CAR_Public/140519.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 98

                             Headlines


ACTAVIS PLC: Continues to Face Antitrust Suits Related to Actos
ACTAVIS PLC: Androgel Litigation Remanded to District Court
ACTAVIS PLC: Updates on Consumer, Antitrust Lawsuits Over Cipro
ACTAVIS PLC: Warner, Mayne Settle Antitrust Suits Over Doryx
ACTAVIS PLC: JPMDL Consolidates Lidoderm Litigation in Cal. Court

ACTAVIS PLC: Faces Collective Personal Injury Suit Over Androderm
ADELL BROADCASTING: Sued for Misclassifying Class as Contractors
ALCO STORES: July 18 Hearing Set on Motion to Junk Merger Suit
ALERE: Recalls INRatio(R)2 PT/INR Professional Test Strips
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Motion to Junk Securities Suit

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit in New York
BANKERS LIFE: Time to Seek Class Cert. in "Ansah" Suit Extended
BEAR STEARNS: "Wang" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Replead
BECTON DICKINSON: $22M Settlement of Antitrust Suit Approved
BOTTLE KING: Court Approves Amended Class Action Settlement

BRAVO: Issues Nationwide Recall of Pet Food for Dogs and Cats
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Talks in Labor Lawsuit Fail
CASUAL MALE: Removed "Jeter-Polk" Class Suit to C.D. California
DARIGOLD INC: Sued for Employing Deceptive Business Practices
DATASCOPE CORP: Worldwide Recall of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps

DELTA AIR: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Smith" Class Action
DISCOUNTSCHOOLSUPPLY.COM: Recalls Magnetic Color Sorting Board
DISKAL INC: Class Are Entitled to Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
DOMEGA NY: Undeclared Eggs Prompt Recall of Biscuit Products
DOMEGA NY: Recalls Sesame Flavor Cracker Due to Undeclared Nuts

DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
ERMC PROPERTY: Gomez Obtains Partial Cert. of Collection Action
EUGENE OREGON: Recalls Black Ant, Mojo Risen Dietary Supplements
EV PROPERTIES: 6th Cir. Affirms Dist. Court Ruling in Cole Suit
EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 5,340 Riding Mowers

FIRSTMERIT CORP: High Court Refuses Overdraft Fee-Related Suit
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Citizens Shareholder Objects to Merger Lawsuit
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Motion to Dismiss CRBC 401(k) Litigation Denied
GARLOCK SEALING: Article Discusses Bankruptcy Ruling
GENERAL MOTORS: Hires Wachtell Lipton to Review Ignition Issues

GENERAL MOTORS: Reassigns Executive Amid Ignition Switch Probe
GRADUATION SOURCE: Accused of Sending Fax Ads w/o Opt-Out Notices
GREE ELECTRIC: Recalls China-Made Dehumidifier Due to Fire Risk
HEWLETT PACKARD: Karlbom Suit Remanded to San Diego County Court
HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Answers Baker Hughes-Related Securities Claim

HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuits Over SWS Group Acquisition
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls One Lot of Dobutamine Injection
HYUNDAI: Manufacturing Defect Caused 2011 Crash, Jury Rules
INT'L BUSINESS: Faces "McCormack" Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
INT'L BUSINESS: Former Employees File Discrimination Class Action

INTERLINE BRANDS: Still Faces Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violation
JERSEY CITY PARKING: "Ali" Suit Dimissed with Prejudice
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for Misleading Aveeno Products' Consumers
JT PRIVATE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Houston" Suit Claims
KELLOGG CO: Settles Kashing Labeling Class Action for $5 Million

LIHUA INT'L: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
LIHUA INT'L: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in California
LOS ANGELES MTA: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Cal.
LOVIN OVEN: Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
MARKIT LTD: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in New York Court

MARTIN MARIETTA: Faces Litigation in Texas Over Planned Merger
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: To Appeal Certification of Antitrust Lawsuit
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Continues to Face Antitrust Suits in Canada
NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NTS REALTY: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Merger Agreement

OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Accused of Hiding Deals With Libya and Congo
OPKO HEALTH: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Wins Dismissal of Antitrust Suit in Tex. Court
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Tax Suit by Colorado City Denied Certification
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over "Failure" to Pay License Fees

PACIFIC ORGANIC: Recalls Tommy Atkins Mangos Due to Listeria
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Wins Dismissal of 2012 Securities Suit
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Discovery in "Bararsani v. Coldwell" Stayed
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: $3.0MM Deposited to Labor Suit Accord Fund
SPEIGHT SEED: NCWHA Class Certified in "Hernandez-Martinez" Suit

STANDARD & POOR'S: Class Action Over Lehman Ratings Can Proceed
STE FROMAGERE: Recalls Raclette and Montboissie Cheese
STONYFIELD: YoBaby Yogurt Recall Extended to 271 More Stores
STRONG AMERICA: Recalls "Golden Smell Hotpot Meat Ball Medley"
STYLECRAFT: Recalls Upholstered Benches Due to Fall Hazard

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls 128,363 Bottles of Cetirizine
SURMA DISTRIBUTORS: Undeclared Sulfites Prompt Raisins Recall
SVALE DEL GRANDE: Arbitration Bid Denial in "Gillespie" Reversed
TARGET CORP: Axes CEO Following Massive Data Breach
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Agrees to Indemnify Google for 2012 Lawsuit

TELEXFREE INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
TENET HEALTHCARE: In Talks to Settle Suit Over Patient Records
TRANSCARE CORP: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Driver Says
TREX COMPANY: Accrues $1.6MM to Settle Stull, Cohen Product Suits
TRIAD OF ALABAMA: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Claims

UBS AG: Steered Members to Invest in High-Risk Funds, Class Says
US TRADING: Recalls Crushed Chili Powder Due to Health Risk
VENTLAB LLC: Conducts Nationwide Recall of Resuscitator Bags
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bristol Pension Fund to Amend Claims
WELLS FARGO: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay

YELP INC: No Ruling Yet on Appeal v. Dismissal of Rating Suit

* Bill to Require Recalled Cars to be Fixed Before Sold
* Senator Calls on Hospitals to Address Medical Errors
* Supreme Court to Rule on Viability of Securities Class Actions
* Task Force Calls for Amendment to Strengthen Malpractice Caps


                            *********


ACTAVIS PLC: Continues to Face Antitrust Suits Related to Actos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc faces several antitrust litigations filed by indirect
purchaser plaintiffs who generally allege a collusion to
improperly delay the launch of a generic version of Actos,
according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (United Food and Commercial Workers Local
1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltc. Et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9244 and
Crosby Tugs LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., et al.,
S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9250) against Actavis plc and certain of its
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2010 patent lawsuit settlement
with Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd. related to Actos
(pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin "Actos") is unlawful.
Several additional complaints have been filed (Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-0116;
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-0644; A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-
1493; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.
Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1661; Painters District Council
No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.,
et al., N.D.Ill. Civ. No. 14-1601; City of Providence v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 14-125; Minnesota
and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund
and Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-1691; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1788; New
England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical
Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-2424; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Civ. No. 14-2378; Dennis Kreish v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2137; Man-U Service
Contract Trust Fund and Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare
Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2846).
The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed. Prior to the filing of
the Painters District Council and City of Providence complaints,
plaintiffs in the cases pending in federal court in New York filed
a consolidated class action complaint. Plaintiffs in the Painters
District Council and City of Providence cases subsequently
voluntarily dismissed their complaints in Illinois and Rhode
Island, respectively, and refiled their complaints in the Southern
District of New York where all the cases have been referred to the
same judge. The complaints, each asserted on behalf of putative
classes of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, generally allege an
overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch
of its generic version of Actos in exchange for substantial
payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and unspecified damages.


ACTAVIS PLC: Androgel Litigation Remanded to District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The court of appeals recently remanded the case In re: AndroGel
Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084 back to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
according to Actavis plc's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the September 2006 patent
lawsuit settlement between Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Watson"
now known as Actavis, Inc.) and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Solvay"), related to AndroGel 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is
unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote Androgel for
consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided
by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable relief
and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate
lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by various
private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of
similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et al., v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215);
(Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
et al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc.
v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228). On
April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private
cases to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009 the State of California
voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Watson without
prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs
in the Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on
May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to
include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of
Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation.
Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ
Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1507);
(Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance
Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D.
MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms.,
Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v.
Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu,
Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024);
(LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-
2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837). On April 20,
2009, Watson was dismissed without prejudice from the Stephen L.
LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey. On October
5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that
district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re: AndroGel
Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084), and all
currently-pending related actions are presently before that court.
On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the
consolidated litigations related to Androgel then pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted Watson's motions to dismiss the complaints, except the
portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that include
allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of
the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission's
action on April 21, 2010. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued
a decision, holding that the settlements between brand and generic
drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to
the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason"
standard of review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme
Court Androgel Decision"). On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the
Fraternal Order of Police action filed an amended complaint adding
allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of
Solvay's patent in the FDA's "Orange Book," and sham litigation
similar to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions. On
October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an
order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on September 10,
2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other
indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and made
subject to the Court's February 22, 2010 order on the motion to
dismiss. In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and on June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
including Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed
a motion for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints. On
September 28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendants on all outstanding claims. The plaintiffs
then appealed. On September 12 and 13, 2013, respectively, the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs and direct purchaser plaintiffs
filed motions with the district court, asking the court for an
indicative ruling that it would vacate its final order on the
parties' summary judgment motions and conduct further proceedings
in light of the Supreme Court Androgel Decision, should the Court
of Appeals remand the case to the district court. On October 23,
2013, the district court granted the motions. The court of appeals
recently remanded the case back to the district court which has
granted plaintiffs relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, vacating the ruling from which plaintiffs
appealed. The remanded case is still in its early stages and the
parties are working to determine the appropriate scope of
additional discovery for both the class allegations and merits.


ACTAVIS PLC: Updates on Consumer, Antitrust Lawsuits Over Cipro
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, Actavis
plc provided updates on number of suits filed against its
affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws related to the launch of the generic version of
Cipro.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain Company affiliates
including The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and
federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state
competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have
filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification.
Approximately 42 cases were filed against Watson, Rugby and other
Company entities. Many of these actions have been dismissed.
Actions remain pending in various state courts, including
California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. The actions generally
allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive
conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior
to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"),
related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug
substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of
Bayer's brand drug, Cipro. The actions generally seek declaratory
judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief
on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other
entities. The action pending in Kansas, which the court previously
terminated administratively, has been reopened. Plaintiffs' in
that case moved for class certification on February 21, 2014;
defendants' opposition to the class certification motion is due
May 23, 2014. There has been no action in the cases pending in
Florida and Tennessee since 2003. In the action pending in the
California Superior Court for the County of San Diego (In re:
Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220 ), on July
21, 2004, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority
of the plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a
class. On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was
entered on September 24, 2009. On October 31, 2011, the California
Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. On
December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review in
the California Supreme Court. On February 15, 2012, the California
Supreme Court granted review. On September 12, 2012, the
California Supreme Court entered a stay of all proceedings in the
case pending a decision from the United States Supreme Court in
the Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis matter involving Androgel.
The California Supreme Court lifted the stay on June 26, 2013
following the ruling by the United States Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs and Bayer recently announced that they have reached an
agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer. Plaintiffs
are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants,
including Watson and Rugby. The remaining parties submitted letter
briefs to the court regarding the impact of the Supreme Court
Androgel Decision. Response briefs were submitted on February 14,
2014. Amicus briefs were submitted on March 18, 2014 and the
parties filed responses to such briefs on April 24, 2014.


ACTAVIS PLC: Warner, Mayne Settle Antitrust Suits Over Doryx
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott plc and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd.
reached agreements to settle lawsuits alleging violation of the
U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws by preventing or
delaying generic competition of Doryx, according to Actavis plc's
May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following the filing of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s complaint,
three putative class actions were filed against Warner Chilcott
and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one putative class
action was filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported
indirect purchasers, each in the same court. On December 5, 2013
an additional complaint was filed by the International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund on behalf of
another group of purported indirect purchasers. Warner has moved
to dismiss this new complaint. In each case the plaintiffs allege
that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx products
as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions
preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S.
federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. The court consolidated the purported class actions and the
action filed by Mylan and ordered that all the pending cases
proceed on the same schedule.

On February 5, 2013, four retailers, including HEB Grocery,
Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and Walgreen Co., filed in the same
court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities
against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx. (Walgreen Co.,
Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and HEB Grocery Co, LP. v. Warner
Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-00658). On
March 28, 2013, another retailer, Rite Aid, filed a similar
complaint in the same court. (Rite Aid Corp. v. Warner Chilcott
Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-01644). Both
retailer complaints recite similar facts and assert similar legal
claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases. Both
retailer complaints have been consolidated with the cases
described.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne moved to dismiss the claims of Mylan,
the direct purchasers, the indirect purchasers and the retailers.
On November 21, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission filed with the
court an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs' theory of
relief. On June 12, 2013, the court entered a denial, without
prejudice, of Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motions to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated cases. On November 13,
2013, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement in principle
to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class
representatives for $15 million. On February 18, 2014 the court
preliminarily approved the settlement and set a hearing for final
approval on June 9, 2014. On April 18, 2014, Warner Chilcott and
Mayne reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims of
the opt-out direct purchasers for $10.9 million. The settlement
remains subject to execution of definitive agreements and court
approval. Indirect Purchasers Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification remains pending before the court, with no class
having yet been certified. Warner Chilcott, Mylan and the class of
indirect purchasers each filed motions for summary judgment on
March 10, 2014. Trial in the remaining cases is scheduled to
commence in June 2014.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation, and the Company can offer no
assurance as to when the lawsuits will be decided, whether the
Company will be successful in its defense and whether any
additional similar suits will be filed. The plaintiffs
collectively seek approximately $1.2 billion in compensatory
damages, which includes approximately $1.05 billion in purported
damages of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and opt-out direct
purchaser plaintiffs with whom the company has settlements in
principle.


ACTAVIS PLC: JPMDL Consolidates Lidoderm Litigation in Cal. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the
cases related to Lidoderm (lidocaine transdermal patches in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to Actavis plc's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
federal district court (Drogueria Betances, Inc. v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-06542) against
Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm (lidocaine transdermal
patches, "Lidoderm") is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on
behalf of putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs,
generally alleges that Watson improperly delayed launching generic
versions of Lidoderm in exchange for substantial payments from
Endo Pharmaceuticals in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages. Additional lawsuits contain similar
allegations have followed on behalf of putative classes of direct
purchasers (Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-7217; American
Sales Co. LLC, v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn.
Civ. No. 14-0022; Cesar Castillo, Inc. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0569) and suits filed on
behalf of a putative class of end-payer plaintiffs (United Food
and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health
and Welfare Fund v.Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ.
No. 13-5257; Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal.
Civ. No. 13-5280; City of Providence v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.,
et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-771; Greater Metropolitan Hotel
Employers - Employees Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., D.Minn. Civ. No. 13-3399; Pirelli
Armstrong Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Teikoku Pharma USA,
Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378; Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA,
Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5938; Philadelphia Federation
of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0057; International Association of
Fire Fighters Local 22 Health & Welfare Fund v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0092; Painters
District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Teikoku Pharma
USA, Inc., et al., C.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0289; Local 17 Hospitality
Benefit Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ.
No. 14-0503; Teamsters Local Union 115 Health and Welfare Fund v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0772;
Roller v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No.
14-0792; Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation
Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378; NECA-
IBEW Welfare Trust v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal.
Civ. No. 14-1141; Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-1548; Irene
Kampanis v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No.
14-1562). The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits
based on the same or similar allegations may be filed. On December
23, 2013, plaintiffs in the United Food and Commercial Workers
action filed a motion with the JPML to have all the Lidoderm
antitrust cases consolidated in the Northern District of
California. Plaintiffs in several of the other actions filed
objections and argued for consolidation in districts where their
suits were filed. The motion was heard by the JPML at a hearing on
March 27, 2014 and on April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the
cases in the Northern District of California. (In re Lidoderm
Antitrust Litigation, N.D. Cal., MDL No. 14-2521). An initial case
conference is scheduled for May 9, 2014.


ACTAVIS PLC: Faces Collective Personal Injury Suit Over Androderm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed personal injury class action, McGill, et al. v.
Actavis, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-02177 (E.D. Pa.), is in the
initial stages of proceedings, according to Actavis plc' May 5,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for
personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular
events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm. Actavis,
Inc. and one or more of its subsidiaries have been served in three
actions (Hall v. Actavis, plc, et al., No. 2:14-cv-00453 (D.
Nev.); (Smyer v. Actavis plc, et al., No: BC537755 (Cal. Super.
Ct., L.A. County); and a proposed personal injury class action
(McGill, et al. v. Actavis, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-02177 (E.D.
Pa.)). The Company is aware of three additional cases that have
not been served (Couwenhoven v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
No. 5:14-cv-667, (C.D. Ca.); Davis, et al., v. Actavis Pharma,
Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-000596, (D. Nev.); and Schwalm v. AbbVie
Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-2899, (N.D. Ill.)), and anticipates that
additional suits will be filed. These cases are in the initial
stages and discovery has not yet commenced.


ADELL BROADCASTING: Sued for Misclassifying Class as Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Bailey and Brak Little, John and Jane Does v. Adell
Broadcasting Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-11800-JEL-MJH (E.D.
Mich., May 5, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs and all class
members have been intentionally misclassified by the Defendant as
exempt or independent contractors, when in fact they are non-
exempt employees of the Defendant.

Adell Broadcasting is a Michigan corporation and is known as WADL
or Adell Broadcasting.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah L. Gordon, Esq.
          Sarah S. Prescott, Esq.
          DEBORAH GORDON LAW
          GORDON, LAUGHBAUM & PRESCOTT
          33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 258-2500
          Facsimile: (248) 258-7881
          E-mail: dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com
                  sprescott@deborahgordonlaw.com


ALCO STORES: July 18 Hearing Set on Motion to Junk Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court set a July 18, 2014 hearing for the motion to dismiss
a suit filed against Alco Stores, Inc. over its merger agreement,
according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb.
2, 2014.

On September 5, 2013, Advanced Advisors, a Company stockholder,
filed a class action petition in the District Court of Shawnee
County, Kansas (case no. 13C001007) citing, among other parties,
the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten, Terrence
Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson, as
defendants. The petition challenged the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
the Sponsor was to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company. The allegations against the defendants included breaches
of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages was unspecified.

On September 23, 2013, Paul Hughes, an individual Company
stockholder, filed a class action petition in the District Court
of Shawnee County, Kansas (case no. 13C001096) citing, among other
parties, the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten,
Terrence Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson,
as defendants. The petition challenged the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
the Sponsor was to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company. The allegations against the defendants included breaches
of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages was unspecified. On
March 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal without
prejudice. On April 10, 2014, the court entered a dismissal order
and removed the case from the active docket.

On September 27, 2013, Jeffery R. Geygan, an individual Company
stockholder, filed a class action petition in the District Court
of Shawnee County, Kansas (case no. 13C001120) citing, among other
parties, the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten,
Terrence Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson,
as defendants. The petition challenged the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
the Sponsor was to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company. The allegations against the defendants included breaches
of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages was unspecified.

On November 21, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to
consolidate the Geygan case and the Advanced Advisors case,
discussed. On December 18, 2013, the court granted the
consolidation motion, and the cases were consolidated under case
no. 13C1007. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated and verified derivative petition, citing, among other
parties, the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten,
Terrence Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson,
as defendants. The petition challenges the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
the Sponsor was to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company. The allegations against the defendants include breaches
of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages is unspecified.

On January 30, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' consolidated and verified derivative petition. The
court set a July 18, 2014 hearing for the Company's motion to
dismiss.


ALERE: Recalls INRatio(R)2 PT/INR Professional Test Strips
----------------------------------------------------------
Waltham, Mass.-based Alere Inc. (NYSE:ALR) has initiated a
voluntary Class 1 recall in the U.S. of the Alere INRatio2 PT/INR
Professional Test Strips (PN 99008G2). This action is a result of
complaints of patients who had a therapeutic or near therapeutic
INR with the Alere INRatio2 PT/INR Professional Test Strip but a
significantly higher INR (outside of therapeutic range) when
performed by a central laboratory.

Alere has received nine serious adverse event reports, three of
which described bleeding associated with patient deaths. The
reason for the adverse event reports was significantly different
test results between the Alere INRatio2 PT/INR Professional Test
Strip and the local laboratory plasma INR test. The Alere INRatio2
PT/INR Professional Test Strip results were between 3.1 -- 12.2
INR units lower than the laboratory result.

The root cause for this issue has not yet been determined;
therefore Alere cannot determine the patient conditions or
circumstances that may contribute to the discrepancy. Given these
reports, Alere is concerned that the Alere INRatio2 PT/INR
Professional Test Strips may report an inaccurately low INR
result. Therefore, Alere has notified customers of the discrepant
results and has advised them to immediately STOP using the Alere
INRatio2 PT/INR Professional Test Strips and use an alternative
method to perform PT/INR testing, such as a plasma-based
laboratory INR test, an alternative Alere product, or an
alternative point-of-care monitoring system from a different
manufacturer. Alere has requested that customers return unused
product to the company.

Alere will transition customers from the current Alere INRatio2
PT/INR Professional Test Strip to the Alere INRatio PT/INR Test
Strip (PN 100139). The voluntary recall does not include the Alere
INRatio PT/INR Test Strip (PN 100071), which is utilized by
patient self-testers for home INR monitoring.

As part of its commitment to ensuring the safety of patients,
Alere has reported these complaints to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and is conducting a thorough investigation into
these events.

Customers with questions regarding this recall or requiring
replacement product can contact Alere at 844-292-5373. For
additional information on the recall customers should go to
www.inr-care.com

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

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

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

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

The Alere INRatio2 PT/INR Professional Monitoring System,
consisting of the Alere INRatio2 PT/INR Monitor and the Alere
INRatio2 PT/INR Professional Test Strip, is intended for use in
the quantitative determination of International Normalized Ratio
(INR) in fresh capillary whole blood to monitor the effect of
warfarin on clotting time by health care professionals. The Alere
INRatio2 PT/INR Professional Monitoring System is intended for use
outside of the body (in vitro diagnostic use). The Alere INRatio2
PT/INR Professional Monitoring System is not intended to be used
for screening purposes and is not intended for use in patients who
are transitioning from heparin treatment to warfarin therapy.

By developing new capabilities in near-patient diagnosis,
monitoring and health information technology, Alere --
http://www.alere.com/-- enables individuals to take charge of
improving their health and quality of life at home. Alere's global
leading products and services, as well as its new product
development efforts, focus on infectious disease, toxicology,
cardiology and diabetes.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Motion to Junk Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a
renewed motion by AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to dismiss a
securities suit filed against it, according to the company's May
5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on March
18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG
Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was
amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010. The second
amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010 alleged that
the company and the company's former President and Chief Executive
Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then-members of the
company's Board, and certain underwriters in the company's January
2010 offering of common stock violated certain federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and that the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer
violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain
alleged omissions in a registration statement filed in January
2010. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
pursuant to the company's common stock offering on or about
January 21, 2010. On August 11 and 15, 2011, respectively, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May
11, 2012. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in
part and reversed in part the District Court's Opinion and Order
and remanded the case to the District Court. On February 19, 2013,
the company filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En
Banc, which was denied on March 15, 2013. On March 22, 2013, the
company filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the case to
the District Court pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the
Court of Appeals' February 4, 2013 decision. The Court of Appeals
granted the Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013. On June
13, 2013, the company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,
or the Petition, with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Court of Appeal's decision and to have that decision overturned.
On October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's
Petition, resulting in the case's return to the District Court for
further proceedings relative to the SAC's surviving claims. On
November 6, 2013, the company filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss
the SAC's surviving claims. On December 6, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a brief in opposition to the company's Motion to Dismiss and
the company filed a reply brief in support of the company's Motion
on December 27, 2013. On April 7, 2014, the District Court denied
the company's renewed Motion to Dismiss. A status conference was
scheduled for May 14, 2014.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation reached an agreement to settlement
a securities suit filed against it in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, according to the company's May
5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Two separate class-action complaints were filed in June and August
2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company's stock
between June 9, 2009, and June 12, 2010, against Anadarko and
certain of its officers. The complaints allege causes of action
arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other
things, the Company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon
events. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees
and costs. The parties reached a tentative settlement in this
matter in March 2014, subject to approval by the court. The
tentative settlement amount will be directly funded by the
Company's insurers. As a result, offsetting payables and
receivables have been recorded to reflect the impact of the
tentative settlement of this matter.


BANKERS LIFE: Time to Seek Class Cert. in "Ansah" Suit Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL ANSAH and EMANUEL IMAH individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by A.W.I.
SECURITY & INVESTIGATION, INC., ADAZE W. IMAFIDON, WHITESTONE
CONSTRUCTION CORP., and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by A.W.I. SECURITY & INVESTIGATION, INC., and/or ADAZE
W. IMAFIDON, Plaintiffs, v. A.W.I. SECURITY & INVESTIGATION, INC.,
ADAZE W. IMAFIDON, WHITESTONE CONSTRUCTION CORP., and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by A.W.I. SECURITY &
INVESTIGATION, INC., and/or ADAZE W. IMAFIDON, Defendants, DOCKET
NO. 151032/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001, 2014 NY Slip Op 30941(U), is a
putative class action brought on behalf of plaintiffs Samuel Ansah
and Emmanuel Imoh and similarly situated employees to recover
unpaid prevailing wages and benefits on various public contracts.
Plaintiffs moved for an order pursuant to CPLR Section 1002(b) and
Section 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to add WDF, Inc.
as an additional defendant in this action, and pursuant to CPLR
Section 2004, granting them an extension of time in which to file
their motion for class certification. Defendants A.W.I. Security &
Investigation, Inc. and Adaze W. Imafidon cross-moved, pursuant to
CPLR Section 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
as against them. Defendant Whitestone Construction Corp. also
cross-moved, pursuant to CPLR Section 3212, for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint as against it.

Judge Shlomo S. Hagler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision & order dated April 9, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/JzafwNfrom Leagle.com, ordered that the branch of
plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to seek class
certification is granted.

The branch of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint
to add WDF, Inc. as an additional defendant in the action is
denied without prejudice.

The cross-motion of defendants A.W.I. Security & Investigation,
Inc. and Adaze W. Imafidon for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint is denied.

The cross-motion of Whitestone Construction Corp. for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The Court ordered the attorneys for the parties to appear in Part
17, 60 Centre Street, Room 335, on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 2:30
P.M. for a conference at which a pre-certification discovery
schedule will be set and plaintiffs' time for moving for class
certification will be determined.


BEAR STEARNS: "Wang" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Replead
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Sweet dismissed the case captioned
VIVINE H. WANG, Plaintiff, v. THE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES LLC, J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP., DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP, ALAN D. SCHWARTZ, ALAN C. GREENBERG, JOEY ZHOU, and
GARRETT BLAND, Defendants, NO. 11 CIV. 5643, (S.D. N.Y.).

Defendants Joe Y. Zhou and Garrett Bland moved pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims
against them in this complaint filed on March 29, 2011 by
plaintiff Vivine H. Wang.

In his opinion dated April 15, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/KX8xlXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Sweet granted the
motion and dismissed the Complaint as to Zhou and Wang with leave
granted to replead within 20 days.

Mohammed K. Ghods, Esq. -- mghods@rdblaw.com -- William Stahr,
Esq., Jeremy A. Rhyne, Esq. -- jrhyne@ghodslaw.com -- GHODS LAW
FIRM, Santa Ana, CA, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

Brad S. Karp, Esq. -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Eric S. Goldstein,
Esq. -- egoldstein@paulweiss.com -- Jessica S. Carey,  Esq. --
jcarey@paulweiss.com -- Jonathan Hurwitz, Esq. --
jhurwitz@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants Joe Zhou and Garrett
Bland.


BECTON DICKINSON: $22M Settlement of Antitrust Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey District Court approved a $22 million settlement
reached in an antitrust suit filed by hospitals and retailers
against Becton, Dickinson and Company, according to the company's
May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company was named as a defendant in the following purported
class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the
Company's products, such as hospitals and retailers (the "Hospital
Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated federal and state
antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the
Company's products to the plaintiffs and other purported class
members.

Case:             Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Becton
                  Dickinson & Company
Court:            U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee
Date Filed:       June 3, 2005
                  ------------------
Case:             Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al. v. Becton
                  Dickinson and Company
Court:            U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey
Date Filed:       January 17, 2006
                  ------------------
Case:             Medstar v. Becton Dickinson
Court:            U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey
Date Filed:       May 18, 2006
                  ------------------
Case:             The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale
                  v. Becton Dickinson and Company
Court:            U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
                  York
Date Filed:       March 28, 2007

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits
sought monetary damages. These antitrust class action lawsuits
were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement that the Company entered into
with the Hospital Plaintiffs on July 30, 2013 and following
approval by the New Jersey District Court (on a preliminarily
basis in November 2013 and on a final basis in March 2014), the
Company has paid $22 million in exchange for a release by all
potential class members of the indirect purchaser claims related
to the products and acts enumerated in the complaint, and a
dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement related to indirect
purchaser antitrust class action cases, the company paid $22
million into a fund in the first quarter of fiscal year 2014. The
settlement agreement was approved on a final basis in March 2014.


BOTTLE KING: Court Approves Amended Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
DiSabato & Bouckenooghe LLC on May 8 disclosed that an amended
settlement of a class action lawsuit against the popular
New Jersey wine and liquor retailer Bottle King(R) was recently
approved by New Jersey State Court Judge Donald S. Coburn.  The
class action relates to Bottle King's printing of credit and debit
card expiration dates on sales receipts in alleged violation of
New Jersey's Fair Credit Reporting Act and New Jersey's Truth-in-
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

The lawsuit, captioned Nelson v. Ledgewood B.K., et al., Docket
No. MRS-L-2426-12, was filed on behalf of a class of New Jersey
consumers who used credit or debit cards to make purchases at any
Bottle King store location during the period April 30, 2008,
through October 10, 2012, in the State of New Jersey.

On May 1, 2014, Judge Coburn of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Morris County, granted conditional certification of
the settlement class and preliminary approval of the amended
settlement in the Nelson action.  Members of the settlement class
may be entitled to a coupon with a value of up to $40.00
redeemable at Bottle King store locations in New Jersey.  The
claim period runs through July 7, 2014.  The full Notice of
Settlement and claim form are available at
www.bottlekingsettlement.com

The case was settled by agreement between the plaintiff and the
companies that own and operate the Bottle King stores.  "Bottle
King has been very cooperative in taking responsibility for this.
As soon as they were made aware that expiration dates were
appearing on receipts, they corrected the problem," said
plaintiff's attorney David DiSabato of Mendham, New Jersey's
DiSabato & Bouckenooghe LLC.

The details of the amended settlement agreement, which replaced an
earlier agreement that was preliminarily approved by the Court on
March 10, 2014, were shaped with the help of the Attorney
General's Office, according to Mr. DiSabato.  "The parties
acknowledge and appreciate the assistance of the New Jersey
Attorney General in offering constructive suggestions for the
resolution of this matter," he said.

Bottle King changed software companies in 2008, said Ken Friedman,
president of Allied Management, the company that operates the
Livingston, New Jersey based Bottle King.  Although the previous
software firm had been removing expiration dates and properly
truncating credit card numbers, "the new software company didn't
take out the expiration date.  As soon as we heard about it, we
corrected it that day," Friedman said.

Friedman and Bottle King maintain that no one was harmed as a
result of expiration dates being printed on credit and debit card
receipts and that all Bottle King receipts X-d out the required
credit and debit card account numbers.  However, they concluded
that it was in Bottle King's best interests to resolve the case in
order to avoid expense, inconvenience, and interference with
ongoing business operations.

Those persons eligible for relief under the settlement are all New
Jersey residents who used a personal credit or debit card to make
a purchase at any Bottle King location in the State of New Jersey
between April 30, 2008, and October 10, 2012, where the receipt
from the transaction contained an expiration date.

In order to receive relief under the amended settlement, claimants
must submit a completed claim form by July 7, 2014.  Claim forms
are available for download at www.bottlekingsettlement.com or can
be obtained at any of Bottle King's fourteen New Jersey locations.
Completed claim forms must be postmarked by July 7, 2014, and
should be mailed to the Angeion Group, at the address provided on
the claim form.

Any questions concerning the Nelson Action, the Nelson Amended
Settlement, or the claim form should be directed to Class Counsel,
DiSabato & Bouckenooghe LLC, at 973-813-2525 or
ddisabato@disabatolaw.com with reference to the Nelson Action.


BRAVO: Issues Nationwide Recall of Pet Food for Dogs and Cats
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester, Conn.-based Bravo is recalling select lots and
product(s) of Bravo Pet Food because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

However, healthy cats and dogs rarely become sick from Listeria.
Animals ill with Listeria will display symptoms similar to the
ones listed above for humans. People who have concerns about
whether their pet has Listeria should contact their veterinarian.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to distributors,
retail stores, internet retailers and directly to consumers. The
product can be identified by the batch ID code (best used by date)
printed on the side of the plastic tube or on a label on the box.

The recalled products are as follows:

1) These products are being recalled because they may have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! BEEF BLEND FOR DOGS AND CATS (Made
in New Zealand)
All 2lb., 5lb., and 10lb. tubes
Product Numbers: 52-102, 52-105, 52-110
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

PRODUCT: BRAVO! BALANCE PREMIUM TURKEY FORMULA (Manufactured by:
Bravo! Manchester, CT)
3 lb. box with (12) 4oz. burgers
Product Number: 31-401
Best Used By Dates: 1/07/16 and 2/11/16

2) These products are being recalled out of an abundance of
caution because while they did not test positive for pathogens,
they were manufactured in the same manufacturing facility or on
the same day as products that did test positive.

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! LAMB BLEND FOR DOGS AND CATS (Made
in New Zealand)
All 2lb., 5lb., and 10lb. tubes
Product Numbers: 42-102, 42-105, 42-110
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! LAMB BASIC FOR DOGS AND CATS (Made
in New Zealand)
2lb. tubes
Product Number: 42-202
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! BEEF & BEEF HEART FOR DOGS AND CATS
(Made in New Zealand)
5lb. tubes
Product Number: 53-130
Best Used By Date: 10/10/15 or earlier

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! 100% PURE & NATURAL PREMIUM GRASS-
FED BUFFALO FOR DOGS AND CATS (Manufactured by: Bravo! Manchester,
CT)
NET WT 2LBS (32 OZ) .91KG (Tubes)
Product Number: 72-222
Best Used By Date: 1/7/16

PRODUCT: BRAVO! TURKEY BALANCE FORMULA (Manufactured by: Bravo!
Manchester, CT)
NET WT 2 LBS (32 OZ) .09KG, Chub (tube)
Product Number: 31-402
Best Used By Dates: 1/7/16 and 2/11/16

NET WT 5 LBS (80 OZ) 2.3KG, Chub (tube)
Product Number: 31-405
Best Used By Dates: 1/7/16 and 2/11/16

PRODUCT: RAW FOOD DIET BRAVO! LAMB BLEND FOR DOGS AND CATS
(Manufactured by: Bravo! Manchester, CT)
5 LBS (80 OZ) 2.3KG, Chub (tube)
Product Number: 42-105
Best Used By Date: 2/11/16

This voluntary recall has been issued because the FDA has reported
an independent lab detected the bacteria in a sample during a
recent review. The company has received a limited number of
reports of dogs experiencing nausea and diarrhea that may be
associated with these specific products. The company has received
no reports of human illness as a result of these products.

Bravo discontinued all manufacturing in New Zealand on October 10,
2013. Bravo will immediately start working with distributors and
retailers to properly dispose of any affected product left on
freezer shelves. The company will also be announcing the recall to
pet owners to ensure they dispose of any affected product that has
been purchased.

Bravo is issuing this action out of an abundance of caution and
sincerely regrets any inconvenience to pet owners as a result of
this announcement.

The recalled product should not be sold or fed to pets. Pet owners
who have the affected product at home should dispose of this
product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash
receptacle). They can return to the store where purchased and
submit the Product Recall Claim Form available on the Bravo
website http://www.bravopetfoods.com/for a full refund or store
credit. More information on the Bravo recall can also be found at
http://www.bravopetfoods.com/or call toll free (866) 922-9222.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Talks in Labor Lawsuit Fail
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. failed to reach a settlement in a suit
filed by current and former hourly restaurant team members in
California Superior Court, according to the company's May 5, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 26, 2014.

In August 2004, certain current and former hourly restaurant team
members filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company
in California Superior Court alleging violations of California
labor laws with respect to meal periods and rest breaks. The
lawsuit sought penalties and attorney's fees and was certified as
a class action by the trial court in July 2006. In July 2008, the
California Court of Appeal decertified the class action on all
claims with prejudice. In October 2008, the California Supreme
Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court of Appeal
and oral arguments were heard by the California Supreme Court on
November 8, 2011. On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court
issued an opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and
remanding in part for further proceedings. The California Supreme
Court's opinion resolved many of the legal standards for meal
periods and rest breaks in the company's California restaurants.
On September 26, 2013, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion
to certify a meal period subclass and denied the company's motion
to decertify the rest period subclass. The company intends to
continue the company's vigorous defense of this lawsuit. Given the
trial court's recent ruling, the company believes it is reasonably
possible that a loss has been incurred but the amount cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time given there are significant
issues to be resolved that will have a material impact on the
potential loss or range of loss. Subsequent to the end of the
quarter, the parties participated in a mediation where preliminary
settlement discussions began, but a settlement was not achieved
and significant issues still remain to be resolved that will have
a material impact on the potential range of loss.


CASUAL MALE: Removed "Jeter-Polk" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Breana Jeter-Polk v. Casual Male
Store, LLC, et al., Case No. CIVDS1403644, was removed from the
San Bernardino Superior Court to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (Riverside).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00891-VAP-DTB to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Chowning A. Poppler, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  cpoppler@schneiderwallace.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alaya B. Meyers, Esq.
          Heather M. Peck, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2050 Main Street, Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92614-7284
          Telephone: (949) 705-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
          E-mail: ameyers@littler.com
                  Hpeck@littler.com

               - and -

          Michael Mankes, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          One International Place, Suite 2700
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 378-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 737-0052
          E-mail: mmankes@littler.com


DARIGOLD INC: Sued for Employing Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Ruiz, Fernando Dorantes, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Darigold, Inc./Northwest Dairy
Association, a Washington corporation, and Does 1 - 50, Case No.
3:14-cv-02054 (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2014) arises from the alleged
unfair and deceptive business practices of Darigold, one of the
largest dairy producers in the country, which processes over eight
billion pounds of milk annually, with total sales of almost two
billion dollars each year.

The Plaintiffs assert that Darigold markets and sells its milk and
dairy products as if they were produced in an environment that
places utmost care on animal health, food safety, and labor
protections for its employees.  In reality, however, the
Plaintiffs allege, some of Darigold's milk is produced under
conditions where dairy cows are injured and sick, where despite
suffering from bloody and swollen udders, cows are still milked,
and where workers are denied the most basic labor protections,
such as drinkable water, lunch rooms, meal and rest periods, and
an environment free of discrimination.

Darigold, Inc. is a dairy agricultural marketing corporation
headquartered in Seattle, Washington.  Darigold is owned by the
over 500 dairy farm members of the Northwest Dairy Association
located in various states, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
Northern California, and Montana.  The NDA produces milk
exclusively for Darigold products and uses the Darigold brand to
market and sell its milk and milk products.  Raw milk produced by
NDA dairy farm members is combined and co-mingled at Darigold
processing facilities to produce milk and other dairy products for
sale to retailers, who in turn sell those products to consumers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mario Martinez, Esq.
          Edgar I. Aguilasocho , Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARCOS CAMACHO
          1227 California Ave.
          Bakersfield, CA 93304
          Telephone: (661) 324-8100
          Facsimile: (661) 324-8103
          E-mail: mariomtz@mclawmail.com

               - and -

          Weeun Wang, Esq.
          FARMWORKER JUSTICE
          1126 16th Street, NW, Suite 270
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 293-5420
          Facsimile: (202) 293-5427
          E-mail: wwang@farmworkerjustice.org


DATASCOPE CORP: Worldwide Recall of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2014, Datascope Corp/MAQUET initiated a voluntary
worldwide field correction of certain Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps
(IABPs) sold under the Datascope Corp. System 98/98XT (Part
Numbers: 0998-00-0446-xx, 0998-UC-0446-xx, 0998-00-0479-xx, 0998-
UC-0479-xx), CS100/CS100i (Part Numbers: 0998-00-3013-xx, 0998-UC-
3013-xx, 0998-UC-0446Hxx and 0998-UC-0479Hxx) and CS300 (Part
Numbers: 0998-00-3023-xx, 0998-UC-3023-xx) IABP brand names for a
potential mechanical failure of the fan assembly associated with
the power supply. All customers that may have an intra-aortic
balloon pump affected by this field correction have been notified.
There are approximately 12,360 affected units sold globally.

The intra-aortic balloon pump is an electromechanical system used
to inflate and deflate an intra-aortic balloon to provide
temporary support to the left ventricle via the principle of
counterpulsation.

As a result of customer complaints related to a malfunction of the
System 98/98XT, CS100, CS100i and CS300 Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps
(IABP), Datascope Corp/MAQUET conducted an investigation and
identified a potential mechanical failure of the fan assembly
associated with the power supply. A fan assembly failure could
result in the power supply overheating and cause the IABP to shut
down without warning. An IABP shutdown could result in worsened
heart failure, decreased blood flow to the heart, and/or decreased
blood flow to the body and brain.

Between January 1, 2003 and June 30, 2011, specific System
98/98XT, CS100/CS100i and CS300 IABPs were manufactured with an
affected fan assembly, or may have received an affected fan
assembly during an upgrade/service of the IABP in the field. The
affected IABP units were distributed in the US and worldwide (in
over 100 countries). The affected IABP's can be identified by part
and serial number. Each MAQUET Service Representative has a list
of the affected serial numbers and will check each affected part
during the corrective action.

The affected System 98/98XT, CS100, CS100i and CS300 Intra-Aortic
Balloon Pumps involved in the field correction can be used while
waiting for parts and service. Customers should adhere to the
instructions for use when using an affected intra-aortic balloon
pump.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has classified this
action as a Class 1 recall. FDA defines Class 1 recalls as, "a
situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use
of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse
health consequences or death." To date, there have been no
reported patient injuries or deaths related to the power supply
malfunction.

The corrective action associated with this recall is to provide a
replacement fan assembly to all IABPs containing an affected fan
assembly. A MAQUET Service Representative will contact those
facilities with affected IABP's to schedule corrective action and
document this corrective action during a visit to the customer.

For additional information regarding this field correction, please
contact the Technical Support Department at 1-800-777-4222 and
Press 3 (Monday through Friday from 8:00 am -- 6:00 pm EST).

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

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

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


DELTA AIR: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Smith" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed a
judgment of dismissal in the case captioned DENNIS SMITH,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, JACKLIN TOMA, Consol. Plaintiff, IVONNE
BERMUDEZ, Intervenor Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES INC., GERALD
GRINSTEIN, LEON PIPER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DELTA AIR
LINES, INC., BENEFIT FUND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, PERSONNEL & COMPENSATION COMMITTEE, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 13-15155, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR.

This appeal involves a punitive class action brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1001 et seq., against defendants Delta Air Lines, Inc. and
the fiduciaries of a benefit plan offered by Delta to its
employees that provided for investment in Delta stock. Dennis
Smith, the class representative, is a former Delta employee who
participated in the Plan and lost money when the price of Delta
stock declined between 2000 and 2004.  In March 2006, the district
court dismissed Smith's complaint for failure to state a claim.
While an appeal of that decision was pending, the court decided
Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012), which
clarified the legal standard for evaluating ERISA claims against
plan fiduciaries arising out of investments in employer stock as
envisioned in an employee stock ownership program (ESOP). Because
the district court did not have the benefit of Lanfear when it
issued its order, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case with
instructions to apply Lanfear to Smith's complaint. The district
court complied with the mandate and applied Lanfear to the
allegations in Smith's complaint and once again concluded that
Smith had failed to state a claim.

After reviewing the record and reading the parties briefs, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court correctly applied
the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard as set forth
in Lanfear to the allegations contained in Smith's complaint.

A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's April 17, 2014 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/Rp8aagfrom Leagle.com.


DISCOUNTSCHOOLSUPPLY.COM: Recalls Magnetic Color Sorting Board
--------------------------------------------------------------
Examiner.com reports that teachers, homeschool parents, and
parents who purchase educational toys for children should be aware
of a new recall issued on May 7.  The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission announced on their website the recall of the
Excellerations(TM) magnetic color sorting board sold through
DiscountSchoolSupply.com.

The Excellerations(TM) magnetic color sorting board is a toddler
and preschool level toy that encourages children to sort items by
color.  A wooden board, much like those used in toddler puzzles,
has colorful cupcake cut-outs that serve as the collection bin for
small, colored balls.  The magnetic wand attached to the toy is
used to move the colored balls along a path under a plastic cover.
Children then release the wand, dropping balls into the cupcakes
of matching color.

The recall has been issued due to the magnet in the wand becoming
detached and the plywood back cracking and releasing the small
metal balls.  The balls present a choking hazard and possible
internal injury due to the ingestion of a magnet.  Furthermore,
there is a potential lead paint poisoning hazard due to the
surface paint of the metal balls containing levels of lead that
exceed acceptable federal standards.

While no injuries have been reported, Discount School Supply has
been informed of two instances of the magnet detaching from the
wand and six instances of the plywood cracking and thereby
releasing the small metal balls.  This is a voluntary recall to
avoid injury.

Approximately 3,700 units are affected by this recall.  The
product is identified by the Excellerations(TM) logo on the lower
right corner and six large cupcake cut-outs on the board.  The
product was sold through DiscountSchoolSupply.com from January
2013 through March 2014.

The $36 purchase price will be refunded when consumers call 800-
338-4430 from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Central, Monday through
Friday.  Parents and teachers can find more information by
visiting www.DiscountSchoolSupply.com and clicking the "Safety
Information" tab.


DISKAL INC: Class Are Entitled to Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Lopic, Mauricio Vazquez, and Juan Hernandez, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Diskal Inc.
d/b/a Georgia Diner and Dmitrios Kaloidis, Case No. 1:14-cv-02822
(E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled
to (ii) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, and (ii) unpaid wages from the Defendants for
overtime work for which the Plaintiffs did not receive overtime
premium pay as required by law.

Diskal Inc., doing business as Georgia Diner, is a New York
corporation headquartered in Elmhurst, New York.  Dmitrios
Kaloidis is an owner or part owner and principal of Georgia Diner.
The Defendants owned and operated a 24-hour diner in Queens known
as Georgia Diner.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


DOMEGA NY: Undeclared Eggs Prompt Recall of Biscuit Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Domega NY International Co Ltd, 47-57 Bridgewater Street Brooklyn
NY 11222 is recalling Brilliant Cake With Filling Milk (Biscuits)
because it contains undeclared eggs. Consumers who have allergies
to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled BRILLIANT CAKE WITH FILLING MILK (BISCUITS) comes in
a plastic wrapped, 13.9 ounce (396gram) package with the code:
MFD: 10/17/2013, EXP 07/18/2014. It was sold in New York City. It
is a product of China. The UPC code is 6908166500140.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through routine
sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of eggs in packages of
BRILLIANT CAKE WITH FILLING MILK (BISCUITS) which did not declare
eggs as an ingredient on the label.

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

Consumers who have purchased BRILLIANT CAKE WITH FILLING MILK
(BISCUITS) should not consume it, but should return it to the
place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 646-388-3032.


DOMEGA NY: Recalls Sesame Flavor Cracker Due to Undeclared Nuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Domega NY International Co Ltd, 47-57 Bridgewater Street Brooklyn
NY 11222 is recalling YF Sesame Flavor Cracker because it contains
undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to peanuts run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they
consume this product.

The recalled YF Sesame Flavor Cracker comes in a plastic wrapped
package, 14oz (400g) with the code: PRD: 12/20/2013, EXP
6/30/2015. It was sold in New York City. It is a product of China.
The UPC code is 6920580733416

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through routine
sampling by the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by
Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of peanuts in
packages of YF Sesame Flavor Cracker which did not declare peanuts
as an ingredient on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product. Consumers who have purchased YF Sesame Flavor Cracker
should not consume it, but should return it to the place of
purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 646-
388-3032


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation intends to move to dismiss an
amended securities complaint filed against it, according to the
company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On
September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On November 12, 2013, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"); Dynavax moved to dismiss the
Complaint on January 10, 2014. On April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint adds a new
plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleges that, between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain
of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder in connection with statements related to the company's
product candidate, HEPLISAV. Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleges that the Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or
omissions regarding the manufacture of HEPLISAV and that certain
insiders unlawfully profited from such misrepresentations or
omissions. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company intends to
move to dismiss the Amended Complaint.


ERMC PROPERTY: Gomez Obtains Partial Cert. of Collection Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick issued a memorandum opinion and
order in Melissa Gomez, Plaintiff v. ERMC Property Management
Company, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-01081, (N.D. Ohio),
granting in part and denying in part, Ms. Gomez's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In his April 16, 2014 ruling, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/dPB0f9from Leagle.com, Judge Helmick found that the
class Ms. Gomez seeks to represent is too broad.

"She only can speculate that ERMC employees at other worksites
also were required to work while not on the clock, as she states
she worked only at the Shops at Fallen Timbers and offers no
evidence as to interactions with employees at other locations ERMC
serviced. Thus, her motion for conditional certification of a
nationwide collective action is denied," Judge Helmick said.  "At
this time, she has made a factual showing only with regard to ERMC
employees at The Shops at Fallen Timbers, and may proceed with a
collective action limited to that group of potential plaintiffs.
Gomez may renew her motion if discovery reveals a basis for
expanding the collective action to include additional worksites,"
he added.

Melissa Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by:

   John D. Franklin, Esq.
   Amy L. Zawacki, Esq.
   Kera L. Paoff, Esq.
   Widman & Franklin
   405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1550
   Toledo, Ohio, 43604
   Telephone: (419) 243-9005

ERMC Property Management Company of Illinois, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Heidi N. Hartman -- HNHartman@eastmansmith.com --
Eastman & Smith.


EUGENE OREGON: Recalls Black Ant, Mojo Risen Dietary Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Oregon, Inc. of Levittown, Pennsylvania is voluntarily
recalling these products at the consumer level:

                 Identifiable             Packaging Quantity
  Product Name   Number        Packaging  Coloring  Per Package
  ------------   ------------  ---------  --------- -----------
African Black    2006-000926   Small boxes   Red    6 pills per
Ant                            inside large  Black  small box,
                               box           Slver  8 small boxes
                                                    per large
                                                    box. 48 pills
                                                    total per
                                                    large box.

Black Ant        2006-3627878  Small boxes   Green  4 pills per
                               inside large         small box,
                               box                  20 small
                                                    boxes per
                                                    large box.
                                                    80 pills
                                                    total per
                                                    large box.

Mojo Risen       All lots.     Envelopes     Red    2 pills per
                 No            inside box    White  envelope,
                 identifiable                24 envelopes
                 number on                   per box. 48 pills
                 packaging.                  total per box.

Eugene Oregon, Inc. is voluntarily conducting this recall because
FDA analysis of these products distributed to a third party
revealed that the distributed products contained undeclared
amounts of the active pharmaceutical ingredients sildenafil and
tadalafil-FDA-approved pharmaceutical ingredients used to treat
erectile dysfunction. Conclusive testing has not been done to
confirm that the recalled products do, in fact, contain sildenafil
and/or tadalafil and this recall is being executed as a
precautionary measure. To date, Eugene Oregon, Inc. has not
received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

Sildenafil and tadalafil can pose a threat to consumers because
they can interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs
(such as nitroglycerin), resulting in decreased blood pressure.
Nitrates are found in prescription drugs used to treat diabetes,
high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and heart disease.
Sildenafil and tadalafil can also cause side effects such as
headaches and flushing.

Eugene Oregon, Inc. has discontinued the distribution of these
products and is notifying its distributors by mail of this
voluntary recall. Consumers that possess these products should
stop using them immediately and can return the products to Eugene
Oregon, Inc., 922 S. Woodbourne Rd. #304, Levittown, PA 19057-
1001. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Eugene Oregon, Inc. by telephone at 1-800-538-3411 from Monday
through Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST.

Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to using
these products. Consumers can report adverse reactions or quality
control problems to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting
program as follows:

    Complete and submit reporting form online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm  or
    Mail or fax reporting form. Download form at
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form. Complete and return to the address on
the pre- addressed form or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-1078.

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


EV PROPERTIES: 6th Cir. Affirms Dist. Court Ruling in Cole Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH COLE; MARTHA COLE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EV
PROPERTIES, L.P.; NORTH COAST ENERGY, INC.; ENERVEST OPERATING,
LLC; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XI-WI, LP; ENERVEST ENERGY
INSTITUTIONAL FUND XI-A, LP; CGAS PROPERTIES, LP, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 13-3677, is an appeal that turns on which of two
lines of Ohio Supreme Court authority controls an improperly
notarized oil and gas lease. The district court applied the rule
of Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Denison, 133 N.E.2d 329, 332 (Ohio
1956), and Logan Gas Co. v. Keith, 158 N.E. 184, 185 (Ohio 1927),
which holds that instruments reflecting a conveyance of a real
estate interest remain enforceable between the parties, despite a
defective acknowledgment. On this basis, the district court
granted defendants' motions to dismiss and for judgment on the
pleadings. The Coles appealed, relying upon Delfino v. Paul Davies
Chevrolet, Inc., 209 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ohio 1965), which holds that
defectively acknowledged leases are invalid and unenforceable
between the parties.

The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court ruling saying "the district court properly applied
Citizens National and Logan Gas" and "properly dismissed the
Coles' declaratory action."

A copy of the April 18, 2014 Ruling is available at
http://is.gd/1qWdBkfrom Leagle.com.


EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls 5,340 Riding Mowers
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Exmark Manufacturing Co. Inc., of Beatrice, Neb., announced a
voluntary recall of Exmark Quest ZRT Riding Mowers.  The riding
mower's steering assembly can fail and cause riders to lose
steering, posing a crash hazard.

The recall involves about 5,300 in the United States and 40 in
Canada (About 2,200 Quest 2009 and 2010 ZRT riding mowers were
previously recalled in May 2012 for a different hazard.)

This recall involves 2009 and 2010 model year Exmark Quest ZRT
mid-mount riding mowers. The mowers are red and gray. Exmark is
printed on the side and Quest is printed on the front of the
riding mowers. The model and serial numbers are on a metal plate
behind the seat on the left hand side. The following models and
serial number ranges are included.

  Model number   Serial number range     Size of mowing deck
  ------------   -------------------     -------------------
QST20BE422       814303 through 891973   42 inches
QST22BE482       803664 through 895485   48 inches
QST24BE522       810131 through 887319   52 inches

There have been nine incidents with the riding mowers, including
one back injury.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mowers and
contact an Exmark dealer for a free repair.

The items are sold at hardware, lawn and garden, rental equipment
stores and others nationwide from April 2009 through October 2010
for between $4,600 and $6,000.

The items are distributed by Exmark Manufacturing Co. Inc., of
Beatrice, Neb., and manufactured in the United States.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with
protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death
associated with the use of thousands of types of consumer products
under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property
damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than
$1 trillion annually. CPSC is committed to protecting consumers
and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical
or mechanical hazard. CPSC's work to help ensure the safety of
consumer products -- such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette
lighters and household chemicals -- contributed to a decline in
the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products
over the past 40 years.

Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to a
publicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or a
mandatory recall ordered by the Commission.

Consumers must contact: Exmark at (800) 667-5296 from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. CT Monday through Friday or online at www.exmark.com and
click on Service & Support, then on Safety Resources at the bottom
of the page for more information.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury go
online to www.SaferProducts.gov or call CPSC's Hotline at (800)
638-2772 or teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054 for the hearing
impaired. Consumers can obtain news release and recall information
at www.cpsc.gov, on Twitter @USCPSC or by subscribing to CPSC's
free e-mail newsletters.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: High Court Refuses Overdraft Fee-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction for a case
filed against Firstmerit Corporation on behalf of Ohio residents
who maintained a checking account at the FirstMerit Bank N.A. and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees, according to the
company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against the Corporation and FirstMerit Bank N.A.
The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been
filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without
prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County
seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive
damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees. In
December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a
proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed
in part the trial court's class certification order, and remanded
the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in
particular with respect to the class definition. On October 9,
2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the Eleventh District
Court of Appeals an application for reconsideration and
application for consideration en banc. On November 20, 2013, the
Eleventh District denied those applications. On December 4, 2013,
the Bank and Corporation filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio
Supreme Court, and on January 3, 2014, they filed with the Ohio
Supreme Court a memorandum in support of the Court's exercising
its jurisdiction and accepting the appeal. The plaintiffs filed an
opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court
declined to accept jurisdiction.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Citizens Shareholder Objects to Merger Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged former shareholder of Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc.
objected to a settlement of a suit over Citizens and Firstmerit
Corporation and has filed an appeal of the court's approval of the
settlement, according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged
shareholders of Citizens filed six purported class action lawsuits
in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, relating to the
proposed merger between Citizens and FirstMerit, which merger
closed in April 2013. The lawsuits were consolidated under the
caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit"). The consolidated
complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former directors of
Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the
best available price in the merger and by not providing Citizens
shareholders with all material information related to the merger,
and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Complaint sought declaratory and
injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger,
rescissory damages and other equitable relief.

The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of
the Lawsuit, and the court approved the settlement on September
20, 2013. Under the settlement, the defendants amended the joint
proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include
certain supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and
agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the
court. An alleged former shareholder of Citizens objected to the
settlement and has filed an appeal of the court's approval of the
settlement; the settlement will not become final until that appeal
has been resolved.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Motion to Dismiss CRBC 401(k) Litigation Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
denied defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended complaint by
participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan, but
stayed the action pending the outcome of a case currently before
the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Firstmerit Corporation's May
5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan filed a
lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in 2011, alleging that Citizens and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by offering Citizens common stock as an investment
alternative in the Plan during periods when it was imprudent to do
so and by failing to adequately monitor fiduciaries responsible
for administering the Plan. The lawsuit, captioned Kidd v.
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-11709,
asserts claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a
purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan who
held Citizens stock in their Plan accounts during the period from
April 17, 2008 to "the present." In April 2014, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
but stayed the action pending the outcome of a case currently
before the U.S. Supreme Court.


GARLOCK SEALING: Article Discusses Bankruptcy Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Joanne Doroshow of the Center for Justice and Democracy at New
York Law School, in an article for The Huffington Post, reports
that asbestos is one of those lethal toxins that should not
persist as a problem in this country, but it does.  Companies
still use it, workers are still exposed to it and 10,000 Americans
still die from asbestos-related illnesses every year.

In January 2014, a new ruling was issued in an asbestos case
involving Garlock Sealing Technologies.  You may never have heard
of this company, but anyone who has worked on a Navy ship or
submarine probably has.  Garlock made gaskets that contain
asbestos, which are used in pipes and valves that transport hot
fluids -- so hot, in fact, that the gaskets often disintegrate and
require replacement.  Sometimes by the time a worker gets to the
asbestos gasket, it is "crushed" and "baked to the surface" and
has to be pulled or torn off in "bits and pieces," as one worker
explained in testimony.  This creates dust.  And the dust is
inhaled.

Garlock is one of the world's largest asbestos-containing gasket
and packing manufacturers.  It has been a major player in the
asbestos industry for decades, and was even a founder and member
of the Board of Governors of the Asbestos Textile Institute, along
with more well-known companies like Raybestos and Johns-Manville.
Like all asbestos companies, it has known for decades that its
asbestos was lethal.  In the 1980s, Garlock warned companies that
inhalation of airborne fibers from its gaskets could cause "well-
known long term effects of Asbestosis, lung cancer and
mesothelioma."  Mesothelioma is a horrible lung disease that is
always fatal, with most dying within 18 months.  It was Garlock's
mesothelioma victims who were involved in this new case.  But in
January, the judge -- in his first and only asbestos case --
decided to reduce by about 90 percent the amount Garlock owes its
more than 4,000 Navy vets and other mesothelioma victims.

In order to support this incredibly harsh decision that could
bring great suffering to many Navy vets who do not deserve it, the
judge made findings and drew conclusions that no experienced
asbestos judge has ever done, and which, in fact, strain
credulity.  He decided that Garlock was the victim of a decades-
long campaign by asbestos victims and their attorneys to mislead
court after court, concluding that the entire legal system in
these cases -- where Garlock lost before juries and settled
thousands of claims -- was "infected" by dying victims and their
lawyers.  These victims supposedly "abused" Garlock by duping the
company's top-notch litigators in thousands of cases, as well as
every other experienced judge in every case brought against
Garlock.  Not only that, the victims themselves, many of whom are
veterans who served their country, must have knowingly
participated in misleading the courts.

Common sense suggests otherwise.  But so does overwhelming
evidence.  The judge grossly misstated the "science" around
Garlock's asbestos and asbestos disease.  He found that Garlock's
asbestos, which workers inhaled, was not lethal even though the
company's own incriminating documents say it is.  So do the
Occupational Safety & Heath Administration (OSHA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization
(WHO).  Scientists believe that Garlock's asbestos is a
significant cause of asbestos diseases; there is no safe level of
exposure to asbestos.  Yet the judge found none of this
"probative," suggesting it proves nothing.

To cut compensation to these victims, the court said that it would
ignore Garlock's past litigation record or the prior judgment of
judges as guidance, suggesting that victims and their attorneys
had tricked them all.  This is absurd.  The reason Garlock settled
cases was not because of anything the victims and their lawyers
did, but because of the crushing evidence against it.  Perhaps
nothing was more instructive than the jury verdict in the 2004
case brought by Robert Treggett, a nuclear trained machinist who,
while serving in the Navy, repaired and maintained nuclear
propulsion plant equipment, including Garlock gaskets.  In the
Treggett case, the jury awarded substantial punitive damages
against Garlock, directed specifically at the company's conduct of
"oppression."  In the new case, however, the judge misstated the
actual trial testimony of Mr. Treggett, claiming that Mr. Treggett
said things he never said.  This misstatement provided a basis for
finding that his attorneys engaged in misconduct.  It is one of
the more deeply troubling aspects of this decision, and the reason
behind this blatant misrepresentation remains entirely unclear.

This case has generated a good deal of reaction from the asbestos
lobby, which is seeking legislation to limit industry liability
and make it harder for dying asbestos victims to obtain
compensation.  However, the bottom line is this: at best this
decision is an outlier that should not be the basis for any policy
decisions.  At worst, it raises disturbing questions about a
decision that contradicts two decades of rulings by experienced
judges, verdicts from juries throughout the country, the opinion
of scientists for every regulatory agency in the nation, and
Garlock itself.


GENERAL MOTORS: Hires Wachtell Lipton to Review Ignition Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joann S. Lublin and Jeff Bennett, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that General Motors Co.'s board has stepped up its
response to the controversy over the auto maker's handling of
vehicle safety recalls, hiring a law firm to review how
information about potentially dangerous defects flowed to its
members.

Directors at the largest U.S. auto maker weren't previously
apprised of the troubles with small cars stalling due to a faulty
ignition-switch, according to a person close the board.  They want
their review to ensure that future vehicle safety issues move more
quickly to their attention through the auto maker's management,
that person said.

The board hired prominent New York law firm Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz to conduct its probe, the person said.

Directors also have begun meeting as a group at least weekly with
Chief Executive Mary Barra to monitor her overhaul of the
company's operations.

"GM had quite a robust system in place for identifying problems,
dealing with them and moving them up to appropriate levels," this
person said.  "This [ignition switch] problem did not reach the
board level," this person added.  "There will be changes.  There
already are significant changes in the procedures."

A GM spokesman said on May 14 the company wouldn't comment on the
board's activities, and wouldn't make Ms. Barra available to
comment.

Some corporate-governance experts say GM's board hasn't been as
visible as it should be in providing information on how it is
overseeing the recall response.  Directors need to explain the
board's investigative process and steps planned to improve its
oversight of risks "so that a similar problem does not recur,"
says Beverly Behan, a corporate-governance consultant and author.

Ms. Barra has said she intends to withhold a detailed public
response to questions about the recall until an internal
investigation is completed.  A report on the company's probe is
expected to be finished by late May or early June, people familiar
with the situation have said.

GM's board faces at least three lawsuits charging directors failed
in their duties to act on issues that might affect GM's
operations, profitability or image.  The auto maker is facing more
than 60 different potential class-action suits stemming from
revelations that executives took nearly a decade to recall some
2.6 million vehicles equipped with faulty ignition switches.  The
switches, installed in various compact cars manufactured in the
mid-2000s, can slip out of the "run" position if the keys are
jostled, cutting power to the engine, steering and air bags.

GM has linked 13 deaths to the problem, which surfaced in
Chevrolet Cobalt, Saturn Ion and other cars that are no longer
manufactured.  Plaintiffs' lawyers and safety groups say the
number of deaths and injuries is much higher.

What directors and senior company executives knew about the
problem before the announcement in February of the first recall
related to the ignition-switch issue is one of many questions
under investigation by two congressional committees, regulators at
the U.S. Department of Transportation and criminal prosecutors at
the U.S. Department of Justice.

The GM board's move in April to hire its own legal counsel
occurred weeks after Ms. Barra hired former U.S. attorney Anton
Valukas, chairman of the law firm Jenner & Block, to investigate
the handling of the ignition-switch problem.  GM directors
approved the selection of Mr. Valukas, according to the person
familiar with the board.

Mr. Valukas declined to comment and referred all questions on the
matter to GM.

GM Chairman Theodore "Tim" Solso said that he and Ms. Barra are in
regular contact.

"We usually talk three to five times per week for various lengths
of time.  The most common topic is all the issues surrounding the
recall, but we also cover many other items. We both have lists and
cover each other's issues.''

Mr. Solso, former CEO of engine maker Cummins Inc., took command
of the GM board in January, the same month that Ms. Barra advanced
to CEO. In a January interview, Mr. Solso pledged to be an active
outside chairman of the auto maker.

In congressional testimony last month, she denied knowing about
the switch issue before late 2013.  Ms. Barra served as the auto
maker's global product chief in 2011 before taking the CEO spot in
January.

While head of product development, Ms. Barra was informed in 2011
of a widening government probe of steering problems with certain
sedans at a time when GM was fighting a recall of those cars,
according to a document released last month by the House Energy
and Commerce committee.  The document didn't link her to earlier
knowledge of the ignition recall.

Mr. Valukas is working with GM General Counsel Michael Millikin as
the auto maker tries to piece together the events between the
discovery of the faulty switch in 2004 and February's recall.
Mr. Valukas was the lead examiner of the Lehman Brothers Holdings
bankruptcy.

However, some governance experts have questioned whether
Mr. Valukas has enough of an arm's-length relationship with GM
management.  Jenner & Block has long advised GM management.

"A law firm cannot function as both counsel to and independent
investigator of the same client," said Edwin Stier, a partner at
Thacher Associates LLC, a New York law firm.  Mr. Stier has
completed about 15 corporate investigations for public companies
but hasn't worked for GM.

With senior management controlling the Valukas probe, "the public
will not be convinced that the investigation has truly gotten to
the bottom of all the facts," Mr. Stier said.

GM's directors and their advisers don't see a conflict in
Mr. Valukas's role because his firm has worked with the company in
the past, the person familiar with the board's thinking said.
Mr. Valukas's own integrity is on the line, this person noted.


GENERAL MOTORS: Reassigns Executive Amid Ignition Switch Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Klayman, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors Co
has reassigned an executive who dealt with U.S. safety regulators
probing defective ignition switches linked to at least 13 deaths,
as part of a restructuring meant to improve vehicle safety, the
automaker said on May 12.

Ms. M. Carmen Benavides, director of field product investigations
and evaluations and an executive who has worked closely with U.S.
safety regulators in Washington, has been shifted to a new job in
the Detroit automaker's safety group, GM spokesman Greg Martin
said.

Benavides, who is now director of safety improvement initiatives,
was replaced by Brian Latouf.

Ms. Benavides' name is on many documents in which GM responded to
questions from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, including several in the recall of the faulty
ignition switches.  She also received an email last summer in
which a top NHTSA official called GM "slow to communicate" and
"slow to act" on details and recalls.

The Detroit News reported the reassignment last week.

Mr. Martin said the move was unrelated to the ignition switch
recall and part of executive changes announced on April 22 that
included splitting engineering into two groups and the retirement
of engineering chief John Calabrese.  GM said at the time that the
restructuring was meant to improve vehicle safety and quality.

"Brian and Carmen will be undertaking important roles to support
Jeff Boyer," Mr. Martin said, referring to GM's new global safety
chief.

GM global product development chief Mark Reuss said last month
more changes in the structure of his organization, which includes
responsibility for engineering and recalls, were coming.

GM has recalled 2.6 million cars, including Chevrolet Cobalts and
Saturn Ions, because the defective ignition switches are prone to
being jostled into accessory mode while the cars were moving.
That would shut off engines and disable power steering, power
brakes and airbags.

In addition to its own internal probe of how it handled the
problem switches, which company engineers first noticed in 2001,
the automaker is facing investigations by NHTSA, Congress, the
Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission and
a number of states.

NHTSA has voiced frustration with GM to Benavides in the past.
Frank Borris, head of NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation,
said in a July 2013 email to Benavides the company was more
difficult to work with than other automakers, citing six instances
in which the agency disagreed with GM on safety issues.  It was
the same email in which he criticized the automaker as "slow to
communicate" and "slow to act."

GM has placed two engineers linked to the faulty switch on paid
leave as its internal probe continues.  In addition to the exit of
Calabrese, long-time engineer Jim Federico, who oversaw an earlier
internal probe of the problems caused by the defective part, also
recently retired.  Mr. Federico joined motorcycle maker
Harley-Davidson Inc as vice president of engineering.

GM has said the two retirements were not related to the defective
ignition switch.


GRADUATION SOURCE: Accused of Sending Fax Ads w/o Opt-Out Notices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Graduation Source, LLC, Graduation Solutions
LP and Jesse Alexander, Case No. 7:14-cv-03232-NSR (S.D.N.Y., May
5, 2014) accuses the Defendants of sending or causing to be sent
thousands of unsolicited and solicited fax advertisements for
goods and services without proper opt-out notices.

Graduation Source, LLC and Graduation Solutions LP are Nevada
limited liability companies headquartered in Port Chester, New
York.  Jesse Alexander is the Vice President of Operations of the
Corporate Defendants.

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


GREE ELECTRIC: Recalls China-Made Dehumidifier Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gree Electric Appliances, of China, announced a voluntary recall
of Gree-manufactured dehumidifier.  The dehumidifiers can
overheat, smoke and catch fire, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

The recall involves about 2.5 million in the United States and
55,000 in Canada (This recall was first announced in September
2013, updated in October 2013 and expanded in January 2014).

This recall involves 20, 25, 30, 40, 45, 50, 65 and 70-pint
dehumidifiers with brand names Danby, De'Longhi, Fedders, Fellini,
Frigidaire, GE, Gree, Kenmore, Norpole, Premiere, Seabreeze,
SoleusAir and SuperClima.  Recalled model numbers and date codes
are listed below. The brand name and the pint capacity are printed
on the front of the dehumidifier. The model number and date code
are printed on a sticker on the back, front or side of the unit.
The dehumidifiers are white, beige, gray or black plastic and
measure between 19 and 24 inches tall, 13 and 15 inches wide, and
9 and 11 inches deep.

  Model number           Capacity        Date Code range
  ------------           --------        ---------------
Danby or Premiere

DDR3011                  30-pint         All units
DDR30P                   30-pint         All units
DDR4511                  45-pint         All units
DDR45P                   45-pint         All units
DDR6511                  65-pint         All units
DDR65CHP                 65-pint         All units

De'Longhi or SuperClima

DDSE30                   30-pint         All units
DDSE40                   40-pint         All units
DG50                     50-pint         All units

Fedders

FEDH-MAH030-C15          30-pint         All units
FEDH-MAH070-C15          70-pint         All units

Fellini

13-06030                 50-pint         All units
13-06031                 70-pint         All units

Frigidaire

FDB30R1                  30-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDB50R1                  50-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDB70R1                  70-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDD25S1                  25-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDF50S1                  50-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDF70S1                  70-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDL30R1                  30-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDL50R1                  50-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDL50S1                  50-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDL70R1                  70-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDL70S1                  70-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDM30R1                  30-pint         01/07 through 09/08
FDR30S1                  30-pint         01/07 through 09/08

GE

ADER30LN                 30 pint         01/08 through 12/10
ADEW30LN                 30 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHR30LL                  30 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHR30LM                  30 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHW30LM                  30 pint         01/08 through 12/10
ADER40LN                 40 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHH40LL                  40 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHR40LL                  40 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHR40LM                  40 pint         01/08 through 12/10
ADEH50LN                 50 pint         01/08 through 12/10
ADER50LN                 50 pint         01/08 through 12/10
ADEW50LN                 50 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHH50LM                  50 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHR50LL                  50 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHR50LM                  50 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHW50LM                  50 pint         01/08 through 12/10
ADER65LN                 65 pint         01/08 through 12/10
ADEW65LN                 65 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHR65LL                  65 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHR65LM                  65 pint         01/08 through 12/10
AHW65LM                  65 pint         01/08 through 12/10

Gree

13-06090                 30-pint         All units
13-06091                 45-pint         All units
13-06092                 50-pint         All units
GDN40AH-A4EBB1A          40-pint         All units
GDN45AH-A3EBB2A          45-pint         All units
GDN50AF-A3EBA8A          50-pint         All units
GDN50AF-A3EBA8B          50-pint         All units
GDN70AF-A3EBA8A          70-pint         All units
GDN70AF-A3EBB3A          70-pint         All units
GDN70AI-A3EBB2A          70-pint         All units
GDNE30AEBA1A8A           30-pint         All units
GDNE40AEBA1A8A           40-Pint         All units
GDNE50AFBA1A8A           50-pint         All units
GDNE65AFBA1A8A           65-pint         All units

Kenmore

407.52301210             30-pint         2012-04 through 2012-09
407.52501210             50-pint         2012-04 through 2012-09
407.52701210             70-pint         2012-04 through 2012-09
407.52702210             70-pint         2012-04 through 2012-08

Norpole

NPDH30PG                 30-pint         All units

Seabreeze

DH450S                   50-pint         All units
DH470S                   70-pint         All units

SoleusAir

CFM-25E                  25-pint         All units
CFM-40E                  40-pint         All units
DP1-30-03                30-pint         All units
DP1-40-03                40-pint         All units
DP1-50-03                50-pint         All units
DP1-50-03A               50-pint         All units
DP1-70-03                70-pint         All units
GL-DEH-30-1              30-pint         1211 through 0612
GL-DEH-45-2              45-pint         1211 through 0612
GL-DEH-50-2L2            50-pint         1211 through 0612
GL-DEH-50-2Q2            50-pint         1211 through 0612
GL-DEH-70-2S2            70-pint         1211 through 0612
GL-DEH-70P-2S2           70-pint         0112 through 0612
GM-DEH-30M-1L2           30-pint         010512 through 061412
GM-DEH-30M-1R2           30-pint         010512 through 061412
GM-DEH-45-1              45-pint         122511 through 062112
GM-DEH-70-1S2            70-pint         010512 through 062112
SG-DEH-25-4              25-pint         032711 through 081712
SG-DEH-30-2              30-pint         032711 through 050712
SG-DEH-30B-1             30-pint         011210 through 041310
SG-DEH-30M-1             30-pint         010210 through 071512
SG-DEH-30M-1A            30-pint         121510 through 111011
SG-DEH-30M-1L2           30-pint         010510 through 071512
SG-DEH-30M-1R2           30-pint         010510 through 071512
SG-DEH-45-1              45-pint         010210 through 071512
SG-DEH-45-1A             45-pint         121510 through 111011
SG-DEH-45-2              45-pint         032711 through 050712
SG-DEH-50-2              50-pint         010712 through 010712
SG-DEH-70-1              70-pint         010210 through 071512
SG-DEH-70-1A             70-pint         121510 through 111011
SG-DEH-70-2              70-pint         032711 through 050712
SG-DEH-70-2S2            70-pint         032711 through 050712

The number of reported incidents of overheating dehumidifiers has
increased nearly 400 percent from 119 in the original recall
(September 2013) to 471 reported incidents. The number of reported
fires has increased more than 200 percent from 46 to 121 reported
fires. Property damage reports have more than doubled from $2.15
million in the original recall to nearly $4.5 million.
Remedy

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the dehumidifiers
and contact Gree to receive a refund.

The items are sold at AAFES, HH Gregg, Home Depot, Kmart, Lowe's,
Menards, Mills Fleet Farm, Sam's Club, Sears, Walmart and other
stores nationwide and in Canada, and online at Amazon.com and
Ebay.com, from January 2005 through August 2013 for between $110
and $400.

The items' importers are: Airwell of France; CNA of Wood Dale,
Ill.; Danby of Ontario, Canada;  De'Longhi of Italy; Frigidaire,
of Charlotte, N.C.; GE Appliances, of Louisville, Ky.; Gree USA
Sales Ltd. of City of Industry, Calif.; IRP of Pineville, N.C.;
MJC America Ltd. dba Soleus International Inc. of Walnut, Calif.;
and Sunrise of Quebec, Canada.  The items were manufactured by
Gree Electric Appliances in China.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with
protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death
associated with the use of thousands of types of consumer products
under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property
damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than
$1 trillion annually. CPSC is committed to protecting consumers
and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical
or mechanical hazard. CPSC's work to help ensure the safety of
consumer products -- such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette
lighters and household chemicals -- contributed to a decline in
the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products
over the past 40 years.

Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to a
publicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or a
mandatory recall ordered by the Commission.

Consumers should contact: Gree toll-free at (866) 853-2802 from 8
a.m. to 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at
www.greeusa.com and click on Recall for more information.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury go
online to www.SaferProducts.gov or call CPSC's Hotline at (800)
638-2772 or teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054 for the hearing
impaired. Consumers can obtain news release and recall information
at www.cpsc.gov, on Twitter @USCPSC or by subscribing to CPSC's
free e-mail newsletters.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Karlbom Suit Remanded to San Diego County Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KARLBOM and DONALD PRATKO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EDS, AN HP COMPANY;
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; ELECTRONIC DATA
SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Entity; ELECTRONIC DATA
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13CV2996-WQH-DHB, (S.D. Cal.) is
before the Court on a motion for remand filed by Plaintiffs
Michael Karlbom and Donald Pratko.

In an order dated April 17, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/JAXvzEfrom Leagle.com, District Judge William Q.
Hayes found that the Defendants have failed to satisfy their
burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
$5,000,000 amount in controversy requirement is met.

Accordingly, the Motion for Remand was granted and the action was
remanded to San Diego County Superior Court, where it was
originally filed and assigned case number 37-2009-00085300-CU-OE-
CTL.

Michael Karlbom, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ck-lawfirm.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Michael Karlbom, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D Singer --
msinger@ck-law.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Donald Pratko, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill, Cohelan
Khoury & Singer & Michael D Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

EDS, an HP Company, Defendant, represented by David Dow --
ddow@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Lara K Strauss --
lstrauss@littler.com -- Litter Mendelson & Martin T. Wymer --
mwymer@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Hewlett-Packard Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Lara K Strauss, Litter Mendelson & Martin T. Wymer,
Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Electronic Data Systems, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Entity,
Defendant, represented by Lara K Strauss, Litter Mendelson &
Martin T. Wymer, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Electric Data Systems Corporation, a Texas Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Lara K Strauss, Litter Mendelson & Martin T. Wymer,
Baker & Hostetler LLP.


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Answers Baker Hughes-Related Securities Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Crush Partners LP and the remaining defendants in In re: Hi-
Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557 (CM)
have filed answers to the complaint, according to the company's
May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi-
Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement
with Baker Hughes in response to the repudiation of the agreement
by Baker Hughes, the Partnership, the company's General Partner,
certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters were
named as defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits
brought by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February
11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, styled
In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-
8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February
15, 2013. That complaint asserted claims under sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, in connection with the Partnership's Registration
Statement and a subsequent presentation. Among other things, the
consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose to the market certain alleged information relating to
Baker Hughes' repudiation of the supply agreement. On March 22,
2013, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On
December 2, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the claims
relating to the Partnership's Registration Statement, but did not
dismiss the claims relating to alleged misrepresentations
concerning the Partnership's relationship with Baker Hughes after
the Partnership's initial public offering. The Partnership and the
remaining defendants in the lawsuit have filed answers to the
complaint.


HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuits Over SWS Group Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hilltop Holdings Inc. faces two purported shareholder class
actions arising out of the proposed acquisition of SWS Group,
Inc., according to Hilltop's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Hilltop, Peruna LLC (wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), SWS and
the individual members of the board of directors of SWS, including
Gerald J. Ford, have been named as defendants in two purported
shareholder class action lawsuits arising out of the proposed
acquisition of SWS by Hilltop, which acquisition was announced on
April 1, 2014. Both lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court
(Joseph Arceri v. SWS Group, Inc. et al and Chaile Steinberg v.
SWS Group, Inc. et al filed April 8, 2014 and April 11, 2014,
respectively). The lawsuits allege claims for breach of fiduciary
duty by the individual directors of SWS, and claims against
Hilltop for aiding and abetting that breach of fiduciary duty.
Both actions seek to enjoin the proposed acquisition.


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls One Lot of Dobutamine Injection
----------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), on Jan. 10, 2014, issued a nationwide
recall to the user level for one lot of Dobutamine Injection, USP,
250 mg, 20 mL, Single-dose fliptop vial, (NDC 0409-2344-02), Lot
27-352-DK. (NDC and lot number can be found on the right-hand side
of the primary label). The recall was due to a confirmed customer
report of discolored solution. Upon review of the complaint, a
chip in the glass at the neck of the vial was identified as well
as glass particulate within the solution. The discoloration of the
solution may have resulted either from contamination of the
solution or more likely, oxidation, as dobutamine is oxygen
sensitive. To date, Hospira has not received reports of any
adverse events associated with this issue for this lot.

Risk factors associated with particulate and/or a glass defect
include the potential for particulate to be injected, a breach of
sterility/contamination of the vial contents, leakage of contents,
and/or a delay in therapy.

In general, injected particulate matter may result acutely in
local inflammation, phlebitis, and/or low level allergic response
through mechanical disruption of tissue or immune response to the
particulate. Small capillaries may become obstructed. Chronically,
following sequestration, some granuloma formation in the lungs is
possible. A loss of sterility is a primary concern when a
container has a leak, since an open pathway exists for
contamination of fluid. If contaminated solution is used on a
patient, this may potentially cause bacteremia, sepsis, septic
shock and endocarditis, and death may result. Signs and symptoms
could include redness, pain, swelling at the site, fever,
shortness of breath, tachycardia, nausea, and vomiting. Septicemia
could lead to shock and multisystem organ failure, requiring
critical medical intervention. Leakage may result in drug wastage,
spillage onto equipment, flooring and personnel. Dobutamine should
be considered a potent drug and potentially irritating to eyes and
respiratory tract. Users should avoid liquid aerosol generation
and skin contact. If a defective vial is not detected until the
point of care, there may be a delay in therapy. If used in a
critical care setting, a delay in therapy could theoretically
result in worsening cardiac status.

This lot was distributed nationwide to distributors/wholesalers,
hospitals and clinics from August 2013 through September 2013.
Hospira was unable to determine root cause, but recalled the
entire lot as a precautionary measure. The issue wasn't found in
any retained samples from the lot.

Anyone with an existing inventory should immediately stop use and
quarantine any affected product. In addition, customers should
inform potential users of this product in their organizations of
this notification. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at
1-877-907-9956 (M-F, 8 a.m - 5 p.m. ET).

For medical inquiries, please contact Hospira Medical
Communications at 1-800-615-0187. This phone number is available
24 hours a day, seven days a week.

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

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

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

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

Hospira, Inc. -- http://www.hospira.com/-- provides injectable
drugs and infusion technologies, and a global leader in
biosimilars. Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is
uniquely positioned to Advance WellnessTM by improving patient and
caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., and has approximately 17,000
employees.


HYUNDAI: Manufacturing Defect Caused 2011 Crash, Jury Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press, citing The Missoulian, reports that a Lake
County jury ruled on May 13 that a manufacturing defect in a
Hyundai vehicle caused a fatal crash that killed two Missoula
cousins in 2011.

Jurors on May 13 awarded $1 million to each parent and $500,000
for a sibling of Trevor Olson, who was driving, and his younger
cousin, Tanner Olson.  Jurors found that Trevor Olson did not die
instantly, and compensated his estate $2.6 million for lost
earnings.  They said Tanner Olson died instantly in the head-on
crash on U.S. Highway 93 between Arlee and Ravalli.

An Arlee woman in the other car also was killed in the crash, but
her estate was in the lawsuit.

Hyundai attorney Kevin Young said 127 claims out of millions of
cars sold did not indicate a manufacturing problem.


INT'L BUSINESS: Faces "McCormack" Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
John McCormack, Mark Lingl & Ron Shelton, on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated IBM employees and former employees v. IBM, Case
No. 7:14-cv-03242-KMK (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2014) is a case of age
discrimination based upon IBM's alleged notorious and open
practices, which disfavor older workers and favor, explicitly,
younger members of the labor market.

The Plaintiffs contend that they are each older members of the
work force, who have been involuntarily separated from IBM at the
same time the Company is exclusively recruiting younger workers
for positions they are qualified to fill.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Howard Sussman, Esq.
          SUSSMAN & WATKINS
          1 Railroad Ave. 3/P.O.B. 1005
          Goshen, NY 10924
          Telephone: (845) 294-3991
          Facsimile: (845) 294-1623
          E-mail: sussman1@frontiernet.net


INT'L BUSINESS: Former Employees File Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that three former
International Business Machines Corp. employees lodged a putative
class action in New York federal court, alleging the company had
discriminated against older workers through a hiring policy that
favored young college graduates in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, according to documents made
public on May 7.

In a putative class complaint, dated April 28 but made publicly
available on May 7, former IBM employees John McCormack, 46,
Mark Lingl, 48, and Ron Shelton, 58, allege they were laid off at
the same time the company was actively recruiting younger workers
to fill positions for which they were qualified.

The complaint alleges that in 2013, IBM publicized a corporate
policy that targeted advertisements for job openings at young,
recent college graduates.

"Such advertisements were nationwide in scope and reflected a like
policy to discriminate against older workers and to exclude them
from consideration from a whole range of jobs for which many would
qualify," the complaint said.

The suit adds that Mr. McCormack, who was laid off in December,
had previously worked at an IBM facility in Hopewell Junction,
New York, and spent several months prior to his layoff applying to
other positions at IBM.  Despite having the "qualifications and
technical skills to successfully fill many of these positions," he
was not offered any of the jobs and was allegedly told by IBM
supervisors that the positions were intended for younger people.

Both Messrs. Lingl and Shelton were laid off in July, according to
the complaint, which alleges they, like McCormack, qualified for
other jobs that IBM was looking to fill with younger workers.

"In 2013, IBM cut its older work force and then implemented a
nationwide advertising campaign to replace older workers with
recent college graduates," the complaint alleged.

Prior to being laid off, Mr. Lingl had worked for IBM since 2006
as an information technology specialist, and Mr. Shelton had
worked at the company since 2011 as a technical solutions
architect, the complaint said.

The suit alleges that IBM violated both the ADEA and a New York
state law and seeks punitive damages against the company.

IBM has previously faced age discrimination claims in a case
brought against the company in Oklahoma federal court by a former
employee, but the company secured a summary judgment in its favor,
and the ruling was later upheld in November by the Tenth Circuit.
The former employee in the Oklahoma suit lodged a petition in
February for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking
review of the Tenth Circuit's decision.

The employees are represented by Michael Sussman --
sussman1@frontiernet.net -- of Sussman & Watkins.

The case is McCormack et al. v. IBM, case number 7:14-cv-03242, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Still Faces Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands Inc. continues to face a complaint alleging it
sent unsolicited fax advertisements to businesses nationwide in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28,
2014.

In May 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in the case of
Craftwood Lumber Company v. Interline Brands, Inc. ("Craftwood
Matter"), filed before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois, and subsequently removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited fax
advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("Junk Fax Act"). At the time of filing
the initial complaint in state court, the plaintiff also filed a
motion asking the Court to certify a class of plaintiffs comprised
of businesses who allegedly received unsolicited fax
advertisements from the Company during the four-year statute of
limitations period. In its amended complaint filed in the United
States District Court, the plaintiff seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief enjoining the Company from violating
the Junk Fax Act, as well as statutory damages for each fax
transmission found to be in violation of the Junk Fax Act. The
Company continues to vigorously contest class action certification
and liability; however, in light of the Company's assessment of
potential legal risks associated with the Craftwood Matter, the
Company recorded a pre-tax charge in the amount of $20.5 million
in the third quarter of 2013. The pre-tax charge was included in
selling, general and administrative expenses in the statements of
operations for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2013. As of
March 28, 2014 and December 27, 2013, the litigation related
accrual of $20.5 million was included in accrued expenses and
other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.


JERSEY CITY PARKING: "Ali" Suit Dimissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
SHAUKAT ALI, Plaintiff, v. JERSEY CITY PARKING AUTHORITY, NIKO
TAMTASURI, MARY F. PARETTI, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-
02678 (SDW) (MCA), (D. N.J.) is before the Court upon (1) motion
by Pro Se Plaintiff Shaukat Ali for default judgment and (2)
cross-motion to set aside default and motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (TAC) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) by Jersey City Parking Authority, Pius Niko Tampusari,
improperly named as "Niko Tamtasuri," and Mary F. Paretti.

In an Opinion dated April 16, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/TSoUZrfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Susan D.
Wigenton (i) denied Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and
(ii) granted Defendants' cross-motion to set aside default and
motion to dismiss the TAC.

"The default entered by the clerk of the court on June 7, 2013 is
to be vacated and the TAC is dismissed in its entirety, with
prejudice," ruled Judge Wigenton. "Plaintiff has failed to allege
any plausible claims for relief and therefore, Plaintiff's request
for a class action is moot," he added.

SHAUKAT ALI, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

JERSEY CITY PARKING AUTHORITY, Defendant, represented by KEITH J.
ROSENBLATT -- krosenblatt@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. &
RACHEL ANNE SEATON -- rseaton@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC.

NIKO TAMTASURI, Defendant, represented by KEITH J. ROSENBLATT,
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RACHEL ANNE SEATON, LITTLER MENDELSON
PC.

MARY F. PARETTI, CEO, Defendant, represented by KEITH J.
ROSENBLATT, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RACHEL ANNE SEATON, LITTLER
MENDELSON PC.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for Misleading Aveeno Products' Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Smith and Noeh Smith, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies,
Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00223-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., May 5, 2014) seeks
to remedy the alleged unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business
practices of Johnson & Johnson for misleading consumers about the
nature of the ingredients of its personal care products sold under
the Aveeno brand name, including Aveeno Active Natural Creamy
Moisturizing Oil with Natural Colloidal Oatmeal and Pure Oat Oil.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., is a New Jersey
corporation headquartered in Skillman, New Jersey.  The Company
sells several types of personal care products under the Aveeno
brand that are widely consumed by both children and adults.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tim Howard, J.D., Ph.D., Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


JT PRIVATE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Houston" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tabitha Houston on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. JT Private Duty Home Care, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00245-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla.,
May 5, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising
from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime wages.

JT Private Duty Home Care, LLC, is a Florida limited liability
company operating a nursing registry in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


KELLOGG CO: Settles Kashing Labeling Class Action for $5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Choi, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Kellogg Co. said it will no longer use the "All Natural" or
"Nothing Artificial" labels on certain Kashi products and pay $5
million to settle a class-action lawsuit.

In an emailed statement, Kellogg said it stood by its advertising
and labeling practices but that it would change its formulas or
labels nationally by the end of the year.  The lawsuit had accused
Kashi of misleading people by stamping the phrase "All Natural" or
"Nothing Artificial" on products that contained a variety of
synthetic and artificial ingredients.

Among the ingredients listed in the suit were pyridoxine
hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate, hexane-processed soy
ingredients, ascorbic acid, glycerin and sodium phosphate.

The settlement was filed May 2 in U.S. District Court in
California and is subject to court approval.

As people aim to stick to diets they feel are wholesome, companies
have flooded supermarket shelves with products marketed as being
"natural."  But more recently, numerous lawsuits have challenged
their use of the term on products that contain ingredients some
say don't fit that definition.

The mounting legal challenges have prompted several companies to
remove the word from packaging.  PepsiCo Inc., for instance,
changed its "Simply Natural" line of Frito-Lay line of chips
"Simply," even though the ingredients didn't change.  Likewise,
its "Natural Quaker Granola" was changed to "Simply Quaker
Granola."

PepsiCo, based in Purchase, N.Y., also agreed to remove the words
"all natural" from its Naked juices to settle a lawsuit that noted
the drinks contained artificial ingredients.

The Food and Drug Administration said it doesn't have an official
definition for the term "natural," noting that a food product has
likely been processed and is "no longer the product of the earth."
But the agency notes it has not objected to the use of the term if
the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors or
synthetic substances.


LIHUA INT'L: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Lihua
International, Inc. on May 8 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of Lihua common stock between August 9, 2012 and April
30, 2014, inclusive.

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

Lihua is based in the People's Republic of China and develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes refined copper replacement
products, including copper rod, fine and superfine pure copper
wire, and copper-clad aluminum fine and superfine wires.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements or failed to disclose
material adverse facts concerning Lihua's operations and financial
performance.

On April 30, 2014, the investor website GeoInvesting publicized a
report published in People's Daily, the official newspaper of the
Communist Party of China, alleging that: (1) Lihua's business took
a drastic downward turn from the end of 2012; (2) the Company's
cash flow is broken, and its warehouse has been seized and sealed
by the local court; (3) Lihua's production activities
substantially decreased in 2013, and have nearly ceased since
January 2014; and (4) the Company's chief executive officer
attempted to move Lihua's inventory in order to hide assets from
creditors, and as a result he is being investigated by the local
police.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than June 30, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael
Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New
York 10168, at 212-682-5340, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

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


LIHUA INT'L: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Lihua International, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 2:14-cv-
03503, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lihua securities
between August 9, 2012 and April 30, 2014 both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lihua securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 30, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

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.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance. Specifically, Defendants issued false
and misleading statements about the Company's business and
financial condition.  Throughout the Class Period, the Company
failed to disclose that: (1) Lihua's business experienced a
significant downturn starting from late 2012; (2) Lihua's
production activities slowed down dramatically in 2013, and have
almost ceased after January 31, 2014; (3) Lihua's warehouse has
been seized by the People's Republic of China court; (4) defendant
Jianhua Zhu, Lihua's Chairman and CEO, attempted to move inventory
in order to hide them from creditors, and is now being
investigated by the police for larceny.

On March 28, 2014, People's Daily, the official newspaper of the
government of China, published a report exposing Lihua's troubles.
The People's Daily Report stated that: (1) Lihua's cash flow has
ceased, and its warehouse has been seized and sealed by the local
court; (2) Lihua's production activities substantially decreased
in 2013, and have nearly ceased after the 2014 Spring Festival
(January 31, 2014); (3) Zhu attempted to move Lihua's inventory in
order to hide assets from creditors, and as a result, he is now
being investigated by the local police for larceny.

U.S. investors were made aware of these problems for the first
time on April 30, 2014, when GeoInvesting publicized the contents
of the People's Daily Report.  On this news, shares of Lihua's
stock to fell by more than 50% on April 30, 2014, from $4.33 to
$2.08 per share, before it was halted by NASDAQ stock exchange.

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


LOS ANGELES MTA: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Romero and Michael Dougherty, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transit Authority, also known as: LA County MTA, a
corporation; Ryder/ATE Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Arthur T.
Leahy, Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transit Authority, in his official capacities; and
Does, 1 to 50, Case No. 2:14-cv-03456-DSF-AGR (C.D. Cal., May 5,
2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Daniel Winters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN WINTERS
          2750 Bellflower Boulevard, Suite 101
          Long Beach, CA 90815
          Telephone: (562) 497-0472
          Facsimile: (562) 497-0474
          E-mail: jwlegalassistant@gmail.com


LOVIN OVEN: Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Andre Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated v. Lovin Oven Catering of Suffolk, Inc. and
Lovin Oven Catering of Suffolk, LLC and Lovin' Oven Catering of
Suffolk, LLC and Lovin' Oven/Lands End Corp. and Lovin' Oven Motel
Associates, LLC and Lovin' Oven/Felice's Corp. and Gerard Scollan,
in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02824 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2014) is a civil action for damages and
equitable relief based upon the Defendants' alleged flagrant and
willful violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by:
(i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Acts; (ii)
the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA; (iii) the overtime
provisions of the New York Labor Law; and (iv) the minimum wage
provisions of the NYLL.

Lovin Oven Catering of Suffolk, Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in Sayville, New York.  The Defendants operate
catering halls and provide catering services for special events in
multiple locations throughout the state of New York.  Gerard
Scollan is the owner and chief executive officer of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Douglas, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005
          E-mail: jd@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


MARKIT LTD: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Markit Ltd. is facing a consolidated suit in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with credit default
swaps markets activities, according to the company's May 5, 2014,
Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Since May 2013, Markit has been named as a defendant with the
Dealers and other defendants in a number of putative class action
lawsuits filed in U.S. courts and arising out of allegations of
violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with
credit default swaps markets activities. The lead plaintiffs in
each case include pension funds, investment management funds and
other buy-side firms in the credit default swaps markets. All
cases were filed either in the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern District of Illinois or the Southern District of New
York. On October 16, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred all cases to the Southern District of New
York and on December 13, 2013, the court consolidated all such
cases for pre-trial purposes.

The primary allegations by plaintiffs are that the defendants
conspired to prevent competitors from offering execution and
clearing services for exchange-traded credit default swaps and
that the defendants conspired to fix and maintain credit default
swap bid/ask spreads in the OTC market above the spreads that
would have been realized with the development of exchange trading
of credit default swaps. The substance of plaintiffs' request for
relief seeks a permanent injunction foreclosing defendants from
continuing their alleged anticompetitive actions and trebled
damages in an unspecified amount, plus interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit.


MARTIN MARIETTA: Faces Litigation in Texas Over Planned Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. faces a suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas over an
announced merger, according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following the announcement of the merger, a purported stockholder
of Texas Industries, Inc. ("TXI") filed a putative class action
lawsuit against TXI and members of the TXI board, and against the
Corporation and one of its affiliates, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, captioned
Maxine Phillips, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Texas Industries, Inc., et al., Case 3:14-
cv-00740-B (referred to as the "Phillips Action"). The plaintiff
in the Phillips Action alleges in an amended complaint, among
other things, (i) that members of the TXI board breached their
fiduciary duties to TXI's stockholders by failing to fully
disclose material information regarding the proposed transaction
and by adopting the merger agreement for inadequate consideration
and pursuant to an inadequate process, (ii) that the Corporation
and one of the Corporation's affiliates aided and abetted the TXI
board in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and (iii) that
the registration statement of which this joint proxy
statement/prospectus forms a part contains certain material
misstatements and omissions in violation of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff in the Phillips Action
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining TXI and the
Corporation from proceeding with the merger, rescission in the
event the merger is consummated, damages, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs. The Corporation believes the
lawsuit is without merit.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: To Appeal Certification of Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. expects to appeal the certification of
direct and indirect purchaser classes in In re: Polyurethane Foam
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196, according to the
company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on
August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class
action complaints (the first filed on February 28, 2011) on behalf
of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,
and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against
future violations. In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct purchasers,
and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought
by the indirect purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  On April 9, 2014, the Court
certified the direct and indirect purchaser classes. The Company
expects to appeal the certification order.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Continues to Face Antitrust Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. continues to face lawsuits in Canada
alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products
engaged in price fixing in violation, according to the company's
May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options
Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior
Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege
similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions
and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company
denies all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously
defend itself.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Salvatore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Northland Group Inc. and LVNV Funding LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00220-S-PAS (D.R.I., May 5, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C.
          681 Smith St., Suite 201
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 272-2177
          Facsimile: (401) 537-9185
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com


NTS REALTY: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Merger Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership on May 8 disclosed that,
on May 6, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
dismissing, with prejudice, all claims asserted against the
Company in the consolidated class action lawsuit, In re NTS Realty
Holdings Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation, Consol. C.A.
No. 8302-VCP.

The Delaware Action was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation
entered into among the parties to the Delaware Action and pursuant
to the terms of that certain Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release dated February 4, 2014 entered
into by the Company and the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit, Stephen J. Dannis, et al. v. J.D. Nichols, et al., Case
No. 13-CI-00452, which was pending in Jefferson County Circuit
Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky against the Company, NTS
Realty Capital, Inc., the Company's managing general partner, each
of the members of the board of directors of Realty Capital, NTS
Realty Partners, LLC and NTS Merger Parent, LLC.  The Settlement
Agreement provides for the full and complete compromise,
settlement, release and dismissal of the Delaware Action and the
Kentucky Action.  The Company previously announced the Kentucky
court's dismissal, with prejudice, of the claims asserted against
the Company in the Kentucky Action.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, assuming the
orders dismissing the respective court actions become final and
non-appealable, the Company expects to consummate the transactions
contemplated by the terms of that certain Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated February 25, 2014 among the Company, Parent, NTS
Merger Sub, LLC and Realty Capital.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, NTS Merger Sub, LLC will merge with and into the
Company pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, and, at the
closing of the merger, the Company's limited partnership units,
other than those units owned by the Company's founder and Chairman
of Realty Capital, J.D. Nichols, the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Realty Capital, Brian F. Lavin, and certain of their
affiliates, will be canceled and converted automatically into the
right to receive a cash payment equal to $8.68 per Unit.

Consummation of the merger is subject to the satisfaction of
certain conditions.  The Company expects that the conditions of
the Merger Agreement will be satisfied in June 2014; however,
there can be no assurance that the Merger Agreement will be
consummated on the terms described in the Merger Agreement and the
Settlement Agreement or at all.

          About NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership

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


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Accused of Hiding Deals With Libya and Congo
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Menaldi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, Daniel S. Och,
and Joel M. Frank, Case No. 1:14-cv-03251-JPO (S.D.N.Y., May 5,
2014) alleges that the Defendants made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that:

     (i) the Company violated relevant anti-bribery laws by
         accepting an investment from the Libyan Investment
         Authority, a sovereign wealth fund;

    (ii) the Company loaned $234 million to help finance two
         ventures in the Democratic Republic of Congo in
         violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

   (iii) beginning in 2011, the Company received subpoenas from
         the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United
         States Department of Justice in connection with the two
         transactions.

Och-Ziff is a publicly owned investment management company that
was founded in 1994 and is based New York City with additional
offices in London, United Kingdom; Hong Kong; Tokyo, Japan;
Bangalore, India; and Beijing, China.  The Company provides
investment advisory services for its clients and it invests in
equity markets and real estate across the world.  The Company also
makes investments in alternative markets throughout the world.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, 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
                  fmcconville@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


OPKO HEALTH: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. on May 8 disclosed that on May 5, 2014, the
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for
the County of Clark granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
securities class action lawsuit brought against the Company on
behalf of the shareholders of PROLOR Biotech, Inc. in connection
with the acquisition of PROLOR by OPKO.  The Court dismissed all
claims as to all defendants including PROLOR and its former
officers and directors asserted in the case without prejudice.

                            About OPKO

OPKO is a multinational biopharmaceutical and diagnostics company
that seeks to establish industry leading positions in large,
rapidly growing markets by leveraging its discovery, development
and commercialization expertise and novel and proprietary
technologies.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Wins Dismissal of Antitrust Suit in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas granted the motion of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. to dismiss all
of the Claims in a Consolidated Amended Antitrust Complaint,
according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against certain major hotel chains, and the leading
OTCs, including Orbitz. The complaint alleged that the hotel
chains and OTCs, including Orbitz, violated antitrust and consumer
protection laws by entering into agreements in which OTCs agree
not to facilitate the reservation of hotel rooms at prices that
are less than those found on the hotel chain websites. Following
the filing of the initial complaint on August 20, 2012, several
dozen additional putative consumer class action complaints were
filed in federal courts across the country. These cases were then
consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation and transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, counsel
for the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On
July 1, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 16, 2014, the District
Court granted the company's motion to dismiss all of the Claims in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Tax Suit by Colorado City Denied Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the suit related to hotel taxes filed by the Town of
Breckenridge, Colorado against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., the
District Court of Summit County, Colorado issued a verbal ruling
denying class certification for the plaintiffs on March 26, 2014,
according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over "Failure" to Pay License Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. is named a defendant in the suit City of
Charleston et al. v. Hotelguides.com et al., according to Orbitz's
May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On January 17, 2014, a putative class of municipalities in the
state of South Carolina filed suit in the South Carolina Court of
Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit against several OTCs,
including Orbitz LLC and TripNetwork Inc. Plaintiffs allege that
the OTCs failed to obtain business licenses and failed to pay all
license fees due.


PACIFIC ORGANIC: Recalls Tommy Atkins Mangos Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Organic Produce, San Francisco, CA is voluntarily
recalling a limited number of cases of organic Tommy Atkins mangos
(PLU numbers 94051 & 94959) that were sold under the Purity
Organic brand between the dates of April 14, 2014 and May 2, 2014
due to a possible health risk from Listeria monocytogenes. No
illnesses have been reported in association with the recall and no
other mangos or products under the Purity Organic brand are being
recalled.

No illnesses have been reported to date. However, the recall was
issued as a precaution because a single sample in a FDA sample
yielded a positive result for Listeria monocytogenes. Pacific
Organic Produce is coordinating closely with regulatory officials
and has contacted its customers to ensure that any remaining
recalled products are removed. Listeria monocytogenes is an
organism that can cause foodborne illness in a person who consumes
a food item contaminated with it. Symptoms of infection may
include fever, muscle aches and gastrointestinal symptoms such as
nausea or diarrhea. The illness primarily impacts pregnant women
and adults with weakened immune systems. Most healthy adults and
children rarely become seriously ill.

The PLU number is printed in the middle of the PLU sticker on the
fruit. The mangos were shipped to retailers and distributors in
limited quantities within five (5) U.S. states (Arizona,
California, Colorado, New Jersey and Texas).

Only the specific PLU numbers and sell dates identified are
included in this recall. Consumers who have any remaining product
with these Product Codes purchased between the dates of April 14,
2014 and May 2, 2014 should not consume it, but rather should
discard it. Consumers should retain their store receipts, PLU
stickers or any other proof of purchase they may have. Retailers
and consumers with questions may call Amy Rosenoff at Pacific
Organic Produce customer service at 415-673-5555, which is open
8:00 am to 4:00 pm (PT) Monday - Friday.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Wins Dismissal of 2012 Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, granted the motion of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
to dismiss with prejudice the shareholder securities class action
complaint filed against it in 2012, according to the company's May
5, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reports that on May 1, 2014, Judge
Philip S. Gutierrez of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with prejudice the shareholder securities class action
complaint filed in 2012 against the Company and members of its
management by lead Plaintiff Anderson et al., Case No. 8:12-cv-
01647-PSG-FMO. The complaint had alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and
misleading statements in 2012. The case was dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice, resulting in a termination of all claims.
The plaintiffs have not indicated whether they will appeal the
dismissal.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Discovery in "Bararsani v. Coldwell" Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Company is now in the discovery phase, but discovery has been
stayed pending resolution of the plaintiff's Writ of Mandate,
according to Realogy Holdings Corp.'s May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees. The complaint, as amended, further
alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated
several sections of the California Labor Code including one for
failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class for
business related expenses and a second for failing to keep proper
records. The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair Business
Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates. The
Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of
the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus
asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.  The Company
believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates
as independent contractors and that it has and continues to
operate in a manner consistent with applicable law, and
longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades.

On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court seeking to
dismiss the amended complaint. The Demurrer asserted that the
claims raised by the plaintiff were without basis under California
law because the California Business and Professions Code sets out
the applicable three-part test for classification of real estate
sales associates -- as independent contractors -- and all elements
of the test have been satisfied by CBRBC and the affiliated sales
associates. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 12, 2013 and a
hearing was held on August 28, 2013. The Court denied the Demurrer
and stated that it would look to the more complex multi-factor
common law test to determine whether the plaintiff was
misclassified.

CBRBC filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate with the California
Court of Appeals seeking its discretionary review of that decision
on September 30, 2013 and November 8, 2013, the Court of Appeals
denied the Petition.

On March 25, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to
invalidate, for purposes of this litigation, binding arbitration
clauses in independent contractor agreements executed by putative
members of the class following the commencement of the litigation.
Accordingly, individuals who executed agreements with arbitration
provisions will no longer be members of the putative class, except
for those putative class members who, by agreement, expressly
opted to preserve the ability to remain in this litigation.
Plaintiffs are in the process of filing a Writ of Mandate with the
California Court of Appeals seeking its discretionary review of
the Court's decision to deny plaintiff's motion for immediate
appeal. The case is now in the discovery phase, but discovery has
been stayed pending resolution of the plaintiff's Writ of Mandate.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: $3.0MM Deposited to Labor Suit Accord Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of $3.0 million was distributed to the class settlement
fund in connection with the September 2010 settlement of a labor
suit against Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and a $1.0 million
distribution was made to the Humboldt County District Attorney's
Office, according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

In connection with the September 2010 settlement of the class
action litigation against Skilled and certain of its subsidiaries
related to, among other matters, alleged understaffing at certain
California skilled nursing facilities operated by Skilled's
subsidiaries (the "Humboldt County Action"), Skilled and its
defendant subsidiaries (collectively, the "Defendants") entered
into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs and intervenor and
agreed to an injunction. The settlement was approved by the
Superior Court of California, Humboldt County on November 30,
2010. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant
entities deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts
to cover settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments, including $5.0 million to settle certain
government agency claims and potential government claims that may
arise. Of the $5.0 million provided for such government claims,
$1.0 million was initially released by the court to the Humboldt
County Treasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the
State of California for their release of the Defendants. The
remaining $4.0 million was available for the settlement and
releases by the California Attorney General and certain other
District Attorneys. However, in the event that any of these
government authorities were to instead file certain actions
against the Defendants by the second anniversary of the effective
date of the settlement agreement, which occurred in February 2013,
the entire $4.0 million would have reverted to the Defendants upon
their request to the Settlement Administrator. No such actions
were filed, however, resulting in an additional $1.0 million
distribution to the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office and
the remaining $3.0 million was distributed to the class settlement
fund, as required by the settlement agreement.


SPEIGHT SEED: NCWHA Class Certified in "Hernandez-Martinez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN MANUEL HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v. Speight Seed Farms, Inc., John Milton Beamon, and Emma Ortega,
Defendants, CASE NO: 4-13-CV-82-BO, (E.D. N.C.) is before the
Court on a joint motion by the named plaintiff, defendants Speight
Seed Farms, Inc. and John Milton Beaman, and defendant Emma Ortega
in furtherance of their settlement agreement to certify this
action as a Rule 23 (b) (3) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action.

In his April 13, 2014 Order for Class Certification, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/GE375Ffrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Terrence W. Boyle ruled that the joint motion for
certification of the plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief under the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA), as a class action under
Rule 23(b) (3), Fed.R.Civ.P., is granted for the time period from
March 27, 2011 to December 31, 2012 for those persons included in
the class definition.  The joint motion for class certification of
the FLSA collective action under the FLSA is also granted with
respect to all those persons who have filed a written Consent to
Sue under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on or before the date on which
the Court files any Order approving the terms of the proposed
settlement between the named plaintiff and the Speight defendants.

Jose Luis Gonzalez-Quinones, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Robert J. Willis, Esq.
   35 Thompson St. Suite 101
   Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
   Telephone: (919) 542-1825

Maria de Jesus Figueroa-Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J.
Willis.

Juan Manuel Hernandez-Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert
J. Willis.

Speight Seed Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by William A.
Oden, III -- wao@wardandsmith.com -- Ward and Smith, P.A.

John Milton Beamon, Defendant, represented by William A. Oden,
III, Ward and Smith, P.A.

Emma Ortega, Defendant, represented by William A. Oden, III, Ward
and Smith, P.A.


STANDARD & POOR'S: Class Action Over Lehman Ratings Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Millan, writing for Financial Standard, reports that a
Federal Court judgment against ratings agency Standard & Poor's
has cleared the way for Councils, church groups and charities to
continue a damage claim relating to Lehman Brothers complex
products.

Church groups, charities and 91 Councils in Australia launched a
class action against S&P's decision to give AAA ratings to complex
derivative products sold by Lehman Brothers in the lead up to the
global financial crisis.

The Federal Court ruled in favor of the claimants in
September 2012, but S&P tried to set the claim aside last year.
The ratings agency argued that the claim was an abuse of process,
that it had no prospect of success and that S&P should not be
required to submit to the Australian courts.

Justice Stephen Rares rejected all three arguments and stated that
the claimants had an arguable case.  He also considered that S&P
was subject to Australian jurisdiction.

A settlement reached with the liquidators of Lehman Brothers in
Australia last November will see 80 claimants recover about half
of the $180 million in collective losses suffered on the
derivative investments.  The claim against S&P seeks to recover
the balance of losses suffered after funds received from the
settlement.

Third-party litigator Bentham IMF represents some of the claimants
and its executive director John Walker said that S&P used a
"delaying tactic" that has "backfired badly."

"With the latest S&P roadblock removed, our clients now look
forward to resuming their claim against S&P," he said.


STE FROMAGERE: Recalls Raclette and Montboissie Cheese
------------------------------------------------------
Ste Fromagere du Livradois of Fournols, France is recalling Haut
Livradois brand Raclette and Montboissie cheeses lot#350 because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The products were distributed nationwide in supermarkets and
gourmet stores between March 10th, 2014 and May 6th, 2014.

The recalled products are Raclette du Haut Livradois and
Montboissie du Haut Livradois, lot # 350. They both come as a 13lb
wheel and are usually cut and wrapped. The Montboissie has a
vegetable ash line in the middle of the cheese. The Raclette does
not.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This voluntarily recall was initiated after the result of a
routine sampling program by the FDA which revealed the presence of
Salmonella in some products. The FDA and Ste Fromagere du
Livradois are investigating the source of the problem to fix it.

Each and every distributor and retailer are being contacted in an
effort to recall any and all remaining product in the marketplace.

If you believe that you have purchased any of these cheeses please
contact your distributor or retailer for a full refund. If you
have any questions please call Ste Fromagere du Livradois Monday-
Friday from 9am to 5pm (EST) at +1 (201) 448 8787 and mention
recall.


STONYFIELD: YoBaby Yogurt Recall Extended to 271 More Stores
------------------------------------------------------------
Organic yogurt maker Stonyfield is extending its voluntary recall
of YoBaby Peach/Pear yogurt in 4 oz. 6-pack cups with the code
date June 05 2014 (UPC 052159701161).

The recall now includes an additional 1,344 6-packs shipped to 271
more stores, mostly Safeway and Fred Meyer stores, in the
following states: Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and
Northern California. The list of potentially affected stores can
be found at Stonyfield.com/recall

In April, Stonyfield issued a voluntarily recalling 188 6-packs of
4 oz YoBaby Peach/Pear cups with the code date June 05 2014 (UPC
052159701161).  The 4 oz 6-packs were shipped to Target stores in
Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and
South Carolina and Walmart stores in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New
Jersey and Delaware. A full list of potentially affected stores
can be found at Stonyfield.com.

The recall comes in response to internal testing of the product
that revealed the possibility that some product shipped from its
Londonderry plant may be affected by coliform contamination.
Although the potential problem is not widespread, Stonyfield is
taking this measure to ensure the safety of its consumers.

Stonyfield advised its distribution network to immediately remove
these specific code-dated yogurts from retail shelves. No other
Stonyfield products were affected.

Consumers who purchased the potentially affected YoBaby yogurts
from Walmart or Target with this code date are asked to return
opened and unopened containers to their retailers to be reimbursed
for the full value of the purchase. Affected yogurts were only
available for purchase on or after April 23, 2014.

Consumers with questions should contact Stonyfield Consumer
Relations at 1-800-PRO-COWS or email at crelations@Stonyfield.com.

"Our first priority has always been and always will be the welfare
of our consumers," says Esteve Torrens, Stonyfield CEO in a
statement in April. "While we continue to investigate this issue
and believe that the risk of injury is extremely remote, we feel
that this voluntary measure is the prudent and responsible step at
this time."

Like the 188 6-packs recalled in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast on
April 25th, there is a possibility that some of these yogurts may
be contaminated with the coliform Klebsiella pneumoniae.

The majority of these cases were pulled from store shelves.
However, there is a possibility that a small number were
purchased. Stonyfield has not received any notification of illness
from consumers directly related to this product. If you have
purchased a 6-pack of YoBaby Peach/Pear yogurt cups with the code
date June 05 2014, please return it to your store for a full
refund.

Consumers with questions should contact Stonyfield Consumer
Relations at 1-800-PRO-COWS or email at crelations@Stonyfield.com.

The recalls are being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.

                     About Klebsiella pneumoniae

According to the FDA: "These bacteria are often found in healthy
people and often don't cause illness if they contaminate food and
are eaten -- but sometimes they do, although it's not completely
clear how or why. Some reasons may be that bacteria have
variations in their genes, and, for the most part, their genes
often undergo changes. Those changes sometimes affect whether or
not the bacteria can cause illness and the severity of the
illness. Whether or not they cause illness also may depend on the
people who eat them -- their health, their own genetic make-up,
and/or how much of the bacteria they eat. The illness these
bacteria are thought to sometimes cause if they contaminate food
is gastroenteritis -- watery diarrhea and other symptoms that may
include nausea, vomiting, cramps, pain, fever, and chills."


STRONG AMERICA: Recalls "Golden Smell Hotpot Meat Ball Medley"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Strong America Limited of Long Island City, New York is recalling
its 1 pound package of "Golden Smell Hotpot Meat Ball Medley" food
treats because they may contain undeclared eggs. People who have
allergies to eggs run the risk of serious or life threatening
allergic reaction if they consumer these products.

The recalled "Golden Smell Hotpot Meat Ball Medley" were
distributed nationwide in retail stores and through mail orders.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The problem was discovered as a result of routine sampling by the
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food
Inspectors and subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of allergen in product packages that did not
declare the allergen on the label.

Consumers who have purchased 1 pound packages of "Golden Smell
Hotpot Meat Ball Medley" are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 718-628-6200.


STYLECRAFT: Recalls Upholstered Benches Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
StyleCraft, announced a voluntary recall of about 700 linen
upholstered stretcher bench.  The benches can crack and break
while in use, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

This recall involves StyleCraft Home Collection stretcher benches
sold in espresso with linen cloth. The two-person benches have a
cushioned seat upholstered with linen fabric that is fastened with
burnished brass tacks. The espresso-stained wooden legs have an x-
shaped support. The benches measure about 44 inches long, 18
inches wide and 17 inches high. Made in China and part number
SF1918AMM are printed on the bottom of the bench.

Stylecraft has received three reports of benches cracking. No
injuries have been reported.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled benches and
contact StyleCraft for instructions on how to receive a free
replacement.

The benches are sold exclusively at HomeGoods stores nationwide
and online at www.homegoods.com from July 2013 to October 2013 for
about $150.

The benches were imported by StyleCraft, of Southaven, Miss., and
manufactured in China.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with
protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death
associated with the use of thousands of types of consumer products
under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property
damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than
$1 trillion annually. CPSC is committed to protecting consumers
and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical
or mechanical hazard. CPSC's work to help ensure the safety of
consumer products -- such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette
lighters and household chemicals -- contributed to a decline in
the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products
over the past 40 years.

Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to a
publicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or a
mandatory recall ordered by the Commission.

Consumers should contact: StyleCraft toll-free at (855) 766-1880
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or email at
CustomerService@StyleCraft-us.com for more information.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury go
online to www.SaferProducts.gov or call CPSC's Hotline at (800)
638-2772 or teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054 for the hearing
impaired. Consumers can obtain news release and recall information
at www.cpsc.gov, on Twitter @USCPSC or by subscribing to CPSC's
free e-mail newsletters.


SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls 128,363 Bottles of Cetirizine
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLain, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
India's largest generic drug maker, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd. is recalling hundreds of thousands of bottles of drugs that
failed to meet manufacturing quality standards in the U.S.

Sun Pharmaceutical's U.S. subsidiary, Caraco Pharmaceutical
Laboratories, is recalling 128,363 bottles of the decongestant
Cetirizine.  The drug may not release medication into the body in
the way it was designed, according to an announcement on the U.S.
Food & Drug Administration website on May 7.  Caraco also recalled
251,882 bottles of the antidepressant Venlafaxine.  The company
found that the pills also failed to dissolve in the human body as
designed.

While Caraco initiated the recall, the drugs were produced in Sun
Pharmaceutical plants in the western Indian state of Gujarat.
Both recalls were announced following public complaints.

A Sun Pharmaceutical spokesman declined to comment on the recalls.

While drug recalls aren't uncommon, Indian firms have come under
fire recently for drug-manufacturing standards.

In March, Sun Pharmaceutical recalled 2,528 bottles of a diabetes
drugs after a customer complained of finding tablets of
Gabapentin, an epilepsy drug, in a bottle.

Earlier this month, Indian drug maker Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
recalled thousands of packets of generic anti-allergy medicines
made by its U.S. subsidiary, Ohm Laboratories Inc., after finding
defects in the blister packaging for the pills.

The Ohm plant is the only remaining Ranbaxy facility capable of
producing drugs for the U.S.  The Indian company's other plants
were barred from the market following inspections by U.S.
authorities.  The market once accounted for about 40% of the
company's revenues.

The recalls come in the wake of Sun Pharmaceutical's plan to
acquire Ranbaxy in an all-stock deal worth $3.2 billion, which the
companies announced last month.


SURMA DISTRIBUTORS: Undeclared Sulfites Prompt Raisins Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Surma Distributors LLC., located at 1075 Flushing Ave., Brooklyn,
NY 11237, is recalling HAQUE brand Golden Raisins because the
product contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening reactions if they consume this product.

HAQUE brand Golden Raisins is sold in a 7 ounce, un-coded, clear
plastic package and was distributed in the New York City area. It
is a product of USA.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in HAQUE brand Golden Raisins
which were not declared on the label. The consumption of 10
milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit
severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could
occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites.

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

Consumers who have purchased HAQUE brand Golden Raisins are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at (718) 366-6580.


SVALE DEL GRANDE: Arbitration Bid Denial in "Gillespie" Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Gillespie filed a putative class action complaint alleging
consumer-related claims against defendant Svale Del Grande, Inc.,
doing business as Nissan Sunnyvale, and defendant Bank of the
West. Defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration based on
an arbitration clause in the sale contract for the vehicle
Gillespie purchased from the car dealership. The trial court
denied the petition. The court determined that a class action
waiver in the arbitration clause was enforceable, but that four
other provisions in the arbitration clause were unconscionable.
After finding the arbitration clause was permeated with
unconscionability, the court refused to sever the unconscionable
provisions and simply declined to enforce the entire arbitration
clause. On appeal, defendants contend that the arbitration clause
is not unconscionable and that the class action waiver contained
in the arbitration clause is enforceable.

In an opinion dated April 17, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/XVuvsgfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, Sixth District concluded that the class action waiver
is enforceable but that three other provisions in the arbitration
clause are unconscionable.  The Sixth Circuit said it will reverse
the trial court's order denying the petition to compel
arbitration, and remand the matter to the trial court for the
limited purpose of determining whether to sever the three
unconscionable provisions.

The case is SUZANNE GILLESPIE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SVALE
DEL GRANDE, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, NO. H039428.


TARGET CORP: Axes CEO Following Massive Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that on May 5, Target Corp. ousted CEO
Gregg Steinhafel following a hacker attack that compromised the
personal data of millions of shoppers during the holiday season.
His main error was to move too slowly in shoring up the chain's
defenses even after being warned that point-of-sale terminals were
vulnerable to cyber criminals.

Since revelations that Target, Neiman Marcus, and Michaels Stores
had all been hacked late last year, company directors have
embarked on a crash course to understand and combat the threat.
Next month, the National Association of Corporate Directors will
meet in Chicago for its first Cyber Risk Summit.

"This is a sea change, right here, right now," said Davia Temin,
of Temin & Co., a New York crisis-management firm.  "The risk now
goes right smack to the CEO and to the board."

The data breach was the last straw for Target's directors, who
replaced Mr. Steinhafel as chairman and CEO.  He had been at the
chain for 35 years.

John Mulligan, Target's chief financial officer, will serve as
interim CEO. Board member Roxanne Austin will be interim
chairwoman.

Bloomberg Businessweek reported in March that Target had ignored
warnings from its hacker-detection tools, missing an opportunity
to stop the attack sooner.  The breach compromised 40 million
credit-card numbers, 70 million addresses, phone numbers, and
other pieces of information.  After the attack became public in
December, Target's reputation took a hit.  Its US comparable-store
sales fell 2.5 percent in the fourth quarter.  Other companies
will probably face pressure to hold executives accountable for
their handling of data breaches.

"It sends a very loud and clear message that nobody is
indispensable, and CEOs have to mind the store in every respect,"
said Howard Gross, at Boyden Global Executive Search in New York.
"After something like this, a lot more CEOs will be taking a hard
look at their security."

Besides the June 11 Cyber Risk Summit, the National Association of
Corporate Directors has created an eight-part video series that
explains the basic issues to boards and how they can deal with the
risk, said Ken Daly, the group's president.  A 2014 white paper on
the topic has become the association's top downloaded report, he
said.

"It's been on the radar for a while, but surely Target catapulted
it into the big time," Mr. Daly said, adding that the cyber summit
will probably sell out.

Target's failure has helped elevate the issue from a conundrum for
audit committees to an issue for the entire board and top
executives, said Jerry Storch, a former Target executive who runs
his own consulting firm, Storch Advisors.

"No one really believes the CEO could prevent a data breach, but
the CEO is responsible for anything that happens, both good and
bad," said Mr. Storch.  "That's part of having the job."


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Agrees to Indemnify Google for 2012 Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TeleTech Holdings, Inc. agreed to indemnify Google Inc. for costs
and expenses related to a class action complaint, according to the
company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In the fourth quarter of 2012, a class action complaint was filed
in the State of California against a TeleTech subsidiary and
Google Inc. ("Google"), as co-defendants. Pursuant to its
contractual commitments, the Company has agreed to indemnify
Google for costs and expenses related to the complaint. The
Company settled the matter for an immaterial amount during the
first quarter of 2014.


TELEXFREE INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP on May 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Case No. 14-CV-12058, on behalf of
Samuel E. Griffith, and all similarly-situated persons and
entities who purchased TelexFree "memberships" between January 1,
2012 and the present.  The action is brought against the
management and top promoters of TelexFree, Inc., TelexFree LLC,
TelexFree Financial, Inc., and Telex Mobile Holdings, Inc.
(collectively, "TelexFree"), and alleges that the "memberships"
offered and sold to Plaintiff and the Class were unregistered
securities, the selling of which violated Section 12(a)(1) of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The action alleges that TelexFree was an illegal pyramid scheme
whereby Defendants offered and/or sold "memberships" that promised
investment returns of over 200% per year and did not require
investors to perform any actual work or sell any TelexFree
product.

On April 14, 2014, TelexFree filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
admitting that it cannot meet its obligations to its members and
sought authority to reject all its current obligations to Class
members.  On April 15, 2014, the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission filed an action in the District of
Massachusetts against TelexFree and the same Defendants for
securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, fraud in the offer or sale of securities, in
violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and for
the offer or sale of unregistered securities, in violation of
Section 5 of the Securities Act.  On the same day, the
Massachusetts Securities Division Enforcement Section filed an
administrative complaint against TelexFree and Common Cents
Communications, Inc., a predecessor of TelexFree, for securities
fraud and for the sale of unregistered securities.

Plaintiff seeks rescission and damages on behalf of the Class.
The plaintiff is represented by Gardy & Notis, LLP, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

If you purchased a TelexFree membership and you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
today (no later than July 14, 2014).  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 a
member of the proposed class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice, please contact:

          Orin Kurtz, Gardy & Notis, LLP
          126 East 56th Street
          New York, New York 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: In Talks to Settle Suit Over Patient Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation is in talks to settle a lawsuit over
alleged tortious invasion of privacy in relation to the handling
of its psychiatric hospital patient records, according to the
company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in which the
plaintiffs claim that in April 1996 patient identifying records
from a psychiatric hospital that the company closed in 1995 were
temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the hospital was
undergoing renovations. The lawsuit, Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith
Medical Foundation, was filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997. The plaintiffs
allege tortious invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of
emotional distress. The plaintiffs contend that the class consists
of over 5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals (in
addition to the two plaintiffs) have been identified to date in
the class certification process. The plaintiffs have asserted each
member of the class is entitled to common damages under a theory
of presumed "common damage" regardless of whether or not any
members of the class were actually harmed or even aware of the
incident. The company believes there is no authority for an award
of common damages under Louisiana law. In addition, the company
believes that there is no basis for the certification of this
proceeding as a class action under applicable federal and
Louisiana law precedents. In an effort to potentially avoid
protracted litigation, at the parties' request and recommendation,
on March 31, 2014, the court appointed as a "special master" a
retired judge to facilitate settlement discussions in this case.
Those discussions are in a preliminary stage, and the parties have
not yet, as of the date hereof, had substantive discussions
regarding settlement terms. There can be no assurances that a
settlement will be reached. Furthermore, the company is not able
to estimate the reasonably possible loss or a reasonably possible
range of loss given: the small number of class members that have
been identified or otherwise responded to the class certification
process; the novel theories asserted by plaintiffs, including
their assertion that a theory of presumed common damage exists
under Louisiana law; and the failure of the plaintiffs to provide
any evidence of damages. The portion of the lawsuit relating to
plaintiffs' common damage theory is scheduled to be tried
beginning on June 16, 2014.


TRANSCARE CORP: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Driver Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Salisbury, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. TransCare Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
02827 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2014) accuses the Company of failing to
pay for all hours worked, and to pay overtime to the Plaintiff and
all similarly situated employees with the title of bus operator,
paratransit driver, or any equivalent position.

Headquartered in Brooklyn, New York, TransCare is a contractual
provider to New York City's Access-A-Ride program, for people with
disabilities, who are unable to use the subways or city buses for
some or all of their trips.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Meagan Farmer, Esq.
          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  mfarmer@gardylaw.com
                  okurtz@gardylaw.com


TREX COMPANY: Accrues $1.6MM to Settle Stull, Cohen Product Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. has a remaining accrual of $1.6 million related
to the settlements of the Stull Group and Cohen & Malad, LLP
litigations over alleged product defects, according to the
company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

As reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2013, on January 19, 2009, a purported
class action case was commenced against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County, by the lead law
firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and certain
other law firms (the "Lieff Cabraser Group") on behalf of Eric
Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs.
These plaintiffs generally alleged certain defects in the
Company's products, and that the Company failed to provide
adequate remedies for defective products. On February 13, 2009,
the Company removed this case to the United States District Court,
Northern District of California. On January 21, 2009, a purported
class action case was commenced against the Company in the United
States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law
firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP ("Hagens Berman") on
behalf of Mark Okano and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally
alleging certain product defects in the Company's products, and
that the Company failed to provide adequate remedies for defective
products. This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the
California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's
case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on March
15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
Hagens Berman alleged similar claims in its original complaint. In
its Final Order approving the surface flaking settlement, the
District Court consolidated these pending actions relating to the
mold claims, and appointed Hagens Berman as lead counsel in this
case. On December 3, 2010, Hagens Berman filed an amended
consolidated complaint in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California relating to the mold growth claims
(now on behalf of Dean Mahan and other named plaintiffs).

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by Cohen & Malad, LLP ("Cohen & Malad") on
behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs in
Kentucky, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was
commenced against the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court
of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and
similarly situated plaintiffs in Indiana. On June 28, 2011, the
Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States District
Court, Southern District of Indiana. (On September 3, 2013, the
two lawsuits commenced by Cohen & Malad were settled.) On August
11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the
Company in the 50 th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa,
Michigan on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated
plaintiffs in Michigan. On August 26, 2011, the Company removed
the Peffers case to the United States District Court, Western
District of Michigan. (The plaintiffs in the Peffers case
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on April 11, 2014.) On April 4,
2012, a purported class action was commenced against the Company
in Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County by the lead law firm
of Stull, Stull & Brody (the "Stull Group") on behalf of Caryn
Borger, M.D. and similarly situated plaintiffs in New Jersey. On
May 1, 2012, the Company removed the Borger case to the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey. (On December 5,
2013, the lawsuit commenced by the Stull Group was settled.) The
plaintiffs in these purported class actions alleged certain
defects in the Company's products and alleged misrepresentations
relating to mold growth.

On April 5, 2013, the Company signed a settlement agreement with
Hagens Berman that settled the case pending in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California on a nationwide
basis, and the parties filed for preliminary approval of such
settlement (the "nationwide settlement"). The material terms of
the nationwide settlement, as amended by an amended settlement
agreement signed on September 3, 2013, are as follows:

     (i) Trex will make a one-time cash payment or the opportunity
to receive other relief, including a rebate certificate on its
newer-generation shelled product (Trex Transcend and Trex
Enhance). This relief would be available for any consumer whose
first-generation composite decking product has a certain defined
level of mold growth, color fading or color variation.

    (ii) Trex agreed to discontinue the manufacture of non-shelled
decking, railing and fencing products (other than Trex Traditional
Railing and Trex Seclusions Fencing) by December 31, 2013.

   (iii) Trex agreed to provide a video demonstrating cleaning
instructions for non-shelled products on its website, and to
distribute warranty pads to retailers.

    (iv) The cost to Trex is capped at $8.25 million plus $1.45
million in attorneys' fees to be paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel
upon final approval of the nationwide settlement by the Court.
The settlement agreement provides that the nationwide settlement
applies to any Trex first-generation non-shelled composite
decking, railing and fencing product purchased between August 1,
2004 and August 27, 2013, the date of preliminary approval of the
nationwide settlement.

On August 27, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and on December
16, 2013, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.
During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company paid
$1.6 million related to this litigation, representing payment of
attorneys' fees and named plaintiff awards in the nationwide
settlement, and the settlements of the Stull Group and Cohen &
Malad litigation. At March 31, 2014, the Company has a remaining
accrual of $1.6 million related to this litigation. It is
reasonably possible that the Company may incur costs in excess of
the recorded amounts; however, the Company expects that the total
net cost to resolve the lawsuit will not exceed approximately $10
million.


TRIAD OF ALABAMA: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley S. Smith and Julie McGee, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Triad of Alabama, LLC, d/b/a
Flowers Hospital, Case No. 1:14-cv-00324-CSC (M.D. Ala., May 5,
2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan Sims Davis, Esq.
          Mark Adam Jones, Esq.
          M. ADAM JONES & ASSOCIATES
          206 N. Lena Street
          Dothan, AL 36303
          Telephone: (334) 699-5599
          Facsimile: (334) 699-5588
          E-mail: jordan.davis@jacobymeyers.com
                  Adam@AdamJonesLaw.com


UBS AG: Steered Members to Invest in High-Risk Funds, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Fernandez; Augusto Schreiner; Eddie Toro Velez; Victor R.
Vela Diez De Andino; Juan Viera; Georgina Velez Montes; and Esther
Santana, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. UBS AG; UBS Financial Services, Inc.; UBS Financial Services
Incorporated of Puerto Rico; UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico; UBS
Bank USA; Carlos V. Ubinas; Miguel A. Ferrer; Banco Popular De
Puerto Rico; and Popular Securities, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03252-
PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2014) arises out of the alleged misconduct
of financial services companies that owed Puerto Rico-based
investors the highest standard of fiduciary duty.

In violation of that duty, the Defendants steered Class members,
most of whom are older individuals focused on preserving their
capital and generating income for retirement, to invest in certain
funds, which were high-risk, volatile investments that ultimately
wiped out much of Class members' life savings, the Plaintiffs
allege.  The Defendants did so to line their own pockets with
enormous fees and commissions and without any regard for the
suitability of these risky investments for Plaintiffs and other
Class members, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Funds are 23 closed-end mutual funds, which were sponsored or
co-sponsored by UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico
and Banco Popular de Puerto Rico.  The Funds are incorporated
under Puerto Rico law.  Each is structured to provide tax-free
income for Puerto Rico residents so long as at least 67% of the
Funds' holdings are Puerto Rico assets.

UBS AG is a Swiss global financial services company with its
principal places of business in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Daniel Lawrence Berger, Esq.
          Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
          Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
          Robert Daniel Gerson, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Ave. 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
                  dberger@gelaw.com
                  delman@gelaw.com
                  mthomas@gelaw.com
                  rgerson@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Andres W. Lopez, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ P.S.C.
          PO Box 13909
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 294-9508
          E-mail: andres@awllaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald Silk, Esq.
          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          Michael Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  hannah@blbglaw.com
                  jeremy@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
          Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
          Margaret E. Onasch, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (PA)
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: myarnoff@ktmc.com
                  jwhitman@ktmc.com
                  monasch@ktmc.com


US TRADING: Recalls Crushed Chili Powder Due to Health Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
US Trading Company of Hayward, CA is recalling its Dragonfly Brand
Crushed Chili Powder in 6.3 ounce plastic tubs with lot code
359XP, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.

The product was distributed nationwide in retail stores and food
wholesale.

The Crushed Chili Powder comes in a 6.3 ounce clear plastic tub.
The bar code 7 21557 53317 8 is printed on the front of the tub.
The code 359XP is affixed to the bottom of container. This is a
Product of Thailand

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall is a result of a routine sampling done by FDA

The problem was noted only in code 359XP. Production and
distribution of the product has been suspended while FDA,
California Dept of Public Health and firm continue the
investigation.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 510-781-1818 Monday-Friday
between 8:30am through 5:00pm


VENTLAB LLC: Conducts Nationwide Recall of Resuscitator Bags
------------------------------------------------------------
Ventlab LLC of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has initiated a voluntary
medical device removal of a limited number of Ventlab(TM)
Resuscitator Bags after becoming aware of complaints regarding a
sticking duckbill valve that resulted in the resuscitation bags
delivering no air through the patient valve, to the patient. The
valves may stick due to incomplete curing during the manufacturing
process. Resuscitation bags affected may not function properly and
may result in a delay of treatment and life threatening health
consequences that include hypoxia and hypoventilation.

End users who have resuscitation bags within the lot numbers
listed below should stop using them and immediately contact
Ventlab, LLC. for further instructions on the return of these
products.

The table provides the resuscitation bag series, features,
respective lot numbers and manufacture dates of the recalled
models:

RESUSCITATION
BAG SERIES     FEATURES      LOT NUMBERS  MANUFACTURE DATES
-------------  --------      -----------  -----------------
AF1000,         W/ MANOMETER  105147 -     01/10/2013 -
AF2000,                       107609       05/21/2013
AF5000,
BT4000,
VN2000,
VN5000,
VT1000

AF1000,         W/ MANOMETER  106245       03/04/2013 -
AF2000,         AND W/        - 107291     05/06/2013
AF3000,         POP-OFF VALVE
AF4000,
AF5000,
BT2000,
BT3000,
BT4000,
PRO-1900,
SC7000,
SC8120,
SS3200,
VN2000,
VN3000,
VN4000,
VN5000

VN2102          W/ MANOMETER  200349       6/20/2013
                AND W/
                POP-OFF VALVE

AF1000,         W/ MANOMETER  107029       04/11/2013
AF2000,         AND W/        - 107634     - 05/23/2013
AF3000,         POP-OFF VALVE
AF4000,
AF5000,
BT2000,
BT3000,
BT4000,
BT5000,
BVM700,
CPRM2000,
CPRM3000,
PRO-1000,
PRO-2000,
SC7000,
SC8020,
VN2000,
VN3000,
VN4000

VN2002          W/ MANOMETER  200492       7/1/2013
                AND W/
                POP-OFF VALVE

SC8000,         W/O MANOMETER  101441      05/17/2012
SC9000          AND W/O        - 107461    - 05/09/2013
                POP-OFF VALVE

CPRM1000        W/O MANOMETER  99523       02/14/2012
                AND W/O        - 107315    - 05/02/2013
                POP-OFF VALVE

The recalled products were distributed nationwide and can be
identified by the part number, description and lot number on the
case labels, as well as a small white label on the individual
packaging bag.

There has been one report of injury requiring medical intervention
due to the lack of a functional resuscitation bag and 31 reports
of a delay in oxygenation due to the requirement to utilize a 2nd
or 3rd device. The FDA has been notified of this voluntary action
by Ventlab, LLC.

Ventlab, LLC. will notify its distributors and customers by a
direct mailing and arrange for the return and replacement of all
of the recalled resuscitation bags listed.

End Users with questions may contact Ventlab LLC. via telephone at
1-844-635-5326 between the hours of 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM (EST)
Monday through Friday. Consumers may also contact the company via
e-mail at PFA@ventlab.com

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

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

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


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bristol Pension Fund to Amend Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the suit City of Bristol Pension Fund v.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. is seeking to file an
amended complaint, according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On September 6, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, City
of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants.
The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed
the City of Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of
Bristol's attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on February 11, 2013. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on April 12, 2013. On May 28, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint. On June 27, 2013, the Company filed a reply in
further support of the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint. The court conducted a hearing on the Company's motion
to dismiss on November 25, 2013, and the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint on March 31, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a
motion (i) for reconsideration and (ii) to file a second amended
complaint on April 28, 2014. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, as well as
disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants'
sales of the Company's common stock. As of March 31, 2014, the
Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class
action.


WELLS FARGO: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
ILYM Group, Inc., a neutral third party that has been court
appointed as Claims Administrator for this case, on May 8
disclosed that Class Counsel, Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart
and Abbas Kazerounian of the Kazerouni Law Group, APC, announced
an agreement to resolve a class action pending against Wells Fargo
Bank in federal court in California.  The lawsuit alleges that
Wells Fargo violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending text messages to non-Wells Fargo customer's cell phones,
without the recipient's prior express consent, in connection with
Wells Fargo's send/receive money product program, using an
automated dialer.  Under the terms of the settlement, Wells Fargo
denies any liability but agreed to fund a $950,000 settlement to
fully resolve the matter without the time and expense of a court
proceeding.

The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of California, Barani v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No.; 3-12-CV-02999-GPCKSC,
and is subject to the court's final approval.  The Settlement
Class consists of:

All wireless phone subscribers and users within the United States
of America, who received any text message/s from Defendant in
connection with, or as a result of, its send/receive money product
program, who were not customers of Defendant at the time the
text/s were sent, which text messages were sent during the Class
Period.

The Class Period ranges from December 18, 2008 through June 20,
2013.  The settlement fund, less attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, costs of notice, and claims administration costs, as
approved by the Court, will be distributed on a pro rata basis to
Settlement Class members who submit valid claims under procedures
implemented by the Court overseeing the settlement.  Wells Fargo
has identified 76,189 non-Wells Fargo customer cellular telephone
numbers that were sent the text message in question.  Most persons
included in the Settlement Class can be identified using a reverse
directory search using phone numbers from Wells Fargo's records
and will receive mailed notice of the settlement.  Individuals who
received such text message/s but who cannot be identified through
a reverse directory lookup in connection with the identified
cellular telephone number will need to contact the Claims
Administrator to determine if they are in the Settlement Class.
For more information, go to
http://www.wellsfargotextsettlement.com

Contact:

Class Counsel:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Kazerouni Law Group, APC
Tel: 1-800-400-6808
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


YELP INC: No Ruling Yet on Appeal v. Dismissal of Rating Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal by plaintiffs against the dismissal of a suit accusing
Yelp Inc. of manipulating the ratings and reviews on its platform,
according to the company's May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

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


* Bill to Require Recalled Cars to be Fixed Before Sold
-------------------------------------------------------
David Undercoffler and Jerry Hirsch, writing for Los Angeles
Times, report that used cars that get recalled by manufacturers
need to be fixed before they're sold.  That's what a bill pending
in the California Legislature would require of all new and used
car dealers in the state.

And with 2014 on pace to break the auto industry records for most
recalls in a year, the bill is taking on more urgency, supporters
said Tuesday at a news conference.  A vast majority of those
recalls involve older vehicles.

"This bill is absolutely critical for consumer safety, it's good
for the economy and it puts California at forefront for car
safety," said Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), the
bill's sponsor.

Her bill (SB 686) would prohibit new and used car dealerships --
regardless of size -- from selling a used vehicle "if the dealer
knows or should have known" that it had been recalled by its
manufacturer.  The dealer would be required to have the issue
fixed -- a cost covered by the automaker -- or sell it to another
dealer.

Private-party sales and car rentals would not be included in the
bill, though a car rental company selling the car would be.

Currently, federal law prohibits the sale of new cars if they have
been recalled but not repaired. But the federal law does not cover
used cars.

Jackson's bill passed the state Senate in July 2013, but it
stalled once it hit committee in the state Assembly.  There it
faced stiff opposition from car dealers.  One of their key
arguments against the bill was that it would be very difficult for
a dealer to keep tabs on the recall status of every vehicle on the
lot.

Yet a month later, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration issued a rule requiring all automakers to post on
their websites a database of all recalls, which owners and dealers
could search using a vehicle identification number.  That rule
goes into effect this August.

This -- and greater public awareness of this year's General Motors
recalls -- encouraged Jackson and the bill's supporters to keep
fighting for it.  It's also an election year, and proponents are
hoping the bill lands on the state Assembly floor for a vote.

"We're determined to make this happen one way or another," said
Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and
Safety, a key supporter of the bill.  "Whatever it takes."

Opponents of the bill say it's well-intentioned but needs changes.
Not only are private-party sales excluded, but the bill doesn't
force rental companies to fix the vehicles that they're lending to
the public, said Brian Maas, president of the California New Car
Dealers Assn.

"We have as much an interest as anybody in getting this fixed,"
Mr. Maas said.  "But the devil is in the details."

Proposed federal legislation could also make the California bill
moot.

"Why are we pursuing California legislation when the president is
pursuing a much more comprehensive solution?" Mr. Maas said.  "For
this to work effectively this really needs to be a 50-state
solution.  It doesn't make sense to limit it to California."

The next step for Jackson's bill comes next month, once again in
the Assembly.  It will be taken up by the Business, Professions
and Consumer Protection Committee in mid-June.

The federal Grow America Act, the Obama administration's four-
year, $302-billion transportation plan, includes proposed
legislation that would give the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration the ability to force used car dealers nationwide to
make sure recalled vehicles are repaired before they are sold.

Supporters of the California bill don't like the chances of the
federal legislation.

"We don't believe Congress will pass the used car mandate,"
Ms. Shahan said.  "So we have to go state by state."

Any step toward reducing the number of recalled cars on the road
is a good one, said Jake Fisher, automotive test director for
Consumer Reports.  "Recalls are notoriously low compliance.
Anything like that which could make sure unsafe cars aren't sold
to people is going to help."

A study by the Society of Automotive Engineers that looked at
recalls in 2008 found that the older a car was, the less likely it
was to have been repaired.  The trade group found that only 42% of
the 2000 model year vehicles recalled in 2008 were repaired.  That
jumped to 79% for 2008 model year vehicles.

One reason is that new cars are more likely to be serviced by
dealers who check whether there are outstanding recalls for
vehicles in their service bays and make the repairs.

Automakers so far this year have recalled more than 14 million
vehicles in the U.S.  That figure is on pace to break the
industry's recall record of 30.8 million vehicles set in 2004.


* Senator Calls on Hospitals to Address Medical Errors
------------------------------------------------------
Zack Budryk, writing for FierceHealthcare, reports that hospitals
must do more to address medical errors, which cause an average of
325,000 patient deaths annually, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
said in a report released on April 25.

Last year, Sen. Boxer asked her staff to investigate and compile a
list of the most common and harmful medical errors.  "What the
staff found out was that there was not a single list -- there were
many lists," the report states.  In response to Boxer's request
for a single, consolidated list, the Partnership for Patients last
summer released the nine most common errors:

   -- Fall/immobility-related injuries
   -- Obstetrical adverse events
   -- Pressure ulcers (bedsores)
   -- Central line-associated bloodstream infections
   -- Catheter-associated urinary tract infections
   -- Adverse drug events
   -- Venous thromboembolism
   -- Surgical site infections
   -- Ventilator-associated pneumonia

In response, Sen. Boxer wrote to 238 California acute care
hospitals in February requesting information about their efforts
to reduce the most common errors.  Thus far 149 hospitals (53
percent) responded, reporting they do take some steps to reduce
the errors named in Boxer's document.

For example, to prevent infections, UCLA Medical Center uses
ultraviolet technology to disinfect hospitals, bans home-laundered
scrubs, and does not allow doctors with casts, bandages or open
wounds into surgical areas.

A 2013 study found hospital medical errors are the third-leading
cause of death in the U.S, behind only heart disease and cancer,
with rates possibly as high as 400,000 deaths per year,
FierceHealthcare previously reported.

"This is not the time to sit back and do nothing when we have
hundreds of thousands of deaths each year," Sen. Boxer said during
a news conference at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, according
to the Daily Democrat.  "We have the opportunity to save hundreds
of thousands of lives each year."


* Supreme Court to Rule on Viability of Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that as the U.S.
Supreme Court's nine-month term reaches a climax, nearly all of
the most hotly anticipated decisions will be in high-stakes
business cases.

Between now and the end of June, when the court must decide all of
the cases argued since October, the nine justices will issue a
string of rulings on the viability of securities class action
lawsuits, the legal rules for patenting software and the fate of
online TV startup Aereo.  Those rulings could in some ways
overshadow some of the cases that touch upon social and political
issues, which most often take center stage this time of year.

Although the court still must decide such cases -- protests
outside abortion clinics and religious objections to President
Barack Obama's healthcare law -- none is as important as the 2012
opinion that upheld the individual mandate of the healthcare law
or the one in 2013 helping to pave the way for gay marriage.

"There isn't a singular blockbuster," said Pratik Shah --
pshah@akingump.com -- a lawyer with the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld law firm.  But he said the securities class action and
software patent cases could have huge ramifications for business.

In the securities case, Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the
court could hand a sizable setback to the securities class action
plaintiffs' bar by making it harder to bring such lawsuits.  The
case could give corporations better defenses at the preliminary
class certification stage of the litigation.

The patent case, Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, could tighten up
eligibility requirements for software patents, possibly curbing
litigation brought by so-called "patent trolls," defined as
companies that hold patents only for the purpose of suing firms
seeking to develop new products.

                         Landmark Potential

Oral arguments, heard in March, showed justices wary of broad
rulings in either case, but each still has the capacity to reshape
the law in their respective areas.

"They will be significant as much for how broadly they are written
as to who actually wins," said Kannon Shanmugam --
kshanmugam@wc.com -- a lawyer at Williams & Connolly.

The case of Aereo, a company backed by media mogul Barry Diller's
IAC/InterActiveCorp, will likely have an impact on the television
industry.  The online service that enables subscribers to watch
broadcast TV on mobile devices and computers, is accused by TV
networks of violating copyright law.

A win for Aereo could spur innovation in the industry by paving
the way to new, cheaper ways for consumers to watch shows.  It
also could threaten the estimated $3 billion in so-called
retransmission fees that broadcasters get from cable and satellite
TV systems.  If Aereo loses, it could be forced to shut down.

Although sympathetic to the networks generally, the justices
signaled concern during oral argument in April that a ruling
against Aereo could threaten increasingly popular cloud computing
services.


* Task Force Calls for Amendment to Strengthen Malpractice Caps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Miller, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
following a Florida Supreme Court decision that struck down caps
on certain awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, the members of
a 2002 task force that supported those caps are calling for a
constitutional amendment that would place the caps on solid
footing.

The task force appointed by then-Gov. Jeb Bush recommended a cap
for individuals on non-economic damages, such as pain and
suffering, and the legislature passed it in 2003.  The five people
who served on that task force wrote to Senate President Don Gaetz
and House Speaker Will Weatherford on April 9, asking for the
proposed amendment.  It would have to be approved by voters.

However, officials in both chambers said the request comes too
late in this year's legislative session for any action.

The panel members in 2002 compiled a 345-page report that resulted
in legislation in 2003 placing a $500,000 lid for individuals on
non-economic damages.  The five members who signed the letter
wrote that the court decision left them in a "disheartening"
position.  They included task force president John Hitt, president
of the University of Central Florida, and Donna Shalala, the
former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services who now serves
as president of the University of Miami.

In the letter, the five asked legislative leaders to consider
putting a constitutional amendment before voters that would give
the malpractice caps constitutional authority and remove questions
about their constitutionality.

Last month, Florida's high court ruled that the caps violate the
equal protection guarantee in the state's constitution.

The lawsuit limits had been part of a law that Bush pushed in an
effort to lower the cost of malpractice insurance rates and to
keep doctors from moving out of state.  Supporters at the time
called skyrocketing insurance rates a crisis.

"Because we are eager to give the court the benefit of the doubt,
we can only conclude that they made an egregious mistake,"
concluded the letter, signed by the panel.

The idea that the Senate would consider the issue at this point in
the session, with about two weeks left, is "unlikely," a Gaetz
spokeswoman said.

On the House side, subcommittees are no longer meeting, which
would hinder any consideration at this point, a spokesman said.


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *