs & HDTVs, Suit Says
SAN DIEGO GAS: Dismissal of Suit Over 2011 Power Outage Appealed

SAULT AREA HOSPITAL: Lawyer Meets With Data Breach Victims
SOPHIE'S CUBAN: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
SOUTHWEST ROYALTIES: Environmental Suit Accord Not Yet Final
SW COLE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TAKEDA PHARMA: Judge Sanctions Defense Attorneys in Actos Suit

TARGET CORP: "Carlson" Suit Transferred From Florida to Minnesota
TETRA TECH: Montreal Real Estate Taxpayers' Suit v. BPR Continues
TETRA TECH: Shareholders Voluntarily Dismiss Suit in California
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Falsely Marketed LED Tvs & LED HDTVs, Suit Says
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Lawsuits Over RF Micro Merger

TRANSCEPT PHARMA: "Physicians" Suit Transferred to California
VARITRONICS LLC: Sued for Sending Fax Ads Without Opt-Out Notices
VICAL INC: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaints
WEST WARWICK, RI: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set


                            *********


ACADEMY ENGRAVING: State Farm Cleared in Junk Fax Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Bibeka Shrestha and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report
that an Illinois appeals court held on May 2 that State Farm Fire
and Casualty Co. had no duty to defend its policyholder against a
$4.9 million junk fax class action, finding that a Telephone
Consumer Protection Act exclusion barred coverage for all of the
underlying claims.

The Illinois appeals court reversed a ruling requiring State Farm
to defend Michael Schane and his business Academy Engraving Co.
against a class action brought by G.M. Sign Inc., holding that
the TCPA exclusion also applied to G.M. Sign's claims of
conversion and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Noting that there was no prior Illinois appellate authority
interpreting the TCPA exclusion at issue, the appeals court
relied on the reasoning in an unpublished Michigan appeals court
decision to hold that the act of faxing unsolicited and unwanted
advertisements were at the heart of G.M. Sign's conversion and
consumer fraud claims and thus, that the TCPA exclusion applied.

"Plaintiff would not be able to prove Schane liable on the
alternative counts without also proving that Schane committed a
violation of the TCPA," its ruling said.  "Accordingly . . . the
defendant had no duty to defend or to indemnify Schane in the
underlying suit."

Rosa Tumialan -- rtumialan@dykema.com -- a Dykema Gossett PLLC
attorney who represents State Farm, told Law360 on May 5 that the
Illinois opinion was significant and one that other courts would
look to for guidance.

"It is the first case in Illinois construing the exclusion,"
Tumialan said.  "It is also among the first of the cases
addressing the scope of the [Insurance Services Office Inc.] form
exclusion nationwide."

The exclusion at the center of the case barred coverage for
injuries arising directly or indirectly out of any action that is
alleged to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 and any other statutes that prohibit or
limit the sending of information.

The pivotal question was whether the exclusion applied only to
G.M. Sign's TCPA claim or also to its conversion and consumer
fraud claims.

According to G.M. Sign, the conversion and consumer fraud claims
stood apart from its TCPA claim because the former two claims did
not require the unwanted fax to be an advertisement, and because
the two claims did not depend on whether the parties had an
established business relationship.

The TCPA, on the other hand, makes it illegal to fax an
unsolicited advertisement unless the sender has an established
business relationship with the recipient, the recipient consents
to these communications, and the unsolicited advertisement
includes an opt-out notice.

But the appeals court concluded that G.M. Sign's argument was
just another way to compare the elements of the causes of action.
It stressed that none of the alternative counts pled any facts
that were related to advertisements or to established business
relationships.

David Oppenheim, an Anderson & Wanca attorney representing G.M.
Sign, said the court ruled that there was no duty to defend
because the underlying complaint did not specifically plead that
the two other claims stemmed from conduct that did not violate
the TCPA.  Oppenheim said Illinois law requires insurers to
defend unless the complaint affirmatively removes the case from
coverage.

"It turns on its head the long-standing legal [principle] that
coverage, and particularly the duty to defend, should not hinge
on the draftmanship of the complaint," Mr. Oppenheim said.
"Before today, an insurer was obligated to defend its insured as
long as there was a potential that the suit contained a covered
claim. This decision casts doubt on that bedrock canon of
Illinois coverage law."

This is the lawsuit's second trip up to the Illinois appeals
court.

In March 2013, the state appeals court reversed the dismissal of
State Farm's challenge to the $4.9 million settlement in the junk
fax class action, finding the insurer had standing to fight the
judgment and did not wait too long to bring its protest.

This March, the Illinois appeals court also flipped a ruling that
stuck two Zurich American Insurance Co. units with an $8 million
tab for a fax-blast class action settlement that G.M. Sign
brought against Pennswood Partners Inc.

State Farm is represented by Michael Borders --
mborders@dykema.com -- and Rosa Tumialan of Dykema Gossett PLLC.

G.M. Sign is represented by Brian Wanca --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- David Oppenheim --
DOppenheim@andersonwanca.com -- and Jeffrey Berman --
JBerman@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca and Phillip Bock
of Bock & Hatch LLC.

The case is G.M. Sign Inc. et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Co., case number 2-13-0593, in the Appellate Court of Illinois,
Second District.


AK STEEL: Suit v. AK RAPP Now Concluded After Settlement Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement
Accumulation Pension Plan and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee is now concluded after a payment
of $5 million, according to AK Steel Holding Corporation's May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794. The
complaint alleged that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of
benefits to him and the other class members. The plaintiff and
the other individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff filed suit
were excluded by the Court in 2005 from similar litigation
previously reported and now resolved (the class action litigation
filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on previous releases
of claims they had executed in favor of the Company. There were a
total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the prior
litigation. On January 24, 2011, this case was certified as a
class action. On November 13, 2013, the District Court entered
final judgment in the amount of $4.4, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest. That judgment was paid on November 21,
2013 from the Company's pension trust. On October 14, 2013,
plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion requesting an award of
attorney fees of $1.3. By order dated February 4, 2014, the court
granted in part and denied in part the motion filed by
plaintiffs' counsel seeking an award of fees. As part of the
order, the court directed the defendants to pay to plaintiffs'
counsel statutory fees in the amount of approximately $0.6. The
award of attorney fees was paid out of the Company's pension
trust on March 6, 2014. Following that payment, the parties filed
an agreed notice of satisfaction of judgment on March 20, 2014.
With that filing, this matter is now concluded.


AK STELL: Court Approves Settlement With Direct Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------
An agreement reached by AK Steel Holding Corporation to settle
antitrust claims by direct purchasers of steel products received
preliminary approval in April, according to the company's May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against nine steel manufacturers,
including AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are
08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and
08CV6197. An additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed
in the same federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December
28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state
court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The
defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and filed
a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of
Illinois. That motion was granted on March 28, 2012. The
plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which
claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as
January 2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel
producers have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to
restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain
artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the
United States. Discovery has commenced but only with respect to
issues relating to class certification. On May 24, 2012, the
direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On February 28, 2013, the defendants filed a
memorandum in opposition to the motion for class certification
and motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs' experts.
An evidentiary hearing on the motion for class certification and
the motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs' experts
was held commencing on March 15, 2014. No trial date has been
set. Prior to that hearing, AK Holding reached an agreement with
the direct purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims
asserted against AK Holding, subject to certain court approvals.
Pursuant to that settlement, AK Holding agreed to pay $5.8 to the
plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for a complete
release of all claims from the members of that class. AK Holding
continues to believe that the claims asserted against it lack any
merit, but it elected to enter into the settlement in order to
avoid the ongoing expense of defending itself in this protracted
and expensive antitrust litigation. The tentative settlement
received preliminary approval by the court on April 11, 2014.
Following such preliminary approval, notice of the proposed
settlement will be provided to members of the settlement class,
followed by a fairness hearing. In order to become final, the
settlement must receive a second approval by the court following
that fairness hearing. In light of the progress of the settlement
negotiations during the first quarter of 2014, the Company
recorded a charge in the amount of the tentative settlement with
the direct purchaser plaintiff class.


ALAFAYA WOODS: July 7 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If you were an owner of a single-family lot in the Alafaya Woods
Subdivision and were a member of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's
Association on July 18, 2001, you could receive benefits from a
class action settlement.

A settlement of a class action lawsuit may affect you if you were
an owner of a single-family lot in the Alafaya Woods Subdivision
located in the City of Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida, east of
SR 434 (Alafaya Trail) and south of Mitchell Hammock Road, and
you were a member of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association,
all on July 18, 2001.  This settlement will compensate people who
were owners and members at that specific time for the Florida
Department of Transportation's taking of your interests in the
common area of Alafaya Woods.  You may elect to refuse to
participate in this settlement, but your claims will be barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.

The Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Seminole County has ordered that this notice appear in a local
newspaper twice to notify class members of the class action
settlement.  The court has already held a hearing in which it
determined that the class action settlement was fair, equitable,
and
just.

Who is affected?

Single-family lot owners who were members of the Alafaya Woods
Homeowner's Association on July 18, 2001 are included in the
settlement.

What is this about?

The lawsuit claimed that the Florida Department of Transportation
completed an inverse condemnation and exercised its eminent
domain
powers over certain common areas in which the lot owners and
members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association have
easement interests and property rights.  Florida law holds that
easement holders have the right to be paid just compensation for
these easement interests.  The Florida Department of
Transportation denied any wrongdoing and asserted many defenses.
The settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing or an
indication that any law was violated.

What can you get from this settlement?

The lot owners and members of the Alafaya Woods Homeowner's
Association were awarded a lump sum amount of $1,460,000 which
includes administrative expenses to be incurred.  There were
2,231 lots on July 18, 2001.  Accordingly, this works out to an
estimated recovery of $654.41 per lot, minus administrative
expenses incurred in identifying class members and administering
the claims in the class action settlement.

How do you get a payment?

A detailed notice and claim form packet containing the necessary
documents to submit a claim will be sent to all reasonably
identifiable members of the class.  The claim form packet was
scheduled to be mailed on approximately March 10, 2014.
Additionally, you may call 407-542-1810 to request a claim form
packet.  Claim form packets will also be available at
www.AlafayaWoodsClassAction.com

You will be required to provide proof of identity and submit a
properly completed claim form, including a declaration of
ownership of a single-family lot within Alafaya Woods Subdivision
prior to receiving any compensation.  Seminole County property
records will be examined to confirm lot ownership by class
members. Claim forms are due on or before July 7, 2014.

What are your options?

If you do not wish to receive a payment, then you are not
required to do anything.  You may elect to refuse to participate
in this
settlement, but your claims will be barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.  For more details, call 407-542-1812,
write to Alafaya Woods Class Action, c/o Defense Litigation
Group, Inc., 257 Plaza Drive Suite A, Oviedo, FL 32765, or visit
the website www.AlafayaWoodsClassAction.com

The Alafaya Woods Homeowner's Association will also hold a number
of public informational meetings regarding this class action
settlement.


AMERICAN EAGLE: Delivery Drivers Sue Over Improper Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ever Bedoya, Diego Gonzales, and Manuel DeCastro, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Eagle
Express, Inc. d/b/a AEXGroup., Case No. 2:14-cv-02811-ES-JAD
(D.N.J., May 1, 2014) is filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
other delivery drivers, who make deliveries for AEX and are based
in or operate in the state of New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs contend that they have been subject to improper
deductions from their pay and have been denied overtime pay, and
have otherwise been unjustly forced to bear the costs of AEX's
business.

AEX is a corporation that is in the business of providing courier
delivery services to a variety of large companies, including
hospitals, drug companies, and pharmacies, with headquarters in
Aston, Pennsylvania, and a location in Linden, New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: HLichten@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com


AMERICAN INT'L: Accused of Underreporting of WC Insurance Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Cycles, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. American International Group, Inc; American
Home Assurance Company; AIU Insurance Company; American Fuji Fire
and Marine Insurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company;
Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance
Company; Illinois National Insurance Company; Insurance Company
of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; New Hampshire Insurance
Company; AIG Risk Management, Inc.; Maurice R. Greenberg; and
Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-02827 (N.D. Ill.,
May 1, 2014) is brought by Missouri employers seeking
restitution, disgorgement, compensatory, punitive, and treble
damages, a constructive trust, and injunctive relief arising from
the Defendants' alleged long-term, unlawful, and fraudulent
underreporting of workers' compensation insurance premium,
evasion of related financial obligations, and abuse of their
statutory, regulatory, common law, and fiduciary responsibilities
with regard to WC policies issued to businesses that employ
workers in the State of Missouri.

By engaging in a systematic underreporting of WC premiums
written, the Defendants not only wrongly enriched themselves in
various ways, but their systematic practice of underreporting WC
premium caused the Plaintiff and other WC policyholders in
Missouri to pay improperly inflated state insurance surcharges
and to suffer other damage, the Plaintiff contends.

American International Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in New York.  The other Defendants are AIG
subsidiaries and affiliates.  Maurice R. Greenberg is a resident
of Key Largo, Florida.  He joined AIG in approximately 1967 and
served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AIG until
his forced resignation in March 2005.

The AIG Companies are engaged in a broad range of financial and
insurance-related activities in the United States and throughout
the world.  The AIG Companies have been major participants in the
Missouri WC market for decades.  AIG, through its subsidiaries
and affiliates, is the largest underwriter of commercial and
industrial insurance in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          John R. Phillips, Esq.
          Deborah Rosenthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com
                  ekirk@simmonsfirm.com
                  jphillips@simmonsfirm.com
                  drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
          Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
          Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com
                  abierstein@hanlyconroy.com
                  tsheridan@hanlyconroy.com

               - and -

          Drew E. Pomerance, Esq.
          Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
          ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI
          5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992-9999
          Facsimile: (818) 992-9991
          E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com
                  npr@rpnalaw.com

Defendant Maurice R. Greenberg is represented by:

          Steven J. Kolleeny, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (DC)
          1440 New York Avenue N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (917) 777-2626
          E-mail: skolleen@skadden.com


ANCHORFREE INC: Falsely Marketed Hotspot Software, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
John McClain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anchorfree, Inc., a Delaware corporation Case No.
5:14-cv-01282-BLF (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2014) is brought against
the Defendant for its alleged deceptive marketing and sale of
"Hotspot Shield" software.

Anchorfree, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation located at 450
National Avenue, Mountain View, California 94043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq.
      Chandler Randolph Givens, Esq.
      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq.
      EDELSON P.C.
      350 N. Lasalle St., Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 572-7208
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: bthomassen@edelson.com
              cgivens@edelson.com
              jedelson@edelson.com
              rbalabanian@edelson.com
              meisen@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Tonia Ouellette Klausner, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH ROSATI
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 497-7706
      E-mail: tklausner@wsgr.com


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Faces FLSA "Violation" Suit in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp faces a suit filed by loan coordinators over
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Wisconsin wage laws, according to the bank's May 2, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A purported class action lawsuit, Wanda Boone v. Associated Banc-
Corp, was filed on April 10, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The lawsuit claims
that loan coordinators employed by the Bank were not compensated
for all hours worked, including the payment of overtime, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin
wage laws. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and attorneys'
fees.


ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Settles Warranty Suit by Homeowners
---------------------------------------------------------
Associated Materials, LLC settles a lawsuit filed by homeowners
over certain warranty related claims for steel and aluminum
siding, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2014.

On February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement") for a class
action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs and a putative nationwide
class of homeowners regarding certain warranty related claims for
steel and aluminum siding, which became effective on September 2,
2013. The Company expects to incur additional warranty costs
associated with the Settlement; however, the Company does not
believe the incremental costs, which currently cannot be
estimated for recognition purposes, have been or will be
material.


BIOMET INC: Law Firm Seeks Class Action Status for Implant Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lightstone, writing for Herald News, reports that a
Halifax law firm representing clients alleging harm was done to
them as a result of hip implant surgery is seeking to certify
legal proceedings as a class action.

In a court document filed with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia,
lawyer Ray Wagner says the representative plaintiff in the
proposed class action is Mary Chipman of Dartmouth.

There are five defendants, including Biomet Inc., an American
firm incorporated in Indiana.  It designs, manufactures, markets
and sells hip implant systems, the document says.

"The defendants consistently failed to disclose or warn Canadian
patients of the significant risk of failure and metallosis
associated with their" artificial hip products, it is alleged in
the court document.

Metallosis is caused by metal particles present in human tissue,
the Mayo Clinic's website says.

"While most (implant) recipients benefit from joint replacement
with improved mobility and quality of life, a small number of
patients experience implant-specific local and systemic adverse
effects," the website says.

"Continuous motion at the (metal-on-metal) surfaces is the main
reason for wear of the implant.  This causes release of micro-
particles of metal debris into the surrounding tissue, sometimes
referred to as metallosis."

The proposed class action would represent Canadian plaintiffs,
who are alleging faulty Biomet hip implants, from 1998 to the
date of certification of the legal proceedings.

Ms. Chipman received a hip implant in 2007, the court document
says. Last year, blood work she had done showed increased cobalt
and chromium levels were present.  In February, Ms. Chipman
underwent corrective surgery.

"Each time a patient is required to undergo (such) surgery there
are increasing risks of complications," says the court document,
filed in Halifax on April 29.

"With each revision surgery, there is less bone for the surgeon
to work with, and the chances of a satisfactory recovery are
reduced."

The allegations have not been proved in court.


BIRD TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Lynch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bird Technologies Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
01312-RWS-WEJ (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2014) is brought pursuant to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Weiner, Esq.
          THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 254-0842
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
          THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road, 3rd Floor
          7 Piedmont Center
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 205-5029
          Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
          E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


BLACK PEPPER PHO: Servers Sue in Colo. Over Reduced Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Blocklin, Jalen Aquino, Huyen Tran Duong, Jacqueline
Dallman, Khai Tran and Phuong-Anh Cai on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Black Pepper Pho, LLC,
Huong Dang and Christopher John, Case No. 1:14-cv-01252 (D.
Colo., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants paid the
Plaintiffs and all their similarly situated servers the reduced
("tip-credited") minimum wage for hours worked.

Black Pepper Pho, LLC is a registered Colorado limited liability
company headquartered in Thornton, Colorado.  The Individual
Defendants are owners/operators of the Black Pepper Pho
enterprise.  The Defendants own a Vietnamese restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          595 Canyon Boulevard
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


BLYTH INC: Wins Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
dismissed a second amended securities complaint against Blyth,
Inc., according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

The company, certain of its officers, FVA Ventures, Inc., ViSalus
Holdings, LLC, ViSalus and one of its founders were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in federal district
court in Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period March to November 2012. On June 3,
2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the then-operative amended
complaint. In lieu of responding to the motion to dismiss, on
June 24, 2013 plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which
named as defendants the company, certain of its officers, ViSalus
Holdings, LLC, ViSalus, and a ViSalus co-founder/promoter. The
second amended complaint, which sought unspecified damages and
asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleged certain
misstatements and omissions by certain defendants, including
concerning ViSalus's operations and prospects, and further
alleged that certain defendants engaged in a fraudulent or
deceptive "scheme."

On August 2, 2013, the defendants filed a memorandum of law in
support of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On
September 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a memorandum of law opposing
defendants' motion to dismiss its second amended complaint, and
on October 3, 2013 the defendants filed a reply memorandum in
support of the company's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. Oral argument on the motion was held on March 6, 2014.
On March 31, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, entering judgment for the
defendants. Plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal by April
30, 2014, and may seek an extension of time to file a notice of
appeal prior to May 30, 2014 upon a showing of "excusable
neglect" or "good cause."


BURLINGTON STORES: Sued for Not Paying OT for All Hours Worked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Kawa, Theresa Massey, and Danielle Solecki, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v.
Burlington Stores, Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Burlington Coat Factory Investment Holdings, Inc.,
and Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, LLC f/k/a Burlington Coat
Factory Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02787-JEI-KMW (D.N.J.,
May 1, 2014) alleges that Burlington has misclassified the
Plaintiffs and the California, Illinois, and New York Classes as
exempt employees under California, Illinois, and New York State
wage and hour laws and failed to pay them overtime compensation
for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Burlington Stores, Inc. is a national off-price apparel, home and
baby products retailer, operating over 500 stores in the United
States and Puerto Rico and approximately 44 stores in California,
26 stores in Illinois, and 25 stores in New York.  Burlington
Stores, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation
headquartered in North Burlington, New Jersey.  Burlington Coat
Factory Warehouse Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Burlington Coat Factory Investment Holdings, Inc.  Burlington
Coat Factory Investment Holdings, Inc., is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, LLC.  Burlington
Coat Factory Holdings, LLC, formerly known as Burlington Coat
Factory Holdings, Inc., is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary
of Burlington Stores, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          Rachel Berlin, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          Priscilla Jimenez, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 663-8200


C&C PUMPING: Faces "Aiken" Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Aiken, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. C&C Pumping Services, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Leslie Holdorf, individually and Chris Holdorf,
individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-01043-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 1,
2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, damages and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

C&C Pumping Services, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation
engaged in business in Lake County, Florida.  C&C provides
concrete pumping services.  The Individual Defendants owned,
managed and operated the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Planned Mallinckrodt Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2014-CH-03236
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 24, 2014), arises from the
alleged breach of Cadence's fiduciary duties in connection with
the Company's plan of merger with Mallinckrodt plc.

Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation located
at 12481 High Bluff Drive, San Diego California 92130. It is a
biopharmaceutical company that focuses on acquiring, in-
licensing, developing, and commercializing propriety product
candidates for use in the hospital setting primarily in the
United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG PA
      2 Righter Parkway STE 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com

           - and -

      Ryan M Ernst, Esq.
      OKELLY ERNST & BIELLI LLC
      901 N Market St Ste 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 778-4000
      E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com


CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Wolfson" Suit Over Planned Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Wolfson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
9361-VCP (Del. Ch. Ct., February 18, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for its alleged failure to maximize stockholder
value in connection with their attempt to sell the Company to
Mallinckrodt.

Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a Delaware corporation located
at 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200, San Diego, California
92130. It is a biopharmaceutical company focusing on the
acquisition, in-licensing, development, and commercialization of
proprietary product candidates for use in hospital settings
throughout the U.S. and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG PA
      2 Righter Parkway STE 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com

           - and -

      Ryan M Ernst, Esq.
      OKELLY ERNST & BIELLI LLC
      901 N Market St Ste 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 778-4000
      E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com


CAMBREX CORP: Health Care Insurers' Suit Pending in Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case filed by health care insurers against Cambrex
Corporation over Lorazepam and Clorazepate is currently pending
before the District Court following a January 2011 remand by the
Court of Appeals, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court").  Suits were also
commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts.  The
suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four
health care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court
entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and
Cambrex in the total amount of $19,200,000 payable jointly and
severally, and also a punitive damage award against each
defendant in the amount of $16,709,000.  In addition, at the
time, the District Court ruled that the defendants were subject
to a total of approximately $7,500,000 in prejudgment interest.
The case is currently pending before the District Court following
a January 2011 remand by the Court of Appeals where briefing
related to whether the court has jurisdiction over certain self-
funded customer plaintiffs has been completed and the parties are
currently waiting for a ruling by the court.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415,000 to Mylan in exchange for a
release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in
related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the
ongoing matter.  Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten
by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632,000.
In the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex
expects any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan
under an indemnity.


CASH AMERICA: Pays $18.3MM Part of Settlement in Suit Over Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc. paid $18.3 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2014 as part of its agreement to
settle a suit over alleged illegal short-term loans it made in
Georgia, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against
Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc.
(together with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"),
Daniel R. Feehan (the Company's chief executive officer), and
several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of
Cash America. In August 2006, James H. Greene and Mennie Johnson
were permitted to join the lawsuit as named plaintiffs, and in
June 2009, the court agreed to the removal of James E. Strong as
a named plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of
action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America
made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in violation of
Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and
Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB"), and
Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB"), for some
time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's
Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims
that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans
made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in
the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit
alleges that Cash America was the "de facto" lender and was
illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the
trebling of any compensatory damages. In November 2009 the case
was certified as a class action lawsuit.

This case was scheduled to go to trial in November 2013, but on
October 9, 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding (the "Settlement Memorandum"). Pursuant to the
Settlement Memorandum, the parties filed a joint motion
containing the full terms of the settlement (the "Settlement
Agreement") with the trial court for approval on October 24,
2013, and the trial court preliminarily approved the Settlement
Agreement on November 4, 2013. On January 16, 2014, the trial
court issued its final approval of the settlement and entered the
Final Order and Judgment. The Settlement Agreement required a
minimum payment by the Company of $18.0 million and a maximum
payment of $36.0 million to cover class claims (including
honorarium payments to the named plaintiffs) and the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs (including the costs of claims
administration) (the "Class Claims and Costs"), all of which will
count towards the aggregate payment for purposes of determining
whether the minimum payment has been made or the maximum payment
has been reached. The Company denies all of the material
allegations of the lawsuit and denies any and all liability or
wrongdoing in connection with the conduct described in the
lawsuit, but the Company agreed to the settlement to eliminate
the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further
litigation.

In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company recognized
a liability in 2013 in the amount of $18.0 million. The liability
was recorded in "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" in the
consolidated balance sheets and "Operations and administration
expense" in the consolidated statements of income for the year
ended December 31, 2013. The Class Claims and Costs have been
finalized, and the Company is required to pay $18.6 million in
connection with the Class Claims and Costs, $18.3 million of
which was paid during the three months ended March 31, 2014.


CASH AMERICA: Faces Suits in Ohio Over Alleged Violation of OMLA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four lawsuits were filed against Cash America International, Inc.
by customers in Ohio, three of which are purported class action
complaints, alleging that the Company improperly made loans under
the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act, according to the company's May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

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

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

The Supreme Court of Ohio heard the Company's appeal of the Ninth
District Court's decision in December 2013, and a decision is
expected during the first half of 2014. If the Ninth District
Court's decision is upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal,
the Company's Ohio operations may be adversely affected. The
Company relies on the OMLA to make short-term loans in its retail
services locations in Ohio, and if the Company is unable to
continue making short-term loans under this law, it will alter
its short-term loan product in Ohio. In addition, following the
ruling by the Ninth District Court, four lawsuits were filed
against the Company by customers in Ohio, three of which are
purported class action complaints, alleging that the Company
improperly made loans under the OMLA, and the Company may in the
future receive other claims. Each of these four lawsuits has been
stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Ohio's
decision. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses in connection with these lawsuits, as
defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies-Loss Contingencies-
Glossary, for these litigation matters. The Company believes that
the Plaintiffs' claims in these suits are without merit and will
vigorously defend these lawsuits.


CATERPILLAR INC: MY22007 CAT Engines' CRS Is Defective, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harmon Bros. Charter Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation;
Kelton Tours Unlimited Limited Liability Company, an Alabama
limited liability company; and First Priority Tours, Inc. d/b/a
First Priority Trailways, a Maryland corporation, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Caterpillar,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01317-TCB (N.D.
Ga., May 1, 2014) is brought on behalf of putative classes of
similarly situated entities, who purchased or leased a vehicle
with a 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 Caterpillar, Inc. C-13 or C-15
heavy duty on-highway diesel engine (collectively "MY22007 CAT
Engine") in Georgia, Alabama or Maryland.

MY2007 CAT engine contains exhaust emission controls to reduce
diesel engine exhaust emissions in compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's 2007 Heavy Duty On Highway
Emissions Standard, according to the complaint.  To meet the EPA
2007 Emission Standard applicable to heavy duty, on-highway
diesel engines, Caterpillar designed, manufactured, sold for
profit, and warranted MY2007 CAT Engines with an exhaust emission
control system containing integrated components intended to
reduce air pollutants, in particular, oxides of nitrogen and
particulate matter, to levels not to exceed those set by the 2007
Standard.  The exhaust emission control system employed by CAT is
known as the "Caterpillar Regeneration System" or "CRS."

The Defendant's CRS is defective in material and workmanship
causing the vehicle to not function as required under all
operating conditions, on a consistent and reliable basis, even
after repeated emissions warranty repairs and replacements, Mr.
Bagley alleges.  He contends that these repeated warranty repairs
and replacements failed to repair or correct the CRS defect
resulting in damages, including diminished value of the vehicles
powered by MY2007 CAT Engines, and the costs to re-power the
vehicles with diesel engines that are compliant with the 2007 EPA
Emission Standards.

Caterpillar, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business located in Peoria, Illinois, and is registered
to conduct business in Georgia.  Caterpillar designed,
manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected,
marketed, leased and sold for profit, and warranted the MY2007
CAT Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control, the
CRS, to be free of defects in material and workmanship.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Coomes, Esq.
          MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC
          990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 220-9994
          E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 605
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1340
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: Rich@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Ave., 3rd Floor
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: Jamie@complexlitgroup.com
                  Zachary@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
          BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER & THOMPSON, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 235-0020
          Facsimile: (618) 235-8558
          E-mail: KTH@bphlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 553-7980
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: JShub@SeegerWeiss.com


CIGNA HEALTH: Can't Compel Arbitration, Third Circuit Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer,
reports that claims against health insurance giant Cigna can be
litigated, the Third Circuit has ruled in a reversal of the
district court's decision to compel arbitration.  The dispute,
which is over Cigna's change in coverage for certain medical
devices, falls outside of the scope of the service agreement
entered into by the two medical service providers who brought the
suit, the appeals court ruled.  It is the service agreement that
includes an arbitration clause.

"The fact that the parties have agreed to arbitrate some disputes
does not necessarily manifest an intent to arbitrate every
dispute that might arise between the parties," said Judge Julio
M. Fuentes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on
behalf of the three-judge panel in CardioNet v. Cigna Health.

"Ultimately, then, whether a dispute falls within the scope of an
arbitration clause depends upon the relationship between (1) the
breadth of the arbitration clause, and (2) the nature of the
given claim," Judge Fuentes said, setting up the framework in
which the court would examine the issue presented in the case.

Judge Fuentes -- who was joined by Third Circuit Judge D. Michael
Fisher and U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District
of Delaware, who was sitting by designation -- noted that federal
policy generally favors arbitration, but said also that the U.S.
Supreme Court has warned against courts leaning too far in favor
of arbitration and emphasizing that ordinary principles of
contract law prevail.

"Indeed," Judge Fuentes said, referring to the Federal
Arbitration Act, "while the FAA 'embodies a strong federal policy
in favor of arbitration . . . the duty to arbitrate remains one
assumed by contract.'"  He quoted from the Seventh Circuit's 1993
opinion in Sweet Dreams Unlimited v. Dial-A-Mattress
International.

"Thus, the presumption of arbitrability applies only where an
arbitration agreement is ambiguous about whether it covers the
dispute at hand.  Otherwise, the plain language of the contract
controls," Judge Fuentes said.

The language in the contracts between Cigna and both plaintiffs,
CardioNet and LifeWatch Services, clearly applies the arbitration
clause to only disputes that arise out of the service agreement
itself, according to the opinion.

That contract sets the rate at which Cigna is to reimburse its
providers for services rendered to patients covered by Cigna,
according to the opinion.

CardioNet and LifeWatch provide outpatient cardiac telemetry
services, called OCT for short, so that doctors can monitor
patients with cardiac arrhythmias in real time while they aren't
in the hospital.  OCT is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and was a covered service by Cigna from 2007 to
2012, according to the opinion.

When Cigna changed its policy on OCT coverage, it said that it
considered OCT to be "experimental, investigational or unproven,"
according to the opinion.

CardioNet and LifeWatch then brought this suit on their own
behalf and as the assignee of the patients who had used their
services, according to the opinion.

In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Cigna had sought to
enforce the arbitration clause of the service agreement and the
judge had agreed.

The Third Circuit followed the district judge's reading of the
service agreement, that disputes arising from it would go to
arbitration, up until the point at which that judge "intimated .
. . that the statement in the middle of Section 6.4 that
'arbitration is the exclusive remedy for the resolutions of
disputes under this agreement' broadens the scope of mandatory
arbitration," Judge Fuentes said.

"We believe that the term 'disputes' as used here refers solely
to those disputes concerning the 'performance or interpretation
of the agreement,'" Judge Fuentes said.

He went further, in a footnote discussing the parties' argument
over whether the arbitration clause is broad or narrow, to say,
"Here, the arbitration provision is not ambiguous.  In any event,
as the arbitration provision here 'implicate[s only]
interpretation or performance of the contract per se,' it does
not sweep beyond the confines of the contract, and is therefore
narrow in scope." Judge Fuentes, again, quoted from Sweet Dreams.

After holding that the arbitration clause applies only to
disputes arising from the service agreement, the appeals court
went on to decide that neither the direct claims nor the
derivative claims brought by CardioNet and LifeWatch arose from
issues related to the service agreement.

"The adjudication of [the] direct claims depends on whether the
Physician Update -- a document completely distinct from the
agreement -- is deceptive and misleading, and whether any
deceptions therein caused a cognizable injury to the providers.
The resolution of these claims does not require construction of,
or even reference to, any provision in the agreement," Judge
Fuentes said.

As to the derivative claims brought by CardioNet and LifeWatch on
behalf of the patients, Judge Fuentes said, "It is a basic
principle of assignment law that an assignee's rights derive from
the assignor," meaning that the medical service providers here
stand in the shoes of the patients who are Cigna participants.
"Here, it is undisputed that the participants possess the right
to pursue their ERISA claims in court, rather than through
mandatory arbitration," Judge Fuentes said.  "That right does not
dissipate simply because the claim is brought by assignees who
have promised to arbitrate certain direct claims they might bring
against the defendant."

"Just as the burden of arbitration must travel with a claim, so
too, must the right to litigate," Judge Fuentes said.

Mark Gallant of Cozen O'Connor represented CardioNet and
LifeWatch.  Paul Hummer of Saul Ewing represented Cigna.


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Rate Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated complaint was filed in In Re Foreign Exchange
Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, according to Citigroup
Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs in putative class actions that are
proceeding on a consolidated basis before Judge Lorna G.
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 filed a consolidated amended
complaint. Plaintiffs allege that defendants colluded to
manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR), thereby causing the
putative class to suffer losses in connection with WMR-based
financial instruments. Plaintiffs assert a federal antitrust
claim and seek compensatory damages, treble damages, and
declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information
concerning the consolidated action is publicly available in court
filings under the docket number 1:13-cv-7789.


CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces "Larsen" Suit Over Rate Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. continues to face a suit by a putative class of
persons or entities in Norway who traded foreign currency,
alleging WM/Reuters rate manipulation, according to the company's
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign
exchange dealers, are named as defendants in a putative class
action captioned Larsen 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. Plaintiff
seeks to represent a putative class of persons or entities in
Norway who traded foreign currency with defendants, alleging that
the class suffered losses as a result of defendants' alleged WMR
manipulation. Plaintiff asserts federal antitrust and unjust
enrichment claims, and seeks compensatory damages, treble damages
where authorized by statute, and declaratory and injunctive
relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 1:14-cv-1364.


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities
Litigation appealed the dismissal of the suit to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the
company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Columbia
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions were
filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc.,
et al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al and
asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf
of an alleged class of purchasers of the common stock during the
period from December 6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both
actions were consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re
Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, under which
Actavis, Inc., and three of its officers have been added as
defendants. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that
Columbia and two of its officers, one of whom is a director,
omitted to state material facts that they were under a duty to
disclose, and made materially false and misleading statements
that related to the results of Columbia's PREGNANT study and the
likelihood of approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to market progesterone
vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm birth in women with
premature cervical shortening. According to the amended
complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees. On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed
the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted, holding that the plaintiffs did not
adequately plead facts supporting an inference of an intent to
deceive investors. The Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint, and they did so on July 11, 2013.
Columbia moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On
October 21, 2013, the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint. The Court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to
their first amended complaint "still do not create a strong
inference that the Defendants acted with an intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud." The Court ordered that if the plaintiffs
sought to attempt to plead a cognizable action in a third amended
complaint, they must do so within thirty days and specifically
address why the attempt would not be futile. The plaintiffs chose
not to file any further amendments and the case was dismissed
with prejudice on December 2, 2013. On December 20, 2013, the
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit will consider
the matter after briefing is completed.


CONN'S INC: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP filed
a class action lawsuit on May 5, 2014 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.  The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of all persons who, between April 3, 2013 and February 19,
2014, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
and/or call options, or sold/wrote put options on the common
stock of Conn's, Inc.

If you purchased or acquired Conn's common stock and/or call
options, or sold/wrote put options on Conn's common stock during
the Class Period as defined above, you are a member of the
"Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas no later than May 5,
2014.  A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for
absent members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.
If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class,
you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You
may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this
action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Michael Burnett
of Scott+Scott -- mburnett@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770,
(860) 537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more
information: http://www.scott-scott.com

You may also contact Rachel A. Avan, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow
LLP, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709, or via email at
ravan@labaton.com

If you are a member of the Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

Conn's is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, and is
incorporated in Delaware.  The Company operates approximately 80
stores in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma and
also offers products for sale through its website.  The Company's
primary sources of revenue are the sale of merchandise, related
warranty services, and providing financing to its customers.
Conn's offers financing to its customers through both third-party
credit programs and its own proprietary credit program that the
Company claims to be a distinguishing feature of its operations
and a significant factor in its ability to attract customers.

The complaint charges Conn's and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that, during
the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements
and concealed material information about Conn's business
concerning the quality, risk, and effects of the Company's
customer credit portfolio.

The truth about the weakness and risks of Conn's credit portfolio
and the resulting effects on Conn's operations and outlook was
revealed through two disclosures.  First, on September 5, 2013,
Conn's issued a press release and hosted a conference call in
which the Company revealed that it had been forced to make a
greater provision for bad debts than expected due to "unexpected
deteriorat[ion]" in delinquency.  However, the Defendants offered
reassuring comments to investors, including claims that
corrective actions had been completed and reaffirming guidance
for the full fiscal year ending January 31, 2014.  In response to
this partial disclosure of the true state of Conn's business and
prospects, the price of Conn's common stock declined $7.95 per
share, or 11.64 percent, to close at $60.36 per share that day on
heavy trading volume.

Then, on February 20, 2014, the Company issued a press release
announcing disappointing preliminary fourth quarter fiscal 2014
results and lowering earnings guidance for fiscal full-year 2015.
In the press release, Conn's disclosed that its credit segment
provision for bad debts was expected to exceed previously issued
full-year fiscal 2014 guidance and that the percentage of the
Company's debt portfolio that was 60-plus days delinquent had
increased by 30 basis points from the prior quarter.  On this
news, the price of Conn's common stock fell $23.91 per share, or
42.85 percent, to close at $31.89 per share on extremely heavy
trading volume.

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law,
LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP. Scott+Scott has significant
experience prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee
retirement plan actions throughout the United States.  The firm
represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other
entities worldwide.  If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please contact: Michael Burnett Scott+Scott, Attorneys at
Law, LLP, (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537;
scottlaw@scott-scott.com or mburnett@scott-scott.com

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents many
of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with collective assets under management of more
than $2 trillion.  With nearly 60 full-time attorneys, the Firm's
litigation reputation is built on its in-house team of
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.  The
Firm has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and
peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry
publications.  Offices are located in New York, NY and
Wilmington, DE.


CONNECT AMERICA.COM: Class Has Not Received OT Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lovett, Ida A. Williams and Tracy L. Romans, on behalf of
themselves individually and all others similarly situated v.
Connect America.Com t/a ConnectAmerica, Case No. 2:14-cv-02596-HB
(E.D. Pa., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs routinely
worked 40 or more hours per week during the statutory time period
but have not always received minimum wages or overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Connect America.Com, trading as ConnectAmerica, is a corporation
headquartered in Media, Pennsylvania.  The Company engages in
sales of interactive (2-way) home medical emergency monitoring to
consumers across the country.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Paul, Esq.
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1199
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 546-6811
          Facsimile: (215) 546-6812
          E-mail: mpaul@paullaw.net

               - and -

          Samuel A. Dion, Esq.
          DION & GOLDBERGER
          1845 Walnut St., Suite 1199
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 546-6033
          Facsimile: (215) 546-6269
          E-mail: samueldion@aol.com


CVS CAREMARK: Faces Class Action Over Vitamin E Pills Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that a customer hit
CVS Caremark Corp. with a putative class action on May 2 in Rhode
Island federal court, alleging the labels on the pharmacy chain's
vitamin E pills improperly claim that they have heart health
benefits.

Plaintiff Ronda Kauffman filed the suit on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of consumers who bought vitamin E pills from the
major pharmacy chain and subclasses for customers in Rhode Island
and New York.  The complaint alleges that the CVS labels mislead
customers to believe that the vitamins could reduce the risk of
heart disease.

"The overwhelming majority of scientific studies find no 'heart
health' benefit to taking vitamin E supplements," the complaint
said.

The pill bottles are sold at 7,600 CVS pharmacies across the
nation and sell for about $8 to $20 each, according to the
complaint.  Ms. Kaufman bought vitamin E tablets from a CVS store
in New York after reading the label and lost money on the
purchase, which she wouldn't have made if not for the heart
health claims, the complaint says.

The complaint includes photographs of the vitamin E bottles and
labels, one of which reads: "Vitamin E helps maintain healthy
blood vessels and promotes heart health."  The claim points to
several studies that purportedly show vitamin E provides users
with no heart health benefits and cites U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention data showing that heart disease is the
leading cause of death in the United States.

"Defendants have preyed upon these legitimate health concerns by
misrepresenting to consumers that its vitamin E products have a
'heart health' benefit when they do not," the suit says.

The suit alleges that CVS violated deceptive business practice
laws in New York and Rhode Island.  Ms. Kaufman is seeking
actual, statutory and punitive damages, a disgorgement of profits
obtained from the allegedly illegal sales of the pills and a
permanent injunction forbidding CVS from making the "heart
healthy" claims on its vitamin E labels.

Ms. Kaufman is represented by K. Joseph Shekarchi of Shekarchi
Law Offices, Brian D. Penny -- penny@gskplaw.com -- and Douglas
Bench of Goldman Scarlato Karon & Penny PC and John Zaremba and
Robert Corbett of Zaremba Brownell & Brown PLLC.

The case is Ronda Kaufman et al. v. CVS Caremark Corp. et al.,
case number 1:14-cv-00216, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island.


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Reaches Agreement to Settle Calif. Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. has reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs in a labor suit originally filed in the Superior Court
of California to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial
court, and the court has preliminarily approved that settlement,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action,
is pending against the Company in the Superior Court of
California. The Company was served with the complaint in this
lawsuit in April 2008, and it has been amended since that time.
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Company failed to
provide meal periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of
providing rest or meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and
failed to comply with certain other California Labor Code
requirements. In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that
decision. In January 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's decision on some claims, but remanded the case to
the trial court for clarification of its decision on one of the
claims. The Company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs
to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial court, and the
court has preliminarily approved that settlement. The amount of
the settlement is not material to the Company's consolidated
financial statements.


DIRECTV INC: Calif. Appellate Opinion Raises Issue on Concepcion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan D. Grotzinger, Esq. -- grotzingerj@gtlaw.com -- at
Greenberg Traurig, LLP reports that on April 27, 2011, the
Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740
(2011), cleared the way for consumer products companies and other
businesses to incorporate class action waivers into their
arbitration agreements with customers.  On April 7, 2014, the
Second District Court of Appeal in California affirmed the denial
of a motion to compel arbitration despite Concepcion, relying on
language in the arbitration clause that rendered the clause
invalid if state law would find the class action waiver
unenforceable.  The decision appears to contradict a recent Ninth
Circuit decision, calling into question Concepcion's scope and
ensuring further litigation of the issue.

In Imburgia v. DirecTV, Inc., 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (2014),
Plaintiffs accused DirecTV of improperly charging early
termination fees and brought a class action against the company
for false advertising, violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA) and related claims.  After the trial court
granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
Concepcion came down and DirecTV moved to decertify the class and
compel arbitration.  DirecTV's arbitration clause included a
class action waiver and provided generally that the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) applied, but also provided: "If, however,
the law of your state would find this agreement to dispense with
class arbitration procedures unenforceable, then this entire
Section . . . is unenforceable."  Id. at 193.

The trial court denied the motion based on this language, and the
Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that "the law of California
would find the class action waiver unenforceable because, for
example, the CLRA expressly precludes waiver of the right to
bring a class action under the CLRA."  Id. at 194, citing Cal.
Civ. Code Secs. 1751, 1781(a).

DirecTV argued that the decision was contrary to Concepcion and
its broad interpretation of the FAA.  However, the Court stated,
"[t]he FAA's broad policy of enforcement of arbitration
agreements according to their terms applies even to 'agreements
to arbitrate under different rules than those set forth in the
[FAA] itself.'"  Id. (citation omitted).  Accordingly, based on
the California rule of contract interpretation that a specific
provision controls over a general one, "the reference to 'the law
of your state' in [the arbitration agreement] operates as 'a
specific exception to the arbitration agreement's general
adoption of the FAA'" found elsewhere in the agreement.  Id. at
195.  In addition, the Court held, Plaintiffs' "interpretation of
the contract finds further support in 'the common-law rule of
contract interpretation that a court should construe ambiguous
language against the interest of the party that drafted it.'"
Id. at 196 (citation omitted).

DirecTV relied on the recent Ninth Circuit case of Murphy v.
DirecTV, Inc., 724 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013), which was decided
after briefing in the Imburgia appeal was completed.  There, the
Ninth Circuit held that the class action waiver in DirecTV's
customer agreement was enforceable underConcepcion, which
preempts contrary state law.  724 F.3d at 1228.  The Court of
Appeals reasoned that "'the parties' various contract
interpretation arguments' -- which included both the argument
that the specific reference to state law controlled over the
general reference to the FAA and the argument that ambiguities
should be construed against the drafter -- 'are largely
irrelevant to our analysis,' because under the Supremacy Clause
of the United States Constitution, and the related doctrine of
federal preemption, federal law is the law of every state."  Id.

The California Court of Appeal was unpersuaded:  "a reasonable
reader of the customer agreement would naturally interpret the
phrase 'the law of your state' as referring to (nonfederal) state
law, and any ambiguity should be construed against the drafter.[]
On the other hand, insofar as the court reasoned that contract
interpretation is irrelevant because the parties are powerless to
opt out of the FAA by contract, we are aware of no authority for
the court's position."  170 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 197 (footnote
omitted).

DirecTV's counsel has stated that the company intends to appeal.
Thus, the extent to which parties are indeed powerless to opt out
of the FAA because "federal law is the law of every state," or
whether state law contract principles may allow them to do so,
remains undecided.  Based on the broad scope of the FAA as
interpreted by Concepcion and Murphy, it is far from clear that
theImburgia decision will survive.


DOW JONES: Illegally Disclosed User Information, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Locklear, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Delaware
corporation d/b/a Wall Street Journal Live, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00744-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 13, 2014), seeks to put an end to the
Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing users'
sensitive information, and to obtain redress for such conduct.

Dow Jones & Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation located at
1211 Avenue of the Americans, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      James Dominick Larry, Esq.
      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON P.C.
      350 North LaSalle Drive
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 598-6370
      E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
              nlarry@edelson.com
              jedelson@edelson.com
              rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

      Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
      THE JORDAN FIRM, LLC
      Suite 880, 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E.
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 873-4720
      Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
      E-mail: jennifer@thejordanfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Anthony Eliseuson, Esq.
      Kristen Rodriguez, Esq.
      Natalie Spears, Esq.
      DENTONS US LLP-IL
      233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
      Chicago, IL 60606-6404
      Telephone: (312) 876-8000

            - and -

      Richard H. Sinkfield, Esq.
      ROGERS & HARDIN, LLP
      229 Peachtree Street, N.E.
      2700 International Tower, Peachtree Center
      Atlanta, GA 30303-1601
      Telephone: (404) 522-4700
      E-mail: RSINKFIELD@RH-LAW.COM


DYNEGY INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on April 30 dismissed a putative securities fraud class
action brought against various officers and directors of Dynegy
Inc. claiming they failed to provide investors with crucial
information when restructuring the company's assets in 2011.

In a 52-page opinion, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl found
that the Houston, Texas-based electric utility company had
provided shareholders with fair warning that it was purchasing
coal-fired and gas-powered facilities from Dynegy Holdings LLC in
September 2011, and that the transactions would be only the first
in a series of refinancing moves.

"In this case, Dynegy made significant public disclosures
pertaining to its ongoing restructuring efforts.  Although the
plaintiffs argue that Dynegy's disclosures did not adequately
inform investors that its initial refinancing and restructuring
together constituted the first of two steps in a planned
restructuring process, Dynegy in fact disclosed in July 2011 that
its refinancing and restructuring were only 'the initial step in
the company's operating and financial restructuring'," the ruling
said.

Judge Koeltl also ruled that alleged omissions in U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filings and other statements identified
in the complaint could not be considered "material" because a
reasonable investor would not have considered the missing
information to be a major factor on whether to purchase stock in
Dynegy.

The putative class action was filed by shareholder Charles Silsby
in 2012, alleging that Dynegy CEO Robert C. Flexon and other
executives failed to disclose that the company was insolvent or
nearly insolvent when it purchased the Dynegy Holdings assets,
and told other "half-truths" related to its financial standing at
the time.

Two months later, Dynegy placed the holding company into
bankruptcy as part of a pact with investors to sort out more than
$4 billion in debt.  As part of the transfer, the company
received a financial instrument called an undertaking that was
later valued at $1.25 billion.

Mr. Silsby alleged that value was far too high, and that
controversy surrounding the coal asset transfer later caused
"devastating" stock losses.

Two weeks after the transfer, Dynegy's stock priced in at nearly
$6 per share, the complaint said. But on March 9, 2012, an
examiner tapped by Dynegy Holdings' bankruptcy judge to probe the
transfer issued a scathing report deeming it fraudulent.

In addition to Flexon, the class action also named Dynegy Chief
Financial Officer Clint C. Freeland, Chief Operating Officer
Kevin Holwell, major Dynegy equity holder Carl Icahn, and five
current or former directors at the company as defendants.

Mr. Silsby is represented by Nicholas I. Porritt of Levi &
Korsinsky LLP.

The non-Icahn defendants are represented by Douglas P. Baumstein
-- dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- and Isaac Glassman --
iglassman@whitecase.com -- of White & Case LLP.

Icahn is represented by Robert R. Viducich.

The case is Silsby v. Icahn et al., case number 1:12-cv-02307, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


E-Z RENT A CAR: Violates FACTA Amendment to FCRA, Fla. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Legg, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals v. E-Z Rent a Car, Inc, a Florida
corporation d/b/a in California as Florida E-Z Rent a Car, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01124-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 1, 2014) is based
upon the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

E-Z Rent A Car, Inc. is a Florida corporation whose principal
office is located in Orlando, Florida.  Since 1994, the Defendant
has been in the business of renting automobiles to consumers.
The Defendant currently maintains rental locations in numerous
airports both in and outside of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL
          555 West Beech Street, Suite 230
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (877) 749-3838
          E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.
          Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


EAST COAST WALL: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Gatanis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
1 Pennsylvania Road, #10, Glassboro, NJ 08028, and Michael
Gatanis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 3
South Delsea Drive, Apt. B (Upstairs), Glassboro, NJ 08028 v.
East Coast Wall Systems, LLC, 101 Stacy Haines Road, Lumberton,
NJ 08048, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-02776-RMB-JS
(D.N.J., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants intentionally
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated proper
overtime compensation earned while in the Defendants' employ.

East Coast is a business entity headquartered in Lumberton, New
Jersey.  The Doe Defendants are presently unknown persons.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com


EAST TEXAS INSULATORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Worker Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Landaverde, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly v. East Texas Insulators, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00584
(E.D. Tex., May 1, 2014) accuses the Company of failing to pay
the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated employees overtime
wages.

East Texas Insulators, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
doing business in the state of Texas with its principal place of
business in Longview, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596-7100
          Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


EL CIBAENO BAKERY: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Luciano" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silvio Luciano, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. El Cibaeno Bakery Inc. Case no. 1:14-cv-01103
(S.D.N.Y., February 21, 2014), results from the alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Acts as claimed that the Plaintiff is
entitle of the unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgmental  and post-
judgmental interest and attorney's fees.

El Cibaeno is a New York domestic business corporation located at
653 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, New York 10462.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Line 6B Crude Oil Release
-----------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 25 actions or claims are pending against Enbridge
Energy Partners, L.P. and its affiliates in state and federal
courts in connection with the Line 6B crude oil release,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

A number of governmental agencies and regulators have initiated
investigations into the Line 6B crude oil release. Approximately
25 actions or claims are pending against the company and its
affiliates in state and federal courts in connection with the
Line 6B crude oil release, including direct actions and actions
seeking class status. Based on the current status of these cases,
the company does not expect the outcome of these actions to be
material. On July 2, 2012, PHMSA announced a Notice of Probable
Violation, or NOPV, related to the Line 6B crude oil release,
including a civil penalty of $3.7 million that the company paid
during the third quarter of 2012.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Suit for $830MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that an agreement with Endo International PLC to resolve
thousands of lawsuits over transvaginal mesh devices is unlikely
to sway other manufacturers to immediately settle, according to
lawyers involved in the litigation.

The deal, estimated to be worth about $830 million, resolves
20,000 claims against Endo's Minneapolis subsidiary, American
Medical Systems Inc., the company said on April 30.  The deal is
the largest to come out of the mesh litigation -- but that
doesn't mean other manufacturers are scrambling to craft their
own agreements.  In fact, two of the largest defendants --
Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific Corp. -- are preparing
for trials this year.

"It's going to be a busy year," said Harry Bell --
hfbell@belllaw.com -- of The Bell Law Firm in Charleston, W.Va.,
liaison co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the mesh litigation.
"The landscape of TVM [transvaginal mesh] is going to be
drastically different at the end of the year.  We've already seen
one huge change."  He referred to the AMS settlement.

AMS isn't the first defendant to settle mesh cases.  Coloplast
Corp., which faces more than 1,200 lawsuits, announced on March 4
that it had "reached a settlement agreement in principle with a
group of lawyers."

But the AMS deal resolves the largest volume of cases.  More than
40,000 lawsuits have targeted seven manufacturers alleging that
mesh implants, designed to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse, have caused pain and bleeding and in, some cases,
required additional surgeries to remove them.

On April 29, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued two
proposed orders that would reclassify transvaginal mesh devices
as "high risk."

The AMS agreement aside, most of the manufacturers have taken a
hard line.

"The official position of the other defendants -- we're talking
about Bard, Ethicon, and Boston Scientific -- is they are
prepared to fight this," Mr. Bell said.  "They think their
products, there's nothing wrong with them, and they're
aggressively fighting and continuing to do so."

Johnson & Johnson, whose Ethicon Inc. unit is named in more than
15,000 lawsuits, faces mounting pressure in mesh litigation.  On
Feb. 4, U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl Eifert in the Southern
District of West Virginia sanctioned Ethicon for having lost or
destroyed some documents and ordered that juries should be told
about it -- but she also concluded the actions weren't negligent.
Consumer groups, taking up the sanctions order, have called upon
the Justice Department and Congress to investigate.  The
Corporate Action Network, which has launched a campaign called
www.JohnsonandJohnsonHurtsWomen.org has called on chief executive
officer Alex Gorsky, who previously headed the Ethicon unit, to
stop making the implants.

Johnson & Johnson is scheduled to go to trial on July 7 in
New Jersey state courts -- although the date could be pushed
back, given Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee's
temporary assignment to the appellate division.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Adam Slater -- aslater@mskf.net -- a
partner at Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland, N.J., said
Johnson & Johnson has been among the most aggressive opponents.
"The litigation has been much more contentious," he said.  "It's
hard fought litigation."

On April 3, a jury in Dallas issued a $1.2 million verdict
against Johnson & Johnson.  On Feb. 19, U.S. District Judge
Joseph Goodwin, overseeing most of the mesh cases in the Southern
District of West Virginia, tossed out the first federal trial
over one of its mesh devices.  A second trial is set for Aug. 25.
Boston Scientific, which faces more than 10,000 lawsuits, also
has trials coming up.  In federal court, Goodwin has scheduled a
Sept. 29 trial for five women in Florida and an Oct. 14 trial
involving 10 women in West Virginia.
"Until they come in with a serious substantial offer for my
clients, we're going to be prepared to go to trial," Mr. Bell
said.

It's not just the defendants who are up for a fight. Although
steering committees lead the litigation, plaintiffs attorneys
have pursued cases independently.  About a dozen firms with a
combined 10,000 claims didn't participate in the AMS agreement,
said
Joseph Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- founding member of Motley
Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C., who led negotiations over the deal.

"This is not a global settlement," he said.  "This settlement
probably resolves 80 percent of the cases that have been filed in
the courthouse."

Some attorneys, he said, just weren't ready to settle.  After
all, AMS isn't just writing blank checks. Under the agreement,
the women must prove that it was AMS's device -- not another
defendant's -- that caused their injuries.

That process could take at least nine months, Mr. Rice said.  He
acknowledged that many women could have trouble proving their
pain is related to the mesh devices inside them.

"I'm certain the defendants feel there are a number of claims
filed that have not suffered a present injury," he said.  "And I
believe they're right."


ERNST & YOUNG: CalPERS Wins $12.75-Mil. Settlement in Lehman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anderson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that the California Public Employees' Retirement System said on
May 5 it won a $12.75 million settlement with accounting firm
Ernst & Young LLP over its assessment of Lehman Brothers stocks
and bonds prior to the 2008 collapse of Lehman.

The Sacramento-based public pension fund opted to pursue
litigation against Ernst & Young on its own rather than being
part of a class action.  According to a news release from
CalPERS, the settlement is far larger than if it had stayed in
the class action.

The CalPERS action was filed in February 2011 over allegedly
false statements made by the accounting firm about Lehman's
financial condition, which led to Lehman securities trading at
artificially high values.


FACEBOOK INC: Ninth Circuit Tosses Federal Privacy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that the Ninth
Circuit shielded Facebook and Zynga from federal wiretap claims
on May 8, but opened the door for plaintiffs to pursue state law
claims against the social networking giant.

In putative class actions that were consolidated on appeal,
plaintiffs alleged Facebook Inc. and Zynga Inc. violated their
privacy by sharing their confidential information with third
parties.  But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
spared the companies, finding they had not disclosed the
substance of users' messages, as required for claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

"The plaintiffs' complaints suffer from a common defect -- they
fail to allege that either Facebook or Zynga divulged the
contents of a communication to a third party," Ninth Circuit
Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the three-judge panel.

In a 22-page opinion, Judge Ikuta and Circuit Judges Arthur
Alarcon and Richard Tallman endorsed the rulings of U.S. District
Judge James Ware, who has since retired from the Northern
District of California bench.  A spokesman for Zynga, the San
Francisco-based social gaming company, did not immediately
respond to a request for comment about the order.  Facebook
cheered the ruling.

"We are pleased that the court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' federal and state statutory claims," a Facebook
spokeswoman said in a statement.

But the Menlo Park-based company is not entirely off the hook.
Parting ways with Ware in an unpublished opinion, the panel
revived plaintiffs' breach-of-contract and fraud claims, which
were filed under state law.  Plaintiffs may now move forward with
allegations that Facebook's disclosures to advertisers robbed
them of the value of their personal information.

Kassra Nassiri, who represents plaintiffs in Robertson v.
Facebook, hailed the order as an important development for
plaintiffs in privacy class actions.  Many district courts have
tossed breach-of-contract claims in the cases, reasoning that the
disclosure of personal information is not real harm, he noted.

"I'm really pleased that the Ninth Circuit felt otherwise," said
Mr. Nassiri, of Nassiri & Jung in San Francisco.  "It's not
plausible that this personal information is worth a gold mine to
Facebook and worthless to the plaintiffs."

But Mr. Nassiri said he was disappointed the court made that
ruling in the form of an unpublished opinion that will not set
precedent.

Adam Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer in
Chicago, who argued the motion for the plaintiffs in Graf v.
Zynga, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Aaron Panner -- apanner@khhte.com -- the Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel partner who argued the motion for Facebook,
could not be reached either.  Duane Morris partner
Richard Seabolt -- RLSeabolt@duanemorris.com -- who argued the
motion for Zynga, declined comment.

Plaintiffs accuse Zynga and Facebook of transmitting users'
Facebook IDs and the links of pages they visited to advertisers.
Plaintiffs warned that advertisers could use those tidbits to
reach users' profile pages.  But the panel found that information
does not comprise the "contents" of a message.

"We hold that under ECPA, the term 'contents' refers to the
intended message conveyed by the communication, and does not
include record information regarding the characteristics of the
message that is generated in the course of the communication,"
Judge Ikuta wrote.


FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Washington, writing for WTVY-TV, reports that a
Dothan attorney has filed a class action lawsuit against
Flowers Hospital, following an eight-month long data breach that
spanned June of 2013 until February of 2014.

The lawsuit, filed by M. Adam Jones and Associates is on behalf
of Bradley Smith, Julie McGee and others.  The 24-page lawsuit
has four counts, including willful and negligent violation of the
fair credit reporting act, negligence and violation of privacy by
public disclosure of private facts.

This lawsuit comes three weeks after Flowers Hospital sent a
letter to an undisclosed amount of patients on April 15th.  The
letter informs patients of a potential data breach, which may
have put their personal information at risk.

The letter also informs the patients the employee believed to be
at the center of the data breach has been fired.  That employee
was reportedly Kamarian Millender, who has since been arrested in
Henry County and charged with trafficking in stolen IDs.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit are seeking money for
damages, attorney's fees and other costs associated with the
lawsuit.


GENERAL MOTORS: General Counsel Gets Mix Views Amid Recall Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that few
executives will play a more important role in the current
General Motors Co. recall scandal than its general counsel,
Michael Millikin.  And there were some decidedly mixed views
about his work.

Mr. Millikin's legal department is dealing with four federal
investigations -- by the U.S. Department of Justice, the National
Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, and committees in the House
and Senate -- over its decade-long delay in recalling 2.6 million
cars with faulty ignition switches that led to at least 13
deaths.  A former federal prosecutor, Mr. Millikin is also
coleading an internal GM probe into the problem.

The GC has a team of about 85 in-house lawyers in the U.S., with
approximately 140 more overseas, where the company has been
making a push for more sales.  And the team is facing at least 55
lawsuits filed domestically related to the ignition-switch
problems.

Mr. Millikin, 65, has declined comment during the ongoing
investigations.  But others describe him as a "no-nonsense lawyer
and manager who strikes an imposing presence around GM
headquarters.  He demands an unusually fine level of detail from
those who report directly to him," according to a story in
Automotive News.

"He's extremely hands-on," the article quotes one former attorney
who worked with Millikin.  "Mike's management style is, 'Tell me
now.  I need to know.'"Another former colleague described
Mr. Millikin in the article as "street smart" and "intense."

John Quinn, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan who
has worked with Mr. Millikin on GM cases for 20 years, told
Automotive News that he has seen Mr. Millikin be very "critical
of people who get out of line"within GM.  "He's not starry-eyed
about GM.  He knows there can be bad apples, and he doesn't
tolerate it," Mr. Quinn said.

But not everyone thinks so highly of the GC.  Peter DeLorenzo,
who has written two books about the dysfunction in the auto
industry and authors a blog called Autoextremist, attacked the
legal department.

"GM's legal staff needs to be blown up, starting with a regime
change at the top and a thorough purging of any and all who have
enthusiastically taken their marching orders from the current
chief counsel [Millikin],"he wrote.

Mr. DeLorenzo has said the legal department represents the "old"
GM culture, which "revolves around making money."  He accused it
of "paranoia" and "internal meddling," and said it has been "on a
downward spiral" since the 1960s when a wayward legal staffer
investigated consumer advocate Ralph Nader without authorization.

GM has said Mr. Millikin learned of the ignition-switch problems
after Jan. 31, but his legal department has settled at least five
related cases involving fatal crashes over the past several
years.

Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School,
told Automotive News that a GC at a company as large as GM would
not normally "wade into the minutiae" of individual cases.  But a
pattern of settlements eventually should raise red flags.

"That's a key question in this case: What did the legal
department know, and how high up did it go?" Mr. Henning said.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Class Action Settlement Talks Underway
------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that talks are underway
to settle a class action over the billion dollar collapse of
agribusiness Great Southern.  The agricultural projects manager,
which raised $1.8 billion and managed 45 investment schemes,
collapsed in 2009.

A trial concluded in October 2013 and a judgment is pending.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, which had loans to investors in Great
Southern managed investment schemes, has confirmed settlement
talks are being held by the parties involved.

No agreement has been reached, and if there is an agreement
struck, it would require court approval, the bank said.  But
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank said it would only accept a settlement
that includes an admission from class action members that their
loans from the bank are valid and enforceable.

Lawyers pursuing the class action are seeking to have the loans
deemed void and for all money issued by the bank to be repaid to
borrowers.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has made provisions against its failed
Great Southern loans, but has said they are small in relation to
the potential losses should it be required to repay the loans.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Removed "Goldberg" Suit to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Goldberg, et al. v. Healthport
Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. ESX-L-01421-14, was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02810-WHW-CLW to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege claims for overcharging for services
related to copying medical records, in violation of the New
Jersey Administrative Code.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter J. Kurshan, Esq.
          CHASE, KURSHAN, HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC
          354 Livingston Parkway
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Telephone: (973) 535-8840
          E-mail: pkurshan@chaselawnj.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rebecca Brazzano, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 344-5680
          Facsimile: (212) 344-6101
          E-mail: rebecca.brazzano@thompsonhine.com


HERB CHAMBERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott O'Brien, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. Herb Chambers of Somerville Corp., Herb
Chambers Of Braintree II, LLC, and The Herb Chambers Companies,
Case No. 1:14-cv-11990 (D. Mass., May 1, 2014) is brought to
recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages and liquidated
damages.

The Herb Chambers Companies is a group of corporations and
limited liability companies that operate numerous auto
dealerships (approximately 50), auto repair facilities
(approximately 48) and collision centers (3) in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq.
          FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN LLC
          100 Wells Avenue
          Newton, MA 02459
          Telephone: (617) 559-1530
          Facsimile: (617) 505-1540
          E-mail: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian P. McCafferty, Esq.
          KENNEY & MCCAFFERTY PC
          1787 Sentry Park West
          Building 18, Suite 410
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (215) 367-4333
          Facsimile: (215) 367-4335
          E-mail: cafstar@aol.com


HESS CORPORATION: Settles Royalty Owners' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ARMAND L. SMITH, BRAZOS BRAVO ROYALTY TRUST AND RIO PETRO, LTD.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
private royalty and overriding royalty owners,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HESS CORPORATION,

No. 13-CV-00468-JCH-CG

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF A CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS OF OWNERS OF PRIVATE ROYALTY AND
OVERRIDING ROYALTY THAT BURDEN LEASES OR WORKING INTERESTS OF
HESS CORPORATION IN THE WEST BRAVO DOME CARBON DIOXIDE UNIT WHO
RECEIVE ROYALTIES FOR PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE, EXCLUDING
T.E. MITCHELL & SONS, INC.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on May 20, 2013 for themselves and
on behalf of private royalty and overriding royalty owners
against Hess Corporation.  Plaintiffs contend that they are
owners of royalty and overriding royalty interest in the West
Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit in Harding County, New Mexico
whose interests apply to the leases in the Unit operated by Hess.
The leases produce carbon dioxide which Hess uses for enhanced
recovery of oil in West Texas.  Plaintiffs contend that they and
all private owners have been economically damaged because Hess
underpaid the royalty and overriding royalty by not following the
terms of the Unit Agreement.  Plaintiffs claim that Hess has
breached the Unit Agreement and breached the implied covenants of
good faith and of the duty to market.

On February 21, 2014, the Court in this case entered an Unopposed
Class Certification Order.  The case will now proceed as a class
action between the Smith Class and Hess.  The Smith Class
includes all private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the
Unit, except T. E. Mitchell & Son, Inc.  This notice is being
published to call attention to the class members.

The claims certified by the Court are for breach of contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach
of implied covenant to market and declaratory judgment and
injunction.

The lawyers representing plaintiffs and the Class are the
following:

J.E. Gallegos, Esq.
Michael J. Condon, Esq.
Gallegos Law Firm, P.C.
460 St. Michael's Drive, Building 300
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
Tel: (505) 983-6686
E-mail: jeg@gallegoslawfirm.net
        mjc@gallegoslawfirm.net

This Notice is given by Order of the Court.  It summarizes some
of your rights under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. It is not an expression of any opinion of the Court as
to the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by any
party in the case.  More detailed information is being provided
in a written Notice being mailed to all class members.  If you
have not received that Notice you may obtain one by contacting
plaintiffs' attorneys noted above.

IF YOU WANT TO REMAIN A CLASS MEMBER, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING AT THIS TIME.

This Summary Notice is not meant to be a complete description of
the case.  The pleadings and other papers filed in this case are
available for inspection at the office of the U.S. District Clerk
of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, during the regular business hours of each business
day.

Please address any questions concerning this Notice by calling or
by writing to the lawyers for the plaintiffs listed at GALLEGOS
LAW FIRM, P.C.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION.

Ordered this 25th day of March, 2014, by the United States
District Court of New Mexico.


HIKO ENERGY: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yang Chen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Hiko Energy, LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv-01771-VB (S.D.N.Y., March
14, 2014), seeks redress from the Defendant's deceptive pricing
practices that have caused thousands of consumers to pay
considerably more for their electricity than they should
otherwise have paid.  Hiko Energy, LLC, has taken advantage of
the deregulation of the retail electricity markets by luring
consumers into switching electricity suppliers with false
promises of a competitive market-based rate that delivers
guaranteed savings.

Hiko Energy, LLC, is a New York corporation located at 12 College
Rd., Suite 100, Monsey, New York 10952.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
      Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      Shin Young Hahn, Esq.
      Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
      MEISELMAN, PACKMAN, NEALON, SCIALABBA & BAKER P.C.(WPL)
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 517-5000
      Facsimile: (914) 517-5055
      E-mail: gblankinship@mpnsb.com
              jfrei-pearson@mpnsb.com
              shahn@mpnsb.com
              tgarber@mpnsb.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Motty Shulman, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 749-8244
      E-mail: mshulman@bsfllp.com


HIKO ENERGY: Faces "Sasso" Suit Over Deceptive Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Sasso on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Hiko Energy, LLc, Case No. 7:14-cv-02042-VB
(S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for
false marketing of its electricity supply by representing to
consumers that they will enjoy guaranteed savings as compared to
local utilities' rates, and that they offer a competitive market
rate.

Hiko Energy, LLC is a New York limited liability corporation
located at 12 College Road, Monsey, New York 10952-2821.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
      MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07922
      Telephone: (973) 228-9898
      Facsimile: (973) 328-0303
      E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Motty Shulman, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 749-8244
      E-mail: mshulman@bsfllp.com


HSNI LLC: Sued Misleading Promotion of Kitchen Knives
-----------------------------------------------------
Allen Moshiri, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HSNi, LLC dba Shopping Network, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company et al, Case No. 3:14-cv-01034-VC (N.D.
Cal., March 5, 2014) is brought against the Defendants for
unfair, unlawful; and fraudulent course of conduct in promoting,
advertising, offering for sale, and selling products through
material misinterpretations and omissions as to the place of
origin and quality of products.

HSNi, LLC has promoted, advertised and sold various kitchen
knives and knife sets under the "EMERIL" brand name that the
Defendant represented were manufactured in Solingen, Germany.
However, these knives and knife sets were manufactured in China.

HSNi, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation located at
St. Petersburg, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farrah Agharokh Mirabel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF FARRAH MIRABEL
      4590 Mcarthur Blvd, Suite 280
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 752-0707
      Facsimile: (949) 417-1796
      E-mail: fmesq@fmirabel.com

           - and -

      J. Kirk Donnelly, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF J. KIRK DONNELLEY, APC
      7668 El Camino Real, Suite 104-760
      Carlsbad, CA 92009
      Telephone: (760) 634-5700
      Facsimile: (760) 634-5701

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jay W. Connolly, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 397-2823
      E-mail: jconnolly@seyfarth.com

           - and -

     Daniel Michael Blouin, Esq.
     Kristine Rinella Argentine, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     131 South Dearborn, Suite 2400
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 460-5000
     Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
     E-mail: dblouin@seyfarth.com
             kargentine@seyfarth.com


JANSSEN PHARMA: Judge Upholds $11MM Verdict in Topamax Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a Philadelphia judge has upheld an $11 million jury verdict
awarded to the parents of a child born with a severe cleft lip
caused by the anti-seizure drug Topamax, which his mother took
during pregnancy.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge George W. Overton denied
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals' request for
a new trial April 25.  The jury in Powell v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals issued the award in favor of Haley Powell and
Michael Gurley, the parents of Brayden Gurley, on Nov. 18, 2013.
The verdict was divided into $335,000 for future health care
expenses and $10.6 million for non-economic loss.  Delay damages
were added Dec. 3, in the amount of $700,294, bringing the total
up to about $11.6 million.

In April, Janssen settled 76 cases in which plaintiffs alleged
that Topamax, taken during pregnancy, caused birth defects.

According to the Complex Litigation Center's case inventory, in
the wake of the settlements, 59 Topamax cases are still pending.
In response to Janssen's 15-point appeal in Powell, Judge Overton
wrote in his opinion that Janssen was neither entitled to a new
trial nor remittitur because the jury's award was appropriate
given the severity of Brayden Gurley's injuries.

In addition to emotional injuries suffered by Brayden because of
his inability to be understood in conversation with his peers as
well as residual surgical scarring, Judge Overton said Brayden
must undergo ongoing visits with a plastic surgeon, dental
surgery, speech therapy, auditory evaluations, oral surgery,
possible rhinoplasty and treatment for possible psychological
issues related to the corrective surgeries.

"Given the injuries that will plague Brayden Gurley into
adulthood, the award determined by the jury can hardly be said to
be excessive," Judge Overton said.

Powell's pretrial memorandum alleged that Powell's ingestion of
Topamax (also called topiramate) -- prescribed to control her
migraine headaches and hand tremors during the first trimester of
pregnancy in 2007 -- caused her son to be born with right
unilateral cleft lip.

According to court papers, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of
the drug, knew about the risk of birth defects associated with
Topamax, but failed to provide adequate warning to users.

"A decade before Janssen got around to changing its label [in
2011], internal Janssen documents concluded that Topamax can
cause birth defects," court papers alleged, adding that a 2001
informed consent form draft from Janssen stated, "Topiramate has
the potential to cause serious birth defects in children."
On appeal, Janssen requested judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, claiming that Powell's failure-to-warn claims were
preempted by federal law; however, Judge Overton said the case
had nothing to do with preemption.

"Whether [Janssen] was negligent in failing to warn was the
liability issue for the jury to determine in this matter and not
preemption," Judge Overton said.  "It was not the [jury's] duty
to determine whether federal law preempted because it was not the
issue in the case."

Judge Overton added that even though the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, a federal agency, had the authority to approve
the Topamax warning label, the FDA's approval does not preempt
state law failure-to-warn suits against a drugmaker.

Janssen also argued that the court failed to instruct the jury as
to comparative negligence and what percentage was attributable to
Powell, Judge Overton said.

"Since this case was based on [Janssen's] failure to warn the
prescribing physician, comparative negligence was not
applicable," Overton said, adding that Janssen would have had to
direct any claim regarding comparative negligence to Powell's
doctor.

However, Judge Overton noted that the jury found that Janssen
failed to warn Powell's doctor as to the risks associated with
Topamax.

"Furthermore, it was unnecessary to instruct the jury on the
comparative negligence standard because the plaintiff's
negligence was not at issue in the case," Overton concluded.

Another argument made by Janssen was that the admission of
certain "irrelevant" evidence prejudiced its case, Judge Overton
said.  Some of the evidence included consent forms from the
Topamax clinical trial participants, adverse event reports (AERs)
and the testimony of two medical experts.

"Accordingly, the data from the consent forms made it more
probable that [Janssen] had knowledge that Topamax could cause
birth defects in its users and that information was directly
related to how the trier of fact determined this matter,"
Judge Overton said.

He added that Janssen wasn't prejudiced by the admission of the
AERs because they were germane to causation.

"If complex and technical medical reports are presented with an
expert whose testimony would explain their significance to the
jury," Judge Overton said, "the evidence should be admitted."

Lastly, Judge Overton said the testimony of two medical experts
was not redundant, as Janssen had claimed, and therefore could
properly be admitted into evidence.

"Each expert witness testified about the issue in the case based
on their individual expertise and merely strengthened the other
expert's testimony," Judge Overton said, adding that neither
expert "presented evidence that was needlessly cumulative; both
provided varying opinions that assisted the jury, as the trier of
fact, in determining the outcome of this case."

Janssen's attorney, Kenneth Murphy -- Kenneth.Murphy@dbr.com --
of Drinker Biddle & Reath, declined to comment.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Shelley Hutson of Houston-
based Clark, Love & Hutson, did not return a call seeking
comment.


JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in Labor Suit Up for Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary approval is being sought for a settlement reached
in a labor suit filed against Edward Jones in Alameda Superior
Court, according to The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s May
2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2014.

Nicholas Maxwell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated. On December 18, 2012, Edward Jones was named
as a defendant in a putative class action complaint in Alameda
Superior Court. The complaint asserted causes of action for
unlawful wage deductions (Labor Code sections 221, 223, 400-410,
2800, 2802, Cal. Code Reg. title 8, section 11040(8)); California
Unfair Competition Law violations (Business and Professions Code
sections 17200-04); and waiting time penalties (Labor Code
sections 201-203). Plaintiff alleged that Edward Jones improperly
charged its California financial advisors fees, costs, and
expenses related to trading errors or "broken" trades, and failed
to timely pay wages at termination. The parties reached a
tentative settlement that, if approved, will not have an adverse
material impact on the Partnership's Consolidated Financial
Condition. Plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement on March 26, 2014.


JPMORGAN CHASE: MBS Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that JPMorgan Chase &
Co has won preliminary approval from a U.S. judge for its
agreement to pay $280 million to resolve claims that it misled
investors in billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed
securities.

U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen, in Brooklyn, New York, issued
the preliminary approval on May 2.  The settlement, which is
subject to final court approval, would resolve a class action
lawsuit filed in 2008.

The accord marks the third-largest settlement in a U.S. class
action against banks that packaged and sold mortgage securities
at the center of the 2008 financial crisis.

The class action was led by the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi, which had sued over what it said were
untrue statements and omissions in connection with $36.8 billion
in mortgage securities issued in 2006 and 2007.  The lawsuit
accused JPMorgan of ignoring its standards and guidelines when
evaluating and buying loans included in 33 offerings of mortgage
securities.

After a series of rulings, MissPERS ultimately moved forward on a
narrower case that would cover investor claims stemming from 26
offerings of mortgage-backed securities.  The settlement resolves
claims held by investors in those offerings.

A hearing on final settlement approval is scheduled for July 24.

David Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- a lawyer for the
plaintiffs at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, declined
comment.

The JPMorgan settlement, which was filed with the court in March,
follows a deal announced in February in which Royal Bank of
Scotland Group Plc agreed to pay $275 million to resolve similar
mortgage-backed securities claims.

Other class-action settlements over mortgage-backed securities
include a $500 million deal between Bank of America Corp and
investors claiming they were misled by the bank's Countrywide
unit.  A federal judge approved that settlement in December.

A separate $315 million accord over securities issued by Bank of
America's Merrill Lynch unit won court approval in 2012.

The case is Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Supplemental Plan
& Trust v. J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, et al, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 08-01713.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces "Kurtz" Suit Over Flushable Wipes
-------------------------------------------------------
D. Joseph Kurtz, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Costco
Wholesale Corporation Case No. 1:14-cv-01142 (E.D.N.Y., February
21, 2014), alleges deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the
design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution and sale of
Kimberly-Clark's flushable wipes that cause harm to plumbing and
sewer system.

Kimberly-Clark is a Delaware corporation, which, together with
its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets personal care,
consumer tissue, and health products worldwide.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is a Washington corporation, which,
together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

           - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 E Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

           - and -

      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: reich@csgrr.com

The Defendants are represented by:

      Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      787 Seventh Ave
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 839-8555
      Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
      E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com

           - and -

      Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
      James W. Mizgala, Esq.
      Kara L. McCall, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      One South Dearborn Street
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 853-7000
      Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
      E-mail: dspira@sidley.com
              jmizgala@sidley.com
              kmccall@sidley.com

           - and -

      James M. Bergin, Esq.
      MORRISON & FOERSTER
      1290 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10104
      Telephone: (212) 468-8000
      Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
      E-mail: jbergin@mofo.com

           - and -

      Adam James Hunt, Esq.
      Kayvan Betteridge Sadeghi, Esq.
      MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
      1290 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10104
      Telephone: (212) 336-4341
      Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
      E-mail: adamhunt@mofo.com
              ksadeghi@mofo.com


L&B INDUSTRIAL: Sued for Failing to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed D. Porter, et al, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L&B Industrial, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00062 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
regular and overtime wages from the Defendant.

L&B Industrial, Inc., is a Texas corporation located at 2724 Sam
Houston Parkway, Pasadena, Texas 77503.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center, 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
              curt@mooreandassociates.net


LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Scesny" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph F. Scesny, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lifelock, Inc., a Delaware corporation, et
al, Case No. 2:14-cv-00479-SRB (D. Ariz., March 10, 2014), seeks
to recover damages caused by the Defendants violation of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Lifelock, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation located at 60 East Rio
salado Parkway, Suite 400, Tempe, Arizona 85281.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald Barrett, Esq.
      WARD KEENAN & BARRETT PC
      3838 N Central Ave., Ste. 1720
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 279-1717
      Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
      E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

           - and -

      Timothy John MacFall, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG PA
      825 E Gate Blvd., Ste. 300
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 683-3516
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Boris Feldman, Esq.
      Brian Danitz, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI LLP
      650 Page Mill Rd.
      Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
      Telephone: (650) 858-4444
      Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
      E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
              bdanitz@wsgr.com

           - and -

     Cynthia Ann Ricketts, Esq.
     SACKS RICKETTS & CASE LLP
     2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 1230
     Phoenix, AZ 85004
     Telephone: (602) 385-3370
     Facsimile: (602) 385-3371
     E-mail: cricketts@sacksrickettscase.com


LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Anand" Securities Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashish Anand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lihua International Inc., Jianhua Zhu, and Daphne Yan
Huang, Case No. 2:14-cv-03381-PA-VBK (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2014) is
a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased the
common stock of Lihua between August 9, 2012, and April 30, 2014,
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Lihua International Inc. is a Delaware corporation that purports
to manufacture, market, and distribute refined copper products
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Danyang Lihua Electron Co.,
Ltd., and Jiangsu Lihua Copper Industry Co., Ltd.  Throughout the
Class Period the Company was headquartered in Jiangsu Province of
the People's Republic of China.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


MARIE CALLENDER'S: Sued Over False Marketing of All Natural Foods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Musgrave, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marie Callender Pie Shops, Inc., Marie
Callender's Gourmet Products Division/ICC, and Conagra Foods RDM,
Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-02006-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of falsely and misleadingly advertising,
marketing, and labeling certain of their products as "all
natural" but which, in fact, contained one or more synthetic
ingredients.

Marie Callender's Pie Shops, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation
headquartered in Vernon, California.  Marie Callender's Gourmet
Products Division/ICC is a California Corporation headquartered
in San Jose, California.  ConAgra Foods RDM, Inc. is a Delaware
Corporation headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.  The Defendants
advertise, market, sell and distribute the All Natural Products
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          Molly A. DeSario, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
                  mdesario@scalaw.com


MICHAELS STORES: Fails to Secure Customer Data, "Maize" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Michaels Stores Inc. Case No. 1:14-
cv-01299 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014), seeks to put an end to
the alleged failure to secure and safeguard consumers' personal
financial data including credit and debit card information.

Michael's Stores, Inc., is a Delaware corporation located in
Irving, Texas. It is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America providing materials, project ideas and
education for creative activities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq.
      Gregory Wood Jones, Esq.
      Melanie K. Nelson, Esq.
      Joseph J Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 470-6588
      E-mail: gbarbakoff@siprut.com
              gjones@siprut.com
              mnelson@siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Scott R. Lassar, Esq.
      Theodore R. Scarborough , Jr., Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (CHICAGO)
      One South Dearborn Street
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 853-7000
      E-mail: slassar@sidley.com
              tscarborough@sidley.com


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Condominium Homeowners' Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed in 2011 against Mid-America Apartment
Communities, Inc. on behalf of the condominium homeowners
association and a class of unit owners in South Carolina state
court (Beaufort County) is currently in discovery, according to
the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

The Company (by virtue of its merger with Colonial) and Colonial
LP along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in a
lawsuit arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with
respect to condominium units at Plantation Point in Bluffton,
South Carolina. Plantation Point was previously owned and
operated by Colonial LP as a multi-family rental project by the
name of the Ashley Plantation apartments. Colonial LP sold the
property in 2005 to a third party, which then converted the
property to condominiums and sold all 414 units. The lawsuit,
filed on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and a
class of unit owners, was filed in South Carolina state court
(Beaufort County) in September 2011, against various parties
involved in the development, construction and conversion of the
Plantation Point property, including the contractors,
subcontractors, architect, developer, and product manufacturers.
The plaintiffs are seeking $24.7 million in damages resulting
from, among other things, alleged construction deficiencies and
misleading sales practices attributed to the third-party seller.
The lawsuit is currently in discovery. The Company is continuing
to investigate the matter and evaluate its options and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these claims.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Court Approves Settlement of Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama approved the
final settlement of the litigation over the combination of Mid-
America Apartment Communities, Inc. and Colonial Properties
Trust, according to MAA's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On June 19, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama captioned Williams v.
Colonial Properties Trust, et al., No. 01-CV-2013-902416.00 (the
"Williams Litigation"), seeking, among other things, to enjoin
the previously announced combination of MAA and Colonial in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated June 3, 2013, by and among MAA, the Operating Partnership,
Martha Merger Sub, LP, Colonial and Colonial LP. On March 6, 2014
the Court approved the final settlement of the Williams
litigation and the Company made the Court-approved immaterial
payment to the Plaintiff's attorneys.


MIDLANTIC TITLE: June 10 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF
NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
CAMDEN COUNTY
DOCKET NUMBER: CAM-L-2651-13

DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
5 Greentree Centre
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, New Jersey 08053
(856) 797-9951

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RENEE F. and STEVEN BERGMANN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

v.

MIDLANTIC TITLE, LLC,
Defendant.

LEGAL NOTICE

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A REFUND IF YOU WERE CHARGED A MORTGAGE
RECORDING FEE BY MIDLANTIC TITLE, LLC BETWEEN JULY 1, 2010 AND
APRIL 11, 2014

WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? A lawsuit encaptioned Renee F. and
Steven Bergmann v. Midlantic Title, LLC ("Midlantic"), Docket No.
CAM-L-2651-13 was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Camden County on behalf of all persons who were charged a
mortgage recording fee by Midlantic in New Jersey between July 1,
2010 and April 11, 2014.  The complaint alleges that Midlantic
had a uniform policy of improperly charging persons to whom it
provided real estate settlement services in New Jersey fees for
recording mortgages ("mortgage recording fees") in excess of the
amounts allowed by New Jersey law.  Midlantic denies any
wrongdoing and denies the claims and allegations asserted by
Plaintiffs and maintains that any overcharges that may have
occurred were unintentional errors and non-systematic
occurrences, and that any such overcharges were maintained in an
escrow account to be returned. The parties nevertheless have
agreed to settle the lawsuit.

WHY SHOULD I READ THIS NOTICE? You may be a member of the Class.
This is a class action lawsuit that the parties have proposed to
settle.  If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court,
your legal rights may be affected.  This notice describes what
the lawsuit is about, explains the terms of the proposed
settlement, tells you who would be covered and what legal claims
would be resolved by the settlement if the Court approves it, and
explains how individuals can obtain benefits under the
settlement.


AM I COVERED BY THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT? You can determine if you are a Class member by
reviewing your closing documents, and specifically your HUD-1
Form (commonly referred to as a settlement sheet) at Lines 1200
and 1201 to see if you were charged a mortgage recording fee and
the amounts of those fees.  If you were charged a mortgage
recording fee by Midlantic in New Jersey between July 1, 2010 and
April 11, 2014, you are a Class Member.  If you have any
questions regarding whether you are a Class Member, you can
contact Class Counsel at 856-797-9951 or send an e-mail to Class
Counsel at (insert our email).  You can also obtain more
information about the settlement by visiting Class Counsel's
website "www.denittislaw.com"

WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT? Midlantic has agreed to
create a procedure whereby for each class member who submits a
claim Midlantic (with appropriate monitoring from Plaintiffs'
counsel) will review and re-calculate the charge that should have
been made for recording the claimant's mortgage.  If this process
reveals you were charged more per page than is allowed under
N.J.S.A. 22A:4-4.1, less any right to offset for other fees not
charged to you but paid by Midlantic, the amount of such an
overcharge will be refunded to you.  Midlantic has also agreed to
pay up to $30,000 to Class Counsel in attorney's fees and
litigation expenses, subject to court approval.  Any attorney's
fees and litigation costs awarded will be paid separately by
Midlantic and such fees and expenses will not come out of your
refund or the refunds paid to the other Class Members.  The
proposed settlement is intended to settle all claims against
Midlantic that arise in any way from the Defendants' conduct in
the transactions which are the subject of this lawsuit.  By
participating in this Settlement, each Class Member is releasing
all such claims.

The foregoing is a summary of the basic settlement terms. The
full settlement is set forth in a Settlement Agreement that can
be viewed at "www.denittislaw.com", or by contacting Class
Counsel as set forth under the heading below " HOW DO I GET MORE
INFORMATION."

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS? If you are a member of the Class and wish to
participate in the settlement, you need to complete and submit a
claim form on or before September 18, 2014.

If you are a member of the Class and you do NOT want to remain
part of the Class, you must exclude yourself ("opt-out").  To
opt-out, you must mail a written request, postage pre-paid, to
Class Counsel at DeNittis Osefchen, P.C., 5 Greentree Centre,
Suite 410, 525 Route 73 N., Marlton, NJ 08053 and Defendant's
Counsel, Steven H. Doto, Esquire, Lauletta Birnbaum LLC, 591
Mantua Boulevard, Suite 200, Sewell, NJ 08080.  The request must
be post-marked on or before June 10, 2014, and contain: the name
of the lawsuit; your full name, current address and phone number;
your signature; and a specific statement of your intention to
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class and any judgment
entered pursuant to the proposed Settlement.  If you do not opt-
out as instructed above, you will be automatically included and
bound by any determination of the Court, whether favorable or
not, and any claim of yours will be ended by judgment.

You may also file a motion with the Court for permission to
intervene in this lawsuit if you wish.  You do not have to
intervene. If you do not intervene in this case or exclude
yourself from the class, your interests will be represented by
Class Counsel.

If you have not opted out, you may object to the proposed
settlement if you wish.  Any objection to the settlement must be
sent to the addresses listed above and postmarked no later than
June 10, 2014.  Any objection should contain the name of this
lawsuit; your full name, current address and telephone number;
your signature; proof of your membership in the Class; and the
specific reason(s) for your objection.

On June 20, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 31 the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, the Honorable Deborah
Silverman Katz , J.S.C., Hall of Justice, 101 S. Mickle, Camden,
New Jersey 08103, will hold a public hearing to determine whether
the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and
should be approved.  Class Members who support the proposed
settlement do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other
action to indicate their approval.  Class Members who object to
the proposed settlement are not required to attend the settlement
hearing.  If you want to be heard orally in opposition to the
settlement, either personally or through counsel, you must
indicate your intention to appear at the hearing in your written
objection.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION? Claim forms and further
information about the settlement can be obtained by visiting the
following website address: www.denittislaw.com , contacting Class
Counsel at 856-797-9951, or emailing Class counsel at
sdenittis@denittislaw.com

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE OR TELEPHONE THE COURT, DEFENDANT OR ANY OF
THEIR AGENTS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR
THIS LAWSUIT.

Dated: May 5, 2014


MILFORD WATER: Settles Class Action Over E. Coli Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Corcoran, writing The Milford Daily News, reports that
one day before the class action suit against the Milford Water
Co. was set to go to trial, a settlement was reached between the
company and the 11 plaintiffs suing over an August 2009 incident
in which E. coli was found in the town's water supply.  The
discovery led to a 13-day boil-water order.

Details of the settlement have not been made public, as both
parties were set to meet on May 5 with a judge in Worcester
Superior Court. Since the suit is a class action, the settlement
needs the approval of a judge.

The Milford Water Co. released a statement on May 5 saying it was
pleased to enter into a negotiated settlement agreement.

"After more than 100 years of nearly perfect service Milford
Water lost the trust and confidence of many of our customers and
the elected officials of the Town of Milford," said Manager
David Condrey.  "We have been working diligently over the past
four and a half years to regain that trust, and our effort
continues.  We are hopeful that this settlement will allow our
affected customers to have closure from the water quality events
of 2009."

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, James O'Connor, declined to
comment on the settlement until after the meeting with the judge.
The suit, which was certified as a class action in January 2013
and has 11 plaintiffs suing the company, alleges negligence,
gross negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranties and
unjust enrichment by the private utility saying it failed to
provide potable water and adequate service between Aug. 5-21,
2009.

During that period, the state Department of Environmental
Protection implemented a boil-water order for the town because
samples taken from the company tested for E. coli bacteria.  The
plaintiffs allege they suffered personal injury and sickness from
the contaminated water.

The 2009 incident also led to the conviction of former water
company manager Henry Papuga on tampering with water samples
after it was ruled he attempted to get lifted the boil-water
order the town was under.  Mr. Papuga admitted to adding bleach
to samples following his conviction and was sentenced to five
years of probation and community service.


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Sued for Violating Securities Exchange Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhao Erdi, Inividually and on behalf of all similarly situated v.
Montage Technology Group Limited, Case no. 1:14-cv-01105
(S.D.N.Y., February 21, 2014) is brought against the Defendant
for violating the federal securities law under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Montage Technology is a Cayman Islands corporation located at
A1601 Technology Building, 900 Yi Shan Road, Shanghai, 200233.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Report Exposes Jail Conditions
---------------------------------------------------
ACLU of Northern California on April 30 disclosed that a series
of reports issued by national experts on jail conditions expose
in the most graphic detail to date the Monterey County Jail as a
place riddled with violence where prisoners are at serious risk
of grave injury, where jail officials fail to provide prisoners
with adequate medical and mental health care and where prisoners
with disabilities are denied access to jail services, programs
and activities.

The reports were made public on April 29 as part of a motion for
class certification in a lawsuit filed last year by the American
Civil Liberties Union, the law firm Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld
LLP and Monterey County Public Defender James Egar charging that
conditions at the jail are overcrowded, dangerous, discriminatory
and unconstitutional.

Four of the reports being made public on April 30 were authored
by experts chosen jointly by county officials and lawyers
representing the plaintiffs to investigate various aspects of the
jail's conditions.

"These reports make clear that there are serious structural and
systematic problems with the jail and that conditions inside the
facility do not meet constitutional and ADA standards," said
Michael Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- of Rosen, Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld.  "Rather than continue to waste taxpayer money
litigating these issues, county officials should address them
with serious and detailed remedial plans."

According to incident reports from the Monterey County Sheriff's
Department, there were more than 150 separate incidents of
violence between prisoners from January 2011 through early-
September 2012, and in more than 100 of these incidents at least
one prisoner required medical treatment.  Violent incidents have
been reported in 26 of the jail's 29 housing units.

In one of the reports made public on April 30, jail expert
Michael Hackett says prisoner and staff safety are compromised by
a jail population that "by any definition . . . is overcrowded."
Despite a capacity of 825 prisoners, the jail maintained an
average monthly population of more than 1000 between June 2010
and September 2013 and reached a height of 1,144 prisoners in May
2013.

In a second report, expert Dr. Michael Puisis makes clear that
failures by jail officials to provide prisoners with adequate
medical care leaves them vulnerable to injury, unnecessary
suffering and even death. Staffing shortages are so severe,
Dr. Puisis reports, that numerous duties are "not performed
consistently or . . . performed poorly, includ[ing] evaluation of
health requests, chronic illness care, evaluations in sobering
and isolation cells, management of patients in the [Outpatient
Housing Units] and intake assessments.  Segregation rounds and
infection control surveillance are [simply] not performed."

A third expert report details how jail officials systematically
deny to prisoners with disabilities access to services, programs,
activities and accommodations in the Jail.  The Jail fails to
provide sign language interpreters to prisoners who use sign
language to communicate, even during the intake process, medical
appointments, and disciplinary hearings.  None of the areas of
the Jail comply with federal and state regulations regarding
accessible housing for people in wheelchairs.  And prisoners who
cannot walk up stairs are denied access to the outdoors, exercise
and religious services when housed in areas of the jail where
those programs can only be accessed by walking up a long flight
of stairs.

A fourth expert selected by the plaintiffs found overwhelming
systemic problems with the jail's mental health system that place
prisoners with mental illness at great risk of suffering,
deterioration in their mental health condition and suicide.
Among the most shocking practices is jail officials' use of
"rubber rooms," filthy windowless cells in which they place
suicidal prisoners for multiple days.  These cells lack toilets,
beds and sinks, and prisoners are stripped naked and forced to
sit, lie and sleep on the same floor in which a grate serves as a
toilet.  Over the past four years, problems with jail's mental
health care system contributed to all three suicides committed by
prisoners.

"Too many of my clients have died by suicide or through
preventable disease while housed in the Jail," said Mr. Egar.
"Enough is enough."

The many problems in the jail are exacerbated by a failure on the
part of county officials to fully invest in alternatives to
incarceration that would both alleviate jail crowding and reduce
the county's recidivism rate.  An inadequate program to
effectively assess the necessity of locking people up while they
await trial and before they are even convicted of a crime has
resulted in nearly 80 percent of the jail's population being
comprised of pre-trial detainees.  And the county has failed to
make use of the option of allowing prisoners convicted of low-
level, non-serious crimes offenders to serve a portion of their
sentence under supervision in the community rather than behind
bars.

"Despite profound and persistent overcrowding, county officials
have not taken advantage of numerous available opportunities to
safely reduce the jail population," said Alan Schlosser, legal
director of the ACLU of Northern California.  "It is imperative
that the county address the jail's high pretrial population,
utilize split sentencing more often and make full use of other
alternatives that would reduce the need for incarceration while
making the community safer by equipping people in the criminal
justice system with the support they need to successfully
transition back into the community and lead stable lives."

"The conditions at Monterey County Jail -- the dangerous
overcrowding, the withholding of basic medical and mental health
care, and accommodations for prisoners with disabilities --
should not be tolerated," said Eric Balaban, senior staff counsel
with the ACLU's National Prison Project in Washington, D.C.  "Our
jails and prisons must protect prisoners' health, not sabotage
it."


NEW YORK JETS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a former New York Jets cheerleader has lodged a putative
class action in New Jersey accusing the team of wage-and-hour
violations -- the fourth known suit against NFL teams by
cheerleaders claiming they're essentially paid less than minimum
wage.

The suit, filed on May 6 in Bergen County Superior Court, claims
the performers -- known as the "Flight Crew" -- are paid only for
appearances at games and special events, not for practice time or
other duties, and must take care of their own costs.

The cheerleaders "are required to work 'off the clock' at home,
attend rehearsals three days a week from May through December
without pay, attend 'charity events' without pay, and are
required to spend their own money on travel, uniform maintenance
and cosmetic and hairstyling requirements set by the Jets,"
according to the complaint.

Similar suits have been brought against the Buffalo Bills, the
Cincinnati Bengals and the Oakland Raiders.  All three are
pending.

The complaint was filed by Patricia Pierce of Greenblatt, Pierce,
Engle, Funt & Flores in Philadelphia on behalf of a former Jets
cheerleader referred to as "Krystal C."  Her full name was
withheld because it's team policy to protect cheerleaders'
identities and there has been a backlash against cheerleaders who
Ms. have filed wage-and-hour suits against other NFL franchises,
Pierce said.

In May 2012, Krystal entered an employment contract with the
Jets, which required her to perform at games, attend practices,
make promotional appearances and satisfy other duties before and
during the season.

The agreement promised $150 per game and $100 for each outside
event, but didn't provide for any other compensation.  "Thus, in
a single season, plaintiff spent hours performing work under the
contract . . . for which she was not compensated," the complaint
said.  At some events -- including at least two training camp
sessions that lasted about seven hours each -- Flight Crew
"veterans" were paid $100, while "rookies" received nothing, it
adds.

Krystal worked seven to eight hours during game days but the
complaint says she racked up about nine hours a week during three
weekly practice sessions and spent another nine to 12 hours a
week practicing independently, sometimes at home, all of which
was unpaid.  She spent another hour a week on uniform maintenance
and spent $45 a week of her own money for hair styling, because
the Jets required straight hair and hers was curly.

Other cheerleaders, part of a special group called the Flight
Crew Calendar Girls, took part in the production of a calendar
and were required to sell them and appear at signings, all
without compensation.

Krystal, who was a Flight Crew member until the end of 2013, made
a total of about $1,800 during that time, Ms. Pierce said in an
interview.  That averaged to $3.77 an hour, and less than $1.50
an hour when accounting for unpaid expenses -- even though New
Jersey's hourly minimum wage was $7.25 during her employ and was
increased to $8.25 as of Jan. 1, Pierce added.

The suit alleges the Jets violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law and seeks certification of a class of Flight Crew members
employed since two years before the filing date -- at least 30 to
40 people.  It seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorney
fees and other relief.

Krystal is a Connecticut resident, according to the complaint,
though the team is headquartered in Florham Park and plays its
home games at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, Bergen County.
The first cheerleader wage-and-hour suit against an NFL team, the
Oakland Raiders, was filed on behalf of the "Raiderettes" in
January, and since then suits against the Cincinnati Bengals and
Buffalo Bills have followed.

Along with Ms. Pierce, who is lead counsel, Krystal is
represented by attorneys from Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams in
Oakland, Calif., which represents the plaintiffs in the Raiders
case.

In announcing the May 6 filing, the attorneys said the Bills
responded to the suit against that team by discontinuing
cheerleading for the upcoming 2014 season.

Ms. Pierce said she didn't file under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act because that statute exempts seasonal employees.
New Jersey's law does, too, but those working in sports and
entertainment are explicitly excluded from that exemption, she
added.

Ms. Pierce called cheerleader compensation "a very important
issue."

"I think that there is a culture prevalent in the NFL that does
not value what these women do appropriately," Ms. Pierce said.
"They're being paid less than what you would pay the hot dog
vendor at the stadium."

The Jets, through a spokesman, declined to comment on the
complaint and did not identify outside counsel.


NEWO CORPORATION: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Fraudulent Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Simon, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Newo Corporation Case No. 5:14-cv-00330 (C.D. Cal.,
February 21, 2014) results from the alleged fraudulent, tortuous,
misleading and unfair business practices of the marketing and
sales of "Range Extenders" that the Company promises that it
works with any Router/Getaway.

Newo Corporation is a California corporation located at 13088
Peyton Drive, #C307, Chino Hills, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen J Simoni, Esq.
      SIMONI LAW OFFICES
      12131 Turnberry Drive, Suite 100
      Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-1500
      Telephone: (917) 621-5795
      E-Mail: StephenSimoni@yahoo.com


NUTRIBULLET LLC: Illegally Called Class Members' Phone, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nutribullet, LLC, and Tribune Broadcasting
Company, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03377-JFW-PJW (C.D. Cal., May 1,
2014) results from the alleged illegal actions of Nutribullet and
Tribune in negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Nutribullet is whose state of incorporation is California and
principal place of business is in the state of California.
Tribune is a corporation whose state of incorporation is Illinois
and principal place of business is in the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


OAKHURST DAIRY: Delivery Drivers File Class Action in Portland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Dolan, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that two
former and one current Oakhurst Dairy delivery drivers on May 5
filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland
claiming that the Portland-based company has failed for years to
pay them overtime compensation in violation of state and federal
wage laws.

The delivery truck drivers claim in the suit that while they
typically worked 50 to 60 hours per week, Oakhurst paid them a
flat, weekly salary regardless of how many hours they worked or
miles they drove.

The three drivers -- Christopher O'Connor of Brunswick,
Kevin O'Connor of Winslow and James Adam Cox of Brunswick --
contend that their jobs are not exempt from the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act or the state Minimum Wage and Overtime Law
and that they should have been paid time and a half for any
amount of work in excess of 40 hours per week.  They are
demanding that Oakhurst pay them and other drivers like them for
all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and
interest.

"It's currently that way, and it's been that way for a long
period of time.  Our complaint is limited by the statute of
limitations, which is six years," said attorney Carol Garvan,
whose Augusta firm Johnson, Webbert and Young filed the suit on
the men's behalf.

Christopher O'Connor currently works for Oakhurst, driving from
its Portland base.  Kevin O'Connor worked for the company from
2005 until 2009.  Mr. Cox worked for the company from 2009 to
2011.

Ms. Garvan said that Oakhurst employs about 50 such drivers,
which it refers to as route salesmen, at any given time. Their
weekly pay varies from person to person but is in the range of
$1,000 per week, she said.

Oakhurst co-presidents John Bennett and Thomas Brigham said in a
phone conference on May 5 that they had yet to be served with the
lawsuit and had received no notice that it might be coming.
Oakhurst, which had been owned by a Maine family since it was
founded in 1921, was sold on Jan. 31 to Dairy Farmers of America,
a national cooperative of more than 8,000 farms in 48 states.

Mr. Garvan said that the timing of the lawsuit was unrelated to
the sale of the company.

While Oakhurst's sole manufacturing facility is at 364 Forest
Ave. in Portland, the company also operates distribution
facilities elsewhere in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Oakhurst's products include milk, cream, sour cream, cottage
cheese, egg nog, butter, ice cream mixes, juices, teas and water.


PANDORA MEDIA: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Douglas" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pandora Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-01315 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for sending unsolicited text messages to the
wireless telephone without prior express written consent.

Pandora Media, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business location in Alameda County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J Siprut, Esq.
      Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq.
      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State St., Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              gbarbakoff@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


PHOENIX, AZ: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Joan K. Smith, an individual; and Roberta E. Tate, an individual
v. City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00936-DKD (D. Ariz., May 1, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and an equal amount of liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

City of Phoenix is a municipal corporation located in Maricopa
County, Arizona.  The City owns and operates five apartment
communities within its municipal boundaries in which it offers
housing to senior citizens: Washington Manor, Fillmore Gardens,
Maryvale Terrace, Pine Towers and Sunnyslope Manor.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John L. Collins, Esq.
          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, Arizona 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          E-mail: johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


PINNACLE WEST: Dismissal of Consumer Suit in Calif. Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a consumer suit filed
against Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public
Service Company is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, according to Pinnacle's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages
for loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of
interruption of electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West filed
a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.
On January 13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's
decision.  The appeal is now pending before the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over False Advertising of Cosmetic Items
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Flaherty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company Case no. 1:14-cv-01310
(N.D. Ill., February 21, 2014) is brought against the Defendant
for the false advertising of the Company's products specifically
the "Aussie" brand of cosmetic product which manufactures and
sells the Miraculously Smooth 12 Hour Anti-Humidity Spray.

The Procter & Gamble Company is an Ohio corporation headquartered
at One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. P&G
manufactures and sells various consumer goods of differing brands
in over 180 countries and territories worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq.
      Gregory Wood Jones, Esq.
      Joseph J Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 470-6588
      E-mail: gbarbakoff@siprut.com
              gjones@siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com


PRYCE BROTHERS: Has Denied Payment for Wages Earned, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Shuster, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pryce Brothers Contractors Co., d/b/a Pryce
Brothers Woodworking, Mountain Millwork Inc., Edward Pryce,
Raymond Pryce, and John Cutcheon, Case No. 3:14-cv-02783-FLW-TJB
(D.N.J., May 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants intentionally
and willfully denied the Plaintiffs' compensation for wages
earned while the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

Pryce Brothers Contractors Co., doing business as Pryce Brothers
Woodworking, and Mountain Millwork Inc. are actively doing
business in New Jersey and are headquartered in Bayville, New
Jersey.  The Individual Defendants are owners or principals of
the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Travis Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


PYOD LLC: Removed "Meyer" Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Meyer v. PYOD, LLC, et al., Case
No. 37-2014-00008110-CU-BT-NC, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01104-JM-KSC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS, LLP
          212 Marine Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jordan S. Yu, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 So Grand Ave., #2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90021-1514
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 458-8080
          E-mail: jyu@yumollp.com


REGIS CORP: July 14 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONONGALIA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA Civil
Action No. 13-C-259 Honorable Phillip D. Gaujot LORI DAVIS, and
REBEKAH SHAAYA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v. REGIS CORPORATION, Defendant.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND OF

FINAL FAIRNESS AND APPROVAL HEARING TO: MEMBERS OF THE CLASS

You are hereby notified, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the West
Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, that a hearing will be held on
July 14, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Phillip D.
Gaujot, Judge, in his courtroom located in the Monongalia County
Courthouse, situated at 265 Spruce Street, Morgantown, WV, 26505

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the Proposed
Class Action Settlement Agreement dated March 27, 2014 is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court and
a Judgment entered thereon.  The hearing may be adjourned by the
Court from time to time by an announcement at the hearing, or at
any adjournment thereof, without further notice to you.

You are a member of the Class described below, and your rights as
a class member will be affected by the settlement of this action.
The giving of this Notice is not to be understood as expressing
any opinion by this Court as to the merits of any of the claims
or defenses asserted by any Party, and is for the sole purpose of
informing all the Class Members (as hereinafter defined) of the
proposed Settlement Agreement, so that individual Class Members
may make whatever decisions they may deem appropriate for the
protection of their interests.

HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE CLASS

For purposes of settlement only, the Parties hereto agree to the
following Class definition:

All individuals who were employed by Regis Corp. ("Regis") in
West Virginia at any time between June 30, 2010 and April 5,
2013, and who have not opted out of this Class Action, and who
have, or may have wage payment claims arising under the West
Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act as more fully set forth
in the Complaint.

Under the Wage Payment and Collection Act, when an employer
involuntarily discharges, or fires, an employee, it must pay that
employee's final wages within a set period of time.  Prior to
July 13, 2013, that set period of time was seventy-two (72)
hours. W.Va. Code Sec. 21-5-4(b).  If an employer fails to pay
all final wages to an employee within the required time period
established by the Wage Payment and Collection Act, the employer
is liable to the employee for liquidated damages equal to three
times the amount of the employee's final pay, plus interest,
attorney fees and costs.

The Parties entered into the Proposed Class Action Settlement
Agreement in order to secure total and final settlement of all
claims against Defendant as specified herein, to provide
Defendant the finality and certainty that it would not be faced
with claims that were or could have been raised in this
controversy, as set forth in the Complaint, and to avoid further
expense, inconvenience, and the uncertainty, distraction and
hazards of burdensome litigation, including the possibility of
protracted appeals.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

The terms of the settlement are set forth in the Proposed Class
Action Settlement Agreement, dated March 27, 2014, and executed
by counsel for the Parties.  The following is a brief summary of
the essential terms of the Proposed Class Action Settlement
Agreement, a complete copy of which may be obtained.

The Defendant has agreed to pay a Gross Settlement amount to all
Class Members who timely complete and return a Claim Form of
three times the amount of his or her gross, final paycheck, plus
interest calculated at the rates set by the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia from the first day following their
termination that the check was late, until the date of the final
approval hearing.

In exchange for this settlement, the Class will release all
claims as more fully detailed in the Proposed Class Action
Settlement Agreement.  The settlement payment to Ms. Davis and
Ms. Shaaya will include additional compensation for their
services as Class Representatives.

The Defendant has also agreed to pay Class Counsel's Fees and
Expenses, for work performed and expenses incurred in filing,
handling and litigating this claim, as well as administering the
settlement.  The Defendant has also agreed to incur all costs
associated with publication expenses of the Notice to the Class,
and all costs associated with searching for valid addresses for
the Class Members.  Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses are in
excess of the liquidated damages and interest each Class Member
will receive and in no way reduce the individual damages to be
paid to each Class Member.

If there are any unclaimed monies remaining in the Gross
Settlement Amount after the payment of all timely and properly
submitted Claim Forms, these monies shall be retained by the
Defendant.

On approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement by
the Court, Defendant will be dismissed from the case with
prejudice and a final Judgment will be entered.

PROCEDURES AND TIMELINE FOR PRESENTING OBJECTIONS

Any member of this Class may appear at the Hearing in person or
through his or her duly authorized attorney and show cause, if he
or she has any, as to why the Proposed Class Action Settlement
Agreement should not be resolved by the above mentioned Judgment.
Provided, however, that no such person shall be heard, and no
papers or briefs shall be submitted by him or her to the Court,
unless he or she files a Notice of Intention to Appear and a
statement of the basis of objections is filed with the Clerk of
Court, and a copy served at least five (5) business days prior to
the Final Hearing, on Class Counsel at the following address:
Frank X. Duff, Esq. and Sandra K. Law, Esq., Schrader, Byrd &
Companion, PLLC, The Maxwell Centre, Suite 500, 32 20th Street,
Wheeling, WV 26003, and on Regis' counsel at the following
address: William E. Robinson, Esq., Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP,
Huntington Square, 900 Lee Street, Suite 600, Charleston, WV
25301.

Objections filed and served in accordance with the foregoing
procedure will be considered by the Court whether or not the
objecting Class Member(s) appears personally or by counsel at the
hearing to argue the same.  Failure to file and serve objections
in accordance with the foregoing procedure will constitute a
WAIVER of your right to object to the settlement and it will
preclude you from pursuing any appeal.

EXAMINATION OF PLEADINGS AND PAPERS

The reference in this Notice to the Proposed Class Action
Settlement Agreement and other papers are only summaries of those
documents.  The complete text of said documents is on file with
the Circuit Clerk's office, Monongalia County Courthouse, 265
Spruce Street, Morgantown, WV 26505. However, it is requested
that you DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK REGARDING THIS
NOTICE. Rather, if you have questions, or desire copies, your
inquiry should be addressed to one of the Plaintiff's Attorneys
(Class Counsel) Frank X. Duff or Sandra K. Law, 32 20th Street,
Suite 500, Wheeling, WV 26003; (304) 233-3390.

SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS

At the hearing on the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement
set for July 14, 2014 at 10:30 a.m., the Court may schedule such
further hearings as it may deem necessary without the necessity
of further notice to the Class.  The matters considered at such
future hearings may include, but shall not be limited to, further
consideration of the fairness and adequacy of the Proposed Class
Action Settlement Agreement, consideration of the applications
for fees and costs of Class Counsel, and the form and entry of a
final judgment dismissing the Action, in the event the Proposed
Class Action Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court.

WARNING TO CLASS MEMBERS

If you do not make objections to the Settlement in the manner and
during the time periods set forth above, you will have been
deemed by the Court to have WAIVED any objection and the
settlement process will proceed.

1 The Class does not include those individuals who properly
exercised their right to opt out or withdraw from the Class.

Dated April 9, 2014 Honorable Phillip D. Gaujot


RFJD HOLDING: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wages in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Gonzalez, Individually, Tomas Ventura, Individually,
Alfonso Mendoza, Individually, and all persons similarly situated
v. RFJD Holding Co., Inc., a Florida for Profit Corp., d/b/a
Emmaculate Reflections, Gerald Donath, Individually, and Robert
Fiestal, Individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61041-JIC (S.D. Fla.,
May 1, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs were not paid minimum
wages for all the hours they worked in each workweek for the
Defendants.

RFJD Holding Co., Inc., doing business as Emmaculate Reflections,
is a Florida for Profit Corporation that operates a commercial
cleaning business based in Broward County, Florida, and
specializes in restaurant cleaning.  The Individual Defendants
are officers, managers or agents of the Company.

RFJD provided commercial cleaning services to businesses in
Florida and other states.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard R. Tanner, Esq.
          JORDAN, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          36 Palmetto Drive
          Miami Springs, FL 33166
          Telephone: (305) 863-8525
          Facsimile: (305) 863-8535
          E-mail: htanner@jordantannerlaw.com


RUBY TUESDAY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 6 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of
Ruby Tuesday, Inc. common stock during the period between
April 11, 2013 and October 9, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from May 6, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel
H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/rubytuesday/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Ruby Tuesday and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Ruby Tuesday, together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises a chain of hundreds of casual
dining restaurants in the United States and internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Ruby Tuesday
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed
to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that changes made to
the menu at the Company's flagship Ruby Tuesday chain to increase
the range of offerings and price points were negatively impacting
sales, as the average sales check price was declining without
contemporaneous increases in traffic; (ii) that contrary to the
reported progress being made in a turnaround effort, same-store
sales were continuing to decline exponentially at the Company's
flagship Ruby Tuesday chain; (iii) that the Company had
experienced a dramatic decline in sales at its Lime Fresh Grill
restaurants, and as a result, the carrying value of that chain's
goodwill, trademark and properties and equipment was materially
impaired; (iv) that the Company's expenses and losses were being
materially understated; (v) that the value of the Company's
deferred tax assets were overstated; and (vi) that based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company's business during the Class
Period. As a result of these false and misleading statements and
omissions, Ruby Tuesday common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

On July 24, 2013, defendants reported Ruby Tuesday's fourth
quarter and fiscal 2013 financial results, including declining
same-restaurant sales at the flagship Ruby Tuesday restaurants
and a $27 million fourth quarter 2013 net loss from continuing
operations due in large part to an impairment of the Lime Fresh
Grill trademark and related assets and taking a valuation
allowance on the Company's deferred tax assets.  On this news,
the Company's stock price fell, closing down at $7.84 per share
on July 25, 2013.  Then, on October 9, 2013, the Company reported
a significant decline in first quarter 2014 revenues and an
increase in net losses, driven by further severe same-store sales
declines at the flagship Ruby Tuesday restaurants, which the
Company disclosed would last at least through the second quarter
2014.  On this news the Company's stock price fell further,
closing at $6.26 per share on October 10, 2013.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Ruby Tuesday common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff
is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action.


SAFEWAY INC: Stockholder Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Cerberus Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Romaneck, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Safeway Inc., Robert Edwards, Janet E.
Grove, Mohan Gyani, Frank C. Herringer, George J. Morrow, Kenneth
W. Oder, T. Gary Rogers, Arun Sarin, William Y. Tauscher,
Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., AB Acquisition LLC,
Albertson's Holdings LLC, Albertson's LLC, and Saturn Acquisition
Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02015-VC (N.D. Cal., May 1,
2014) is brought on behalf of the holders of Safeway common stock
to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on March 6, 2014,
pursuant to which Safeway will be acquired by AB Acquisition LLC
and Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub., Inc.

Safeway is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Pleasanton,
California.  The Company is a Fortune 100 company and one of the
largest food and drug retailers in the United States, operating
1,335 stores in 20 states and the District of Columbia, 13
distribution centers, and 20 manufacturing plants, and employs
approximately 138,000 employees.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

AB Acquisition is the owner of Albertson's Holdings LLC and
Albertson's LLC and is controlled by Cerberus Capital Management,
L.P.  Cerberus is part of an investor group comprised of Kimco
Realty Corporation, Klaff Realty LP, Lubert-Adler Partners LP,
and Schottenstein Stores Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Louis N. Boyarsky, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  lboyarsky@glancylaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed LED Tvs & HDTVs, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shahla Rabinowitz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Case No. 3:14-cv-
00801 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is brought against the
Defendant for falsely marketing and advertising the Company's LED
TVs, LED HDTVs or LED televisions.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a New York corporation
located in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
      Dean C. Eyler, Esq.
      Gregory R. Merz, Esq.
      Kathryn J Bergstrom, Esq.
      GRAY, PLANT & MOOTY
      500 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 632-3335
      Facsimile: (612) 632-4335
      E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
              gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com
              katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com

           - and -

      Eyler Dean, Esq.
      GRAY, PLANT & MOOTY
      80 S. Eighth Street, 500 IDS Center
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 632-3016
      Facsimile: (612) 632-4016
      E-mail: dean.eyler@gpmlaw.com

           - and -

      Hayward John Kaiser, Esq.
      MITCHELL SILBERBERG KNUPP LLP
      11377 W Olympic Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 312-3134
      Facsimile: (310) 231-8334
      E-mail: hjk@msk.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

      Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
      Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq.
      Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL MASON & GETTE, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104-4807
      Telephone: (415) 693-0700
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: jzahid@zelle.com
              pclayton@zelle.com
              fscarpulla@zelle.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Reginald David Steer, Esq.
      AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
      580 California Street, 15th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 765-9500
      Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
      E-mail: rsteer@akingump.com

           - and -

      Hyongsoon Kim, Esq.
      AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
      2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 229-1000
      Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
      E-mail: kimh@akingump.com


SAN DIEGO GAS: Dismissal of Suit Over 2011 Power Outage Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit over the September 2011 Power Outage
appealed the court's dismissal of their action against San Diego
Gas & Electric Company, according to the company's May 2, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours
affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange
County, California. Within several days of the outage, several
SDG&E customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District
Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service Company,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and SDG&E alleging that the
companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit seeks
recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive
damages. In July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to
dismiss the punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public
Service Company and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation from the
lawsuit. In September 2013, the court granted SDG&E's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. In October 2013, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal of their action.


SAULT AREA HOSPITAL: Lawyer Meets With Data Breach Victims
----------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Della-Mattia, writing for Sault Star, reports that an
Ottawa lawyer was set to be hosting an information meeting with
area residents who received letters indicating their medical
records at the Sault Area Hospital were breached.  SAH has
confirmed that an employee has been terminated after 144 patient
records were accessed inappropriately.

Lawyer Michael Crystal said he would hold a general information
session for individuals who received letters from the hospital to
explain the process of a class action suit.  The meeting was set
to be held on Tues. May 13 at Algoma's Water Tower Inn at 7:00
p.m.

Mr. Crystal is the attorney for group of plaintiffs in the
Peterborough area, in a similar type case involving the
Peterborough Regional Health Centre.  A $5.6 million class action
lawsuit has been filed there and the courts have ruled that the
claim has merit and can be tested in the courts.

SAH audits revealed that patient information was inappropriately
accessed by an employee between 2008 and early 2014.

Patients affected have been notified by way of a letter from the
hospital.

Hospital officials have said that there is a zero tolerance for
staff who inappropriately access records when there is no
justified need to do so.  They don't believe the information was
copied, downloaded or disseminated in any way.

SAH, like many major medical facilities used the MediTech
computerized system.

While many staff have access to the system and patient files,
only employees part of a patient's circle of care are permitted
to access the files.

In this case, it's alleged the former employee accessed files not
privy to, as a result of curiosity.

The employee is appealing the termination notice.

Mr. Crystal has been contacted by "many" Sault Ste. Marie area
residents who received the hospital letter and he intends on
moving forward with a class action suit.  The meeting would
outline what a class action suit is and explain the steps in the
process.  Mr. Crystal has said he has a representative plaintiff
to proceed with the case.  A representative plaintiff is one
person who has enough of the common elements as other potential
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit.  He said there are usually
about 10 to 15 common issues in such cases.

Common issues include items like all plaintiffs receiving letters
about the breach, all told their records were snooped against
hospital policy and that the snooping was intentional and within
a certain period of time.

Mr. Crystal said issues in the case will also be discussed and
information will be provided about retainers, class action
proceeding costs, expectations and application to the class
action fund.


SOPHIE'S CUBAN: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mahmoud Mohamed, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc., Everything Cuban
LLC, MM Restaurant Enterprises LLC, Sophie's Cuban Cuisine
Franchising, Inc., John Doe Corporations 1-8 and Sofia Luna, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03099-TPG (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2014) alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum
wages, (2) liquidated damages, and (3) attorneys' fees and costs.

Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc. is a New York domestic business
corporation.  Everything Cuban LLC, doing business as Sophie's
Cuban Cuisine, is a New York domestic limited liability company.
MM Restaurant Enterprises LLC, doing business as Sophie's Cuban
Cuisine, is a New York domestic limited liability company.
Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Franchising, LLC, is a New York domestic
limited liability company.  The Doe Corporations are various New
York business corporations doing business as "Sophie's Cuban"
restaurants operated by Sofia Luna.

The Defendants operate a food services enterprise self-entitled
as Sophie's Cuban.  The food services enterprise includes eight
Sophie's Cuban Restaurants in various New York locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SOUTHWEST ROYALTIES: Environmental Suit Accord Not Yet Final
------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Royalties, Inc. is now awaiting finalization of a
settlement reached in a suit filed in the Circuit Court of Union
County, Arkansas where the plaintiffs are suing for the costs of
environmental remediation to a lease, according to Clayton
Williams Energy, Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

SWR is a defendant in a suit filed in April 2011 in the Circuit
Court of Union County, Arkansas where the plaintiffs are suing
for the costs of environmental remediation to a lease on which
operations were commenced in the 1930s. The plaintiffs are
seeking in excess of $8 million. In June 2013, the plaintiffs,
SWR and the remaining defendants agreed to a settlement of $0.8
million, of which SWR would pay $0.7 million. To accomplish the
settlement, the case would be converted to a class action, and
each member of the class would be offered the right to either
participate or opt out of the class and continue a separate
action for damages. If more than 25% of the plaintiffs were to
opt out of the settlement, SWR would have the right to terminate
the settlement. Any plaintiffs opting out would be subject to all
previous rulings of the court, including an order dismissing a
significant number of the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that
such claims were time barred. SWR believes that the judge will
approve the settlement and the number of the plaintiffs opting
out of the settlement, if any, will be insignificant. The company
recorded a loss on settlement of $0.7 million in June 2013 in
connection with this proposed settlement. The company is now
awaiting finalization of the settlement by the court.


SW COLE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thomas, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. S.W. Cole, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and
Jerry Cole, individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-01042-EAK-TBM (M.D.
Fla., May 1, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

S.W. Cole, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation engaged in
business in Hernando County, Florida.  The Company provided pest
control services.  Jerry Cole owned, managed and operated S.W.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAKEDA PHARMA: Judge Sanctions Defense Attorneys in Actos Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a Las Vegas judge has sanctioned defense attorneys for
disobeying court orders and disrupting court proceedings, saying
the behavior could prejudice the jury against the plaintiffs in a
closely watched trial over the pharmaceutical drug Actos.

Clark County, Nev., District Judge Kerry Earley found that
attorneys for Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., maker of Actos,
had violated pretrial evidentiary rulings nine times during the
trial, which is expected to wrap up this month.  They also have
"repeatedly engaged in disruptive and disrespectful behavior
towards the court," she wrote.

"In this case, defense counsel's repeated violations of court
orders [have] forced plaintiffs' counsel to make frequent
objections and requests for bench conferences during trial,"
Judge Earley wrote.  "Because of the persistent objections and
bench conferences, the jury is likely to believe that plaintiffs'
counsel is hiding evidence, disrupting the proceedings,
prolonging trial, or wasting the jury's time."

Ruling on April 30, Judge Earley ordered that the jury be
instructed of her findings.  She also said she would impose a
$5,000 fine for each future violation.

Although Judge Earley's order didn't name the defense attorneys,
the sanctions request focused primarily on the conduct of
Kelly Evans -- kevans@swlaw.com -- a partner in the Las Vegas
office of Snell & Wilmer, and D'Lesli Davis --
dlesli.davis@nortonrosefulbright.com -- a partner in the Dallas
office of Norton Rose Fulbright.

Ms. Davis didn't respond to a request for comment, but Evans
said: "We have consistently maintained in court pleadings that we
have not violated any of the court's orders on motions in limine
or other court orders."

"We respectfully disagree with the ruling, but believe it would
be inappropriate for Takeda to comment any further at this stage
in the proceedings," Takeda spokeswoman Kara Hoeger said via
email. In court papers, Takeda referred to the plaintiffs'
sanctions request as an "abusive litigation tactic."

The order came in consolidated cases brought by two women who
claimed that taking Actos caused them to get bladder cancer.  The
trial, which began with jury selection on Feb. 10, was the latest
of among some 6,000 lawsuits over Actos.

In the first federal bellwether trial, U.S. District Judge
Rebecca Doherty of the Western District of Louisiana, citing
"grave concerns," sanctioned Takeda's lawyers for destroying key
evidence earlier this year.

In April, a jury in that case awarded $9 billion to the
plaintiffs.  Their attorney, W. Mark Lanier, attributed the award
-- $6 billion of which was against Takeda -- to a "cesspool of
rotten behavior."

In Chicago, Cook County, Ill., Circuit Judge Deborah Mary Dooling
weighed a similar order in an Actos case but decided against
sanctions.

Judge Earley added that she would remove an attorney "should his
or her professional misconduct rise to the level of intentional,
extreme, vexatious or egregious behavior."  She described the
defense lawyers as "some of the best and most experienced trial
attorneys in the country."

"Consequently," she wrote, "the court will not accept, as an
excuse to misconduct, any claims that attorneys of this caliber
are somehow ignorant of the law or otherwise unfamiliar with the
way in which well-established legal principles are applied during
trial."


TARGET CORP: "Carlson" Suit Transferred From Florida to Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carlson v. Target Corporation, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00177, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-01233-PAM-JJK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the data breach at Target stores in late
2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Daynard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          400 Huntington Avenue
          Boston, MA 02115
          E-mail: r.daynard@neu.edu

               - and -

          Phillip T. Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


TETRA TECH: Montreal Real Estate Taxpayers' Suit v. BPR Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BPR Inc. continues to face a suit in Montreal, Canada filed on
behalf of individuals and entities that have paid real estate or
municipal taxes to the city, according to Tetra Tech, Inc.'s May
2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2014.

On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in
Montreal in which BPR, BPR's former president, and other Quebec-
based engineering firms and individuals are named as defendants.
The plaintiff class includes all individuals and entities that
have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal.
The allegations include participation in collusion to share
contracts awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce
competition and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials,
making illegal political contributions, and bid rigging.


TETRA TECH: Shareholders Voluntarily Dismiss Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in a securities suit against Tetra Tech, Inc. in United
States District Court for the Central District of California
voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, according to the
company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tetra Tech and two of its officers in United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
action was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities between May 3, 2012 and June
18, 2013.  The complaint alleges generally that the company and
those officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related rules because the
company allegedly failed to take unspecified, "necessary" charges
to the company's accounts receivables and earnings during the
class period.  In addition, the complaint alleges that the
financial guidance the company offered during the class period
was intentionally or recklessly false and misleading.  The
complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in the
market price of the company's shares following the issuance of
revised guidance on June 18, 2013.  On October 30, 2013,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint for the same purported class
period making essentially the same allegations.  On November 29,
2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on January 17, 2014, the Court granted the
company's motion and dismissed the case without prejudice meaning
the plaintiff would be allowed to amend the case and replead.
Plaintiff subsequently decided not to amend and on April 24, 2014
the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice.


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Falsely Marketed LED Tvs & LED HDTVs, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Peirce-Nunes, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
Case No. 3:14-cv-00796 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2014) is brought
against the Defendant for falsely marketing and advertising the
Company's LED TV, LED HDTV or LED televisions.

Toshiba American Information Systems, Inc. is a California
corporation located in Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
      Dean C. Eyler, Esq.
      Gregory R. Merz, Esq.
      Kathryn J Bergstrom, Esq.
      GRAY PLANT & MOOTY
      500 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 632-3335
      Facsimile: (612) 632-4444
      E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
              gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com
              katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com

           - and -

      Hayward John Kaiser, Esq.
      MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
      11377 West Olympic Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 312-3134
      Fax: (310) 312-3100
      E-mail: hjk@msk.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

      Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 639-0700
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: pclayton@zelle.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sean Ashley Commons, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
      Los Angeles, CA 90013
      Telephone: (213) 896-6010
      Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
      E-mail: scommons@sidley.com

           - and -

      Theodore Robert Scarborough, Jr., Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      One South Dearborn Street
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 853-7000
      Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
      E-mail: tscarborough@sidley.com


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Lawsuits Over RF Micro Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Triquint Semiconductor, Inc. is facing lawsuits over its proposed
business combination with RF Micro Devices, Inc., according to
Triquint's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

The Company is from time to time involved in litigation, certain
other claims and arbitration matters arising in the ordinary
course of its business. In addition, since the public
announcement of the proposed business combination with RF Micro
Devices, Inc. ("RFMD") on February 24, 2014, five putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company, its directors, RFMD, and others in connection with the
proposed mergers. Two of the five actions were filed in the
Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1)
Roberts vs. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1402-
02441, filed on February 28, 2014; and (2) Lam v. Steven J. Sharp
et al., Case No. 1403-02757, filed on March 6, 2014. The other
three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware: (1) Philemon v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 9415-VCN, filed on March 5, 2014; (2) Schmitz v.
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9427-VCN, filed on
March 7, 2014; and (3) Wallace v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et
al., Case No. 9429-VCN, filed on March 10, 2014. Each of these
lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders against the Company, the individual members of the
Company's board of directors, RFMD, Rocky Holding, Inc., and/or
the to-be-formed subsidiaries of Rocky Holding, Inc. that will be
used to effect the mergers. The plaintiffs in each of these
lawsuits generally seek, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the mergers,
rescission of the mergers if they are completed, an accounting by
defendants, rescissionary damages, attorney's fees and costs, and
other relief.


TRANSCEPT PHARMA: "Physicians" Suit Transferred to California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
v. Transcept Pharma, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-05490, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District Court of California to the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).  The California
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00599-JBA to the
proceeding.

The case challenges the Defendants' alleged practice of sending
unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian John Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT, JONCKHEER & KOLBE, LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
                  rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com


VARITRONICS LLC: Sued for Sending Fax Ads Without Opt-Out Notices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Varitronics, LLC, R & M Letter Graphics,
Inc. and Richard E. Perry, Case No. 7:14-cv-03083-CS (S.D.N.Y.,
May 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have sent or caused to
be sent out over 5,000 unsolicited and solicited fax
advertisements for goods and services without proper opt-out
notices to persons throughout the United States of America.

Varitronics, LLC is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in
Plymouth, Minnesota.  Varitronics products are sold under the
name Variquest through authorized dealers.

R & M Letter Graphics, Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in Fresh Meadows, New York.  R & M is an authorized
dealer of Variquest Visual Learning Tools.  Richard E. Perry is
the chief executive officer of R & M.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (212) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


VICAL INC: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has allowed plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against
Vical Incorporated to file an amended complaint, according to the
company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In late October and early November 2013, following the Company's
announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of Allovectin
and the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, two
putative, securities class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers. On February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated
into one action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were
appointed. On April 3, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business prospects and the prospects for
Allovectin, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's common stock. On April 25, 2014, the parties filed a
joint motion asking the court to permit plaintiffs to amend the
complaint, which the court granted. The lead plaintiff's deadline
to file an amended complaint was May 9, 2014. The defendants'
response will be due 28 days after lead plaintiff files an
amended complaint.


WEST WARWICK, RI: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT KENT, SC.

WEST WARWICK PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREE COALITION, THE WEST
WARWICK RETIRED POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AFSCME
RHODE ISLAND RETIREES CHAPTER 94, RHODE ISLAND AFT/R LOCAL 8037,
RUSS MARSOCCI, GLORIA SILVEIRA, TIMOTHY POULIN, NORMAN LANDROCHE,
AND MARCELLINE ZAMBUCO, Plaintiffs, vs. THE TOWN OF WEST WARWICK,
by and through its Interim Finance Director JOHN CIMINO, AND THE
WEST WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE, by and through its members, Sean
Murphy, Elizabeth Brunero, Christopher Messier, Joseph Florio,
Jr., and Stephen Lawton, Defendants. C.A. No. KC 14-0424

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
RELATING TO WEST WARWICK RETIREES' COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT
("COLA") AND HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS, AND OF HEARING THEREON
THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR KENT COUNTY, RHODE ISLAND HAS AUTHORIZED
THIS NOTICE. IT IS NOT A SOLICITATION OR ADVERTISEMENT FROM A
LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED. YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS NOTICE
BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF
THE CLASS INVOLVED WITH A CERTAIN LAWSUIT, AND THE PROPOSED
SETTLMENT OF THAT LAWSUIT, IF APPROVED, WILL AFFECT YOUR LEGAL
RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.

This Notice concerns the proposed settlement of a lawsuit pending
in the Rhode Island Superior Court against the Town of West
Warwick and the West Warwick School Committee (hereinafter
"Town") regarding four Ordinances and a Resolution (hereinafter
"Enactments") that suspend the rights of certain Town retirees to
receive COLAs and alters health insurance benefits.  The West
Warwick Public Employees' Retiree Coalition (the "WWPERC") and
certain other associations and individuals brought a lawsuit
against the Town to stop enforcement of the Enactments.  On May
5, 2014, the Court entered an order certifying the lawsuit as a
class action.  The parties to the lawsuit have reached a proposed
settlement (the "Proposed Settlement") and are seeking to have it
approved by the Court. This Notice provides a summary of the
impact that the Proposed Settlement will have on your rights. If
you do not understand the information in this notice, you should
follow the enclosed instructions for obtaining additional
information or consult with an attorney.

SUMMARY OF YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS YOUR OPTIONS: REMAIN IN THE
CLASS AND ACCEPT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT RESULT: Because the
Court has already included you in the Class, you are
automatically included in the Proposed Settlement unless you
choose to opt-out (see below).  You do not need to do anything to
participate in the Proposed Settlement if approved by the Court.
See Questions 7 through 12 for more information.

DUE DATE: None YOUR OPTIONS: REMAIN IN CLASS AND COMMENT ON OR
OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT RESULT: If you choose to remain
in the Class, but want to be heard by the Court regarding the
terms of the Proposed Settlement, you may tell the Court why you
do or do not like the terms of the Proposed Settlement.
Instructions for giving a comment or objection are described
later in this Notice. See Questions 16 & 17 for more information.

DUE DATE: May 28, 2014 YOUR OPTIONS: ASK TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
CLASS RESULT: If you choose to be excluded from the Class, you
will not be included in the Proposed Settlement or any other
result or judgment in this case.  If you do not take separate
legal action, you will be subject to the terms of the Enactments.
See Questions 13 & 14 for more information.

DUE DATE: June 27, 2014 CONTENTS OF THIS NOTICE Case Information

1. What is the purpose of this Notice? 2. What is this lawsuit
about? 3. What is a class action lawsuit? 4. Why is there a
Proposed Settlement? Those Who are Included in the Proposed
Settlement 5. Am I part of the Class? 6. Am I included in the
Proposed Settlement? Proposed Settlement Terms 7. What are the
terms of the Proposed Settlement with respect to the Enactments?
8. What happens if I remain in the Class and Accept the Proposed
Settlement? 9. How will my pension benefits change under the
Proposed Settlement? 10. What are the benefits of the Proposed
Settlement? 11. What do I give up if I stay in the Class and
accept the Proposed Settlement? 12. How do I accept the Proposed
Settlement? Excluding Yourself From the Class and the Proposed
Settlement 13. How do I get out of this Proposed Settlement? 14.
What happens if I get out of the Proposed Settlement? The Lawyers
Who Are Representing You 15. Do I have a lawyer representing me
in this case? Supporting or Objecting to the Proposed Settlement
16. How do I tell the Court that I like or do not like the
Proposed Settlement? 17. What is the difference between objecting
and asking to be excluded? Fairness Hearing 18. What is the
Fairness Hearing? 19. When and Where will it Occur? 20. Do I Have
to Attend the Fairness Hearing? 21. May I Speak at the Fairness
Hearing? If you do Nothing 22. What happens if I don't do
anything? More Information 23. Where can I get more information?
24. What happens after the Fairness Hearing? Case Information 1.
What is the purpose of this Notice? A class action lawsuit has
been filed in the Superior Court for the State of Rhode Island
concerning your pension and health insurance benefits.  This suit
is called West Warwick Public Employees' Retiree Coalition v.
Town of West Warwick and the West Warwick School Committee, No.
KC-2014-0424, and concerns the Enactments.  You are receiving
this Notice because you were employed by the Town and have
retired from employment with the West Warwick Police Department,
the West Warwick Fire Department, as a municipal worker of the
Town, as a non-certified employee of the West Warwick School
Department, as a teacher with the West Warwick School Department
or as an employee of the Town who was not a member of a union and
are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a COLA and/or health
insurance benefits, under a contract or by custom and practice.
As a result of this status, you are a member of the class of
retirees ("Class Member") involved in this lawsuit against the
Town.  Class Members do not include retired police officers and
retired fire fighters who have a disability pension. The Superior
Court for Kent County, Rhode Island, authorized this Notice. As a
Class Member, you have the right to know about the class action
lawsuit and the Settlement proposed by the parties to the
lawsuit.  As a Class Member, you have options that you may
exercise before the Court decides whether to approve the Proposed
Settlement.  Your legal rights will be impacted depending on the
option you choose.  This Notice is to explain the lawsuit, the
Proposed Settlement, and your legal rights and how to exercise
them.

2. What is this lawsuit about? On April 1, 2014, the West Warwick
Town Council passed three Ordinances dealing with its locally
administered pension plans dealing with plans for retirees who
were once employed in the Police Department, Fire Department, and
Municipal Departments (including non-certified school employees).
The Town has indicated its intention to pass the same Ordinance
with respect to retirees of the Town who were not members of any
union but who have Town-paid pensions and health care benefits by
contract, agreement or custom and practice.  Furthermore, on
April 29, 2014, the Town of West Warwick school committee adopted
a Resolution effectuating changes in the health care benefits of
retired teachers of the Town of West Warwick School Committee
that mirror the health care benefit changes effectuated by the
Ordinances passed by the Town with respect to retirees of its
Fire, Police and Municipal Unions. Together these Ordinances and
Resolution are referred to as the "Enactments."  More
specifically, the Enactments suspend COLAs for retired Town
employees for a period of ten (10) years. The Enactments also
change health insurance benefits being received by Town retirees.
Specifically, the Enactments require all retirees under the age
of 65 except teachers and non-certified school employees to
choose from one of two new health insurance plans and pay a 20%
co-share. For non-certified school employees who were entitled to
Town-paid health insurance for five years post-retirement, they
now have to choose from one of the same two plans and pay a 20%
co-share.  For teachers age 66 and under, they will be forced to
choose from one of the same two plans and pay a 20% co-share.

3. What is a class action lawsuit? In a class action lawsuit, one
or more persons called "Class Representatives" sue on behalf of
other people who all have similar claims (in this case, the Class
Representatives are three retiree associations and certain
individual retirees named in the lawsuit).  The people who all
have similar claims called the "Class" or "Class Members." The
Class Representatives -- and all Class Members like them -- are
called the plaintiffs.  The party that they have sued is called
the defendant (in this case, the Town of West Warwick and the
West Warwick School Committee).  The lawyer who represents the
Class is called "Class Counsel." In a class action lawsuit, all
factual questions and legal issues are resolved together for
everyone in the Class in one case -- with the exception of those
Class Members who choose to "opt-out" or exclude themselves from
the Class. Once the Court issues a final judgment in the class
action lawsuit, that judgment will be binding on all Class
Members, unless they previously opted-out.

4. Why is there a Proposed Settlement? The Court has not decided
in favor of either the Plaintiffs or the Defendants in this case.
Instead, both parties have agreed to a Proposed Settlement.  By
settling the claims, the parties can avoid the cost and
uncertainty of a trial and can resolve this lawsuit as quickly as
possible and in a way that will benefit both parties.  The Class
Representatives and Class Counsel in this case think that this
Proposed Settlement is the best result for all retirees who are
members of the class in order to avoid the more drastic changes
in the Enactments and to help the Town preserve the pension
system and avoid State intervention.  Those Who Are Included in
the Proposed Settlement

5. Am I part of the Class? According to the order of the Court,
the following people are part of the Class with respect to the
Enactments: Persons who on or before July 1, 2014: retired from
employment with the West Warwick Police Department and are
entitled to a Town-paid pension with a COLA and/or health
insurance benefits until Medicare eligible under a collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA") or other agreement as a result of
that employment; retired from employment with the West Warwick
Fire Department and are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a
COLA and/or health insurance benefits until Medicare eligible
under a CBA or other agreement as a result of that employment;
retired from employment as municipal employees with the Town of
West Warwick and are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a COLA
and/or health insurance benefits until Medicare eligible under a
CBA or other agreement as a result of that employment; retired
from employment as non-certified employees of the West Warwick
School Department and are entitled to a Town-paid pension with a
COLA and/or health insurance benefits for five years after he or
she retires under a CBA regardless of age or other agreement as a
result of that employment; retired from employment as teachers
with the West Warwick School Department and are entitled to
health insurance benefits under a CBA or other agreement until
Medicare eligible or age 66 as a result of that employment;
retired from employment with the Town of West Warwick, who were
not members of any union of the Town, and who received a Town-
paid pension with a COLA and/or health insurance benefits by any
contract, agreement or custom and practice. if a retiree is
covered by Plan 65 but has a spouse under the age of 65, and the
spouse has Town-paid health insurance benefits, such spouse is
included in the Class. If any of the above categories describe
you, then you are a member of the class (hereinafter referred to
as the "Class," and members are referred to as either a "Class
Member" or "Class Members"). Retired police officers and retired
fire fighters with disability pensions are not included in the
Class and are not Class Members.

6. Am I included in the Proposed Settlement? As a Class Member,
you will be included in the Proposed Settlement and requirements
and benefits will apply to you unless you choose to opt-out of
the Class using the procedures described below in Questions 13 &
14. Proposed Settlement Terms

7. What are the terms of the Proposed Settlement with respect to
the Enactments? A summary of the terms of the Proposed Settlement
pertaining to the Enactments are as follows: Except as modified
by the terms of the Final and Consent Judgment, the Enactments
shall remain in full force and effect. Persons who opt-out of the
Settlement embodied in the Final and Consent Judgment shall be
bound by the Enactments, subject to their right to challenge the
Enactments.  Except as modified by the Final and Consent
Judgment, the existing post-employment benefits of the Class
Members and Members of the Plaintiff Associations will remain in
full force and effect.  Effective July 1, 2014, the COLA then
remaining due to each eligible Class Member under the applicable
CBA or contract shall be suspended for five (5) years from July
1, 2014 through and including June 30, 2019.  Upon completion of
the suspension, the COLA shall resume for any Class Member who
had a COLA remaining due at suspension at the annual rate of Two
and One-Quarter percent (2.25%) compounding annually until such
time as that Class Member's COLA benefit is exhausted. For
example, if the Class Member only collected two years of a
fifteen year COLA, when the COLA resumes on July 1, 2019, that
Member would begin to collect his or her COLA for years three (3)
through fifteen (15). Effective July 1, 2014, Members of the
Class other than those presently covered by Plan 65 (the Class
Members) shall be offered and shall select one of three
alternative HealthMate Coast-to-Coast insurance benefit plans,
the $500 Deductible Health Plan attached to the Final and Consent
Judgment as Exhibit A, the H.S.A. Plan attached to the Final and
Consent Judgment as Exhibit B, and the HealthMate Non-Deductible
Plan attached to the Final and Consent Judgment as Exhibit C.
Persons on Plan 65 need not make any selection and will not have
their health benefits changed by the Proposed Settlement.
Effective July 1, 2014, Class Members who select the $500
Deductible Health Plan shall have and shall pay a 5 Percent (5%)
co-share of the applicable working rate. Effective July 1, 2014,
Class Members who select the HealthMate Non-Deductible Plan shall
pay a 15 Percent (15%) co-share of the applicable working rate.
On an annual basis the Town shall provide to the WWPERC
leadership, through counsel, the working rates upon which the co-
shares will be based. Effective July 1, 2014, Class Members who
select the H.S.A. Plan shall share the cost of the deductible
with the Town as follows: (i) Single Plan, $750 will be paid by
the Town and $1,250 will be paid by the Class Member; (ii) Family
Plan, $1,500 will be paid by the Town and $2,500 will be paid by
the Class Member. Any Class Member who is a retired teacher or
retired non-certified school employee who was entitled by
contract to health insurance coverage beyond 65, will continue to
receive coverage for that contractual period, but still must
choose one of the three plans set forth above.  The Town shall
fund 100% of the Annual Required Contribution under its Pension
Plans as determined by the Town's actuary in accordance with the
Town's five (5) year funding plan as submitted to and approved by
the State of Rhode Island. The Town shall comply with its
obligations under the Retirement Security Act for Locally
Administered Pension Funds, G.L. 1956 45-65-1 et seq.  All of the
savings associated with the COLA suspension will be applied
directly to the Pension Plan to reduce the unfunded liability and
improve the health of the plan.  The Town, the WWPERC and a
person to be designated by the School Committee will meet on an
annual basis to review fund performance and pension plan
administration. In addition, the Town and the Coalition will
mutually determine if the administrative fees currently being
incurred by the Pension Board are excessive, can be reduced,
and/or should be paid by the Town and not withdrawn from the
Pension Plan directly and recommended changes will be made. The
Town agrees to work with WWPERC in order to determine whether the
Town can appoint a retiree who is also a resident of the Town of
West Warwick to the Pension Board. The Town agrees to meet with
WWPERC and a person designated by the School Committee prior to
the beginning of the third year of the five year plan to mutually
determine whether the financial status of the Town is such that
any of the concessions provided for in this agreement are no
longer necessary and can be changed to the benefit of the
Members.  The Town agrees that in the event a Budget Commission
and/or Receiver is appointed under G.L. 1956 45-9-1 et seq. the
Final and Consent Judgment between the parties will control,
i.e., not be impaired in any way, and that in the event a
Petition under Chapter 9 is filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the
terms of the Final and Consent Judgment shall become the so-
called "Pendency Plan" as it relates to the Members.  The Town
shall not offer or provide "richer" COLA benefits to employees
who retire during the pendency of the five-year-plan or to those
who are presently retired with disability pensions. For example,
because the Class Members agree to suspend the COLA, the COLAs of
all future retirees shall be suspended during the five-year
period to avoid the scenario in which the current Class Members
are not being paid a COLA at the same time a future retiree is
being paid a COLA. As part of this commitment, the Town will
provide WWPERC with copies of all CBAs negotiated during the
five-year period and any other agreement negotiated with those
presently retired with disability pensions.  The terms of the
Final and Consent Judgment will be approved by the West Warwick
Town Council and the Town of West Warwick School Committee prior
to its submission to the Court for entry.

8. What happens if I remain in the Class and Accept the Proposed
Settlement? If you do not opt-out of the Class and the Court
approves the Proposed Settlement, you will get the benefit of the
Settlement and be bound by its terms.  The terms of the Proposed
Settlement are described above in Question 7.

9. How will my pension and health insurance benefits change under
the Proposed Settlement? Your COLA will be suspended for only
five years instead of the ten year period in the Enactment.  You
will have to choose one of the three new health insurance plans,
two of which come with a co-share.  Under the Settlement there
are three options instead of only two.  Under the Settlement, the
cost is lower than the cost in the Enactments.

10. What are the benefits of the Proposed Settlement? The
benefits of the Proposed Settlement are that Class Members avoid
the severe impacts of the Enactments that would prevail in the
event the court challenges were unsuccessful.  Further, even if
the court challenges were successful, the Town may be unable to
slow the increasing unfunded liability of the pension plan and
future pension benefits may be in danger of being substantially
reduced or entirely lost.

11. What do I give up if I stay in the Class and accept the
Proposed Settlement? If you choose not to opt-out and exclude
yourself from the Proposed Settlement, then you will be bound by
the terms of the Proposed Settlement and the Final and Consent
Judgment that implements it. You will receive all rights and
benefits provided by the Proposed Settlement but you will no
longer be able to bring your own lawsuit against the Town that
involves the same issues in this case.  If you want to sue the
Town or School Committee separately regarding the Enactments, you
may want to exclude yourself by opting-out of the Class. See
Questions 13 & 14 for more information on how to exclude yourself
from the Class.

12. How do I accept the Proposed Settlement? You do not need to
do anything to accept the Proposed Settlement.  You are already a
Class Member and, if you do not opt-out, you will be included in
the Proposed Settlement.  If the Proposed Settlement is approved
by the Court, and you do not opt-out, the Enactments will not
apply to you. Excluding Yourself From the Class and the Proposed
Settlement

13. How do I get out of the Proposed Settlement? If you do not
want to accept the Proposed Settlement and you do want to retain
the right to sue the Town about the legal issues in this case,
then you must take steps to get out of the Class.  This is known
as excluding yourself or opting-out of the Class.  To exclude
yourself from the Class and from the Proposed Settlement, you
must send a letter by U.S. mail that clearly states that you want
to be excluded from the Class in this case.  To be valid, your
letter must include the following: your full name, your date of
birth, and your current mailing address; the following statement:
"I request to be excluded from the settlement in West Warwick
Public Employees' Retiree Coalition v. Town of West Warwick and
the West Warwick School Committee, No. KC-2014-0424. I understand
that I will be excluded from the Class and that I must pursue my
legal options on my own;" and your signature or the signature of
an individual possessing documented legal authority to sign on
your behalf.  You cannot exclude yourself by having someone else
send a letter on your behalf unless that letter is accompanied by
a certified copy of a power of attorney or other documentation
conclusively establishing that such person is authorized to act
on your behalf.  The deadline to opt-out of the Class and the
Proposed Settlement is June 27, 2014.  You must mail your notice
so that it is received no later than June 27, 2014 to the
following address: Deborah Medeiros Paralegal Donoghue Barrett &
Singal 155 South Main Street, Suite 102 Providence, RI 02903 IF
YOUR LETTER IS NOT RECEIVED BY JUNE 27, 2014 YOUR REQUEST WILL
NOT BE HONORED AND YOU WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, IF APPROVED. You cannot exclude yourself from the
Class by telephone, facsimile, or e-mail.  You cannot exclude
yourself by mailing your request to any other location, or after
the deadline.

14. What happens if I get out of the Proposed Settlement? If you
opt-out and exclude yourself from the Class, you will not receive
any of the benefits from the Proposed Settlement, if approved.
You will also be subject to the terms of the Enactments such that
your COLA will be automatically suspended over a ten (10) year
period and your health insurance benefits will be altered (which
includes a 20% co-share) effective July 1, 2014.  You may,
however, bring your own separate legal action, at your own
expense, challenging the Enactments. You should consult with an
attorney if you have any questions about bringing your own
lawsuit regarding these claims against the Town.  The Lawyers Who
Are Representing You

15. Do I have a lawyer representing me in this case? Yes.  The
Court has determined that Carly Beauvais Iafrate of the Law
Office of Carly Beauvais Iafrate is qualified to represent you
and has appointed her as Class Counsel in this case.  Ms. Iafrate
has experience in handling claims of other retirees relating to
their retirement benefits. As Class Counsel, Ms. Iafrate is
required to represent the interests of the Class in this lawsuit.
Supporting or Objecting to the Proposed Settlement

16. How do I tell the Court that I like or do not like the
Proposed Settlement? If you remain a Class Member and do not opt-
out, you may submit a comment telling the Court that you like the
Proposed Settlement and that you think it should be approved, or
you may also object to the Proposed Settlement by telling the
Court that you do not like the Proposed Settlement and do not
think it should be approved.  The Court will consider comments
and objections from Class Members.  You are not required to
submit any comments or objections.  To comment on or object to
the Proposed Settlement, you must send a letter or have your
attorney send a letter on your behalf.  The letter must include
the following information: your full name, date of birth, and
mailing address; a statement that you are commenting on or
objecting to the Proposed Settlement in The West Warwick Public
Employees Retirement Coalition v. Town of West Warwick and the
West Warwick School Department, No. KC-2014-0424; the factual
and/or legal reasons for your comment or objection to the
Proposed Settlement; any documents supporting your comment or
objection; state whether you would like to speak at the Fairness
Hearing (see Question 21 below); and your signature or that of
your attorney. The deadline to submit a comment or objection is
May 28, 2014.  You must mail your comment or objection to the
Honorable Sarah Taft-Carter, with a copy to Class Counsel and the
Town Counsel at the addresses listed below so that it is received
no later than May 28, 2014. COURT The Honorable Sarah Taft-Carter
Kent County Superior Court Noel Judicial Complex 222 Quaker Lane
Warwick, Rhode Island 02886 CLASS COUNSEL Carly B. Iafrate, Esq.
Law Office of Carly Beauvais Iafrate 129 Dyer Street Providence,
RI 02903 TOWN COUNSEL William M. Dolan III, Esq. Donoghue Barrett
& Singal 155 South Main Street, Suite 102 Providence, RI 02903

Your letter must include a reasonable basis for commenting on or
objecting to the Proposed Settlement.  The Court may reject any
comments or objections that it deems frivolous or that are made
for an improper purpose.  You are not required to submit a
comment or objection and, if you do not submit a letter, Class
Counsel will still represent the collective interests of the
Class.  If you choose not to submit a comment or objection, you
will waive your right to be heard individually at the Fairness
Hearing on whether to approve the Proposed Settlement and any
right of appeal that you may have.  However, you will still have
the right to be excluded from the Class (See Questions 13 & 14).

17. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be
excluded? Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not
like something about the Proposed Settlement.  You can object if
you want to remain in the Class but still want to express your
views on the Proposed Settlement.  Excluding yourself is telling
the Court that you do not want to be part of the Class or any
Proposed Settlement.  Fairness Hearing 18. What is the Fairness
Hearing? The Fairness Hearing is a session of the Court during
which the Court will hear arguments from the lawyers for the
parties, and possibly from Class Members, on whether the Court
should approve the Proposed Settlement.  At this hearing, the
Court will consider whether the Proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  If there are objections, the Court
will consider them. The Court may or may not choose to hear
testimony and receive additional evidence to help the Court make
its decision. After the Fairness Hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the Proposed Settlement.  There is no specific
deadline for the Court to issue its decision.

19. When and Where will it Occur? The Fairness Hearing will take
place on June 6, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. at the address below:
Courtroom 4C Kent County Superior Court Noel Judicial Complex 222
Quaker Lane Warwick, Rhode Island 02886

20. Do I Have to Attend the Fairness Hearing? No. Class Counsel
will answer any questions that the Court has and will make
arguments on behalf of the entire Class. Even though you are not
required to attend, you may come to the hearing at your own
expense. If you send a comment or an objection, you do not have
to attend the hearing.  As long as you send your comment or
objection according to the requirements of Question 16, the Court
will consider it.  You may also pay your own lawyer to attend,
but it is not necessary.

21. May I Speak at the Fairness Hearing? You and/or your attorney
may ask the Court's permission to speak at the hearing concerning
the Proposed Settlement.  To do so, you must send a letter with
the following information: your full name, date of birth, and
mailing address; a statement that you would like to be heard at
the Fairness Hearing in West Warwick Public Employees' Retiree
Coalition v. Town of West Warwick and the West Warwick School
Committee, No. KC-2014-0424; the names of the attorneys (if any)
that you have hired to appear on your behalf; and your signature
or that of your attorney.  The deadline to submit notice that you
would like to speak is May 28, 2014.  You must mail your notice
to the Honorable Sarah Taft-Carter with a copy to Class Counsel
and Town Counsel at the addresses listed below so that it is
received no later than May 28, 2014.

COURT The Honorable Sarah Taft-Carter Kent County Superior Court
Noel Judicial Complex 222 Quaker Lane Warwick, Rhode Island 02886

CLASS COUNSEL Carly B. Iafrate, Esq. Law Office of Carly Beauvais
Iafrate 129 Dyer Street Providence, RI 02903

TOWN COUNSEL William M. Dolan III, Esq. Donoghue Barrett & Singal
155 South Main Street, Suite 102 Providence, RI 02903

If you send a comment or objection, you may combine this notice
and your comment or objection by including this notice in your
letter (See Question 16).  You cannot speak at the Fairness
Hearing if you have already excluded yourself from the Class (see
Question 13).  If You Do Nothing

22. What happens if I don't do anything? You will remain a Class
Member and will be included in the Proposed Settlement. See
Questions 7 through 12 for more information.  More Information

23.  Where can I get more information? You may obtain more
information concerning this Proposed Settlement and the lawsuit
by contacting Class Counsel at: Carly Beauvais Iafrate, Esq. Law
Office of Carly Beauvais Iafrate 129 Dyer Street Providence, RI
02903 (401) 421-0065 ciafrate@verizon.net

24. What happens after the Fairness Hearing? Assuming the Court
approves the Proposed Settlement at the hearing, a second notice
will go out to the Class Members advising them that the Proposed
Settlement has been approved and they have until June 27, 2014 to
opt-out of the Proposed Settlement (See Question 13).
Thereafter, on June 30, 2014 the Court will hold a final hearing
and enter a Final and Consent Judgment approving the Proposed
Settlement for all Class Members who have not opted-out.


                             *********

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  * * *