CAR_Public/140520.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 99

                             Headlines


ACTAVIS PLC: Loestrin 24 Litigation Continues in Rhode Island
ACTAVIS PLC: Arguments v. Dismissal of Columbia Stock Suit Set
ACTAVIS PLC: Faces Suits Over Forest Laboratories Merger Deal
ACTAVIS PLC: No Trial Yet for Certification Issues in Fax Suit
ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott Faces Suits in Canada Over Actonel

ALLOMETRICS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Class Says
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Still Faces Amended Securities Suit in Calif.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Stock Suit Stayed Due to "Halliburton"
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Court Mulls Certification of ERISA Suit
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Court Stays Securities Lawsuit

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 29 Trial Set in SICO Treasury Suit
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Certification of Caremark Lawsuit
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: 2015 Trial Set in "Krueger" ERISA Suit
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Suit Over REIT
APPLE INC: To Unveil Details of No Poach Settlement by May 27

APPLE INC: Plaintiff Lawyers Need to Rework Privacy Suit Claims
AVON PRODUCTS: 511,000 Ergonomic Eyelash Curler Due to Injury Risk
BANK SAFRA: Gordon Dadds Calls on Investors to Join Suit
BLACKROCK ADVISORS: Sued for Charging Disproportionately Big Fees
BMC: Recalls Three Models of Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard

CABELA'S: Recalls Electronic Jerky Blaster Due to Fire Hazard
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
CR ENGLAND: "Dunlap" Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
DAKOTA GROWERS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
DEL MONTE: Oregon Court Refuses to Review 2009 Verdict

DESSAU INC: Judge Refuses Citizen Class Action
DIMENSION INDUSTRIES: Recalls Outdoor Dining Chairs
DOUBLE HOSPITALITY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENERGY XXI: Faces Litigations Over Merger Agreement with EPL Oil
FRISKYLABS INC: Has Sent Texts Without Prior Consent, Suit Says

GARY A. KAY: Accused of Using Unfair Means to Collect Debt
GENERAL MOTORS: Wagners Law Firm Files Class Action in Canada
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued for Concealing Power Steering System Defect
GURSTEL CHARGO: Faces "Alexander" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
H&M HENNES: Recalls Girls' Leggings Due to Choking Hazard

INTERACTIVE MARKETING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Suit Says
JCS ENTERPRISES: Operates Ponzi Scheme, Victims Claim
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Bellino" Class Suit in S.D. New York
KBR INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in Texas
KEURIG GREEN: Accused of Monopolizing Single-Serve Brewers Market

KRAFT FOODS: Judge Denies Baristas' Class Certification Bid
LEGRAND WIREMOLD: Recalls 46,169 Under-Cabinet Power Strip
LINN ENERGY: In Talks to Settle Lawsuit by Royalty Owners
LINN ENERGY: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated N.Y. Securities Suit
M&T BANK: Class Action to Proceed to Pre-Trial Phase

MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Dooley" Suit to W.D. Tenn.
MISTY MATE: 9,000 High Pressure Personal Misters Recalled
NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Felt Easter Baskets Recalled
NCL CORP: Supreme Court Won't Review Labor Lawsuit Dismissal
NCL CORP: Bahamas Unit Faces Suit Over Crew Wage "Deductions"

NEC CORP: June 23 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
NUM PANG: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
OHANA MILITARY: Removed "Barber" Suit to Hawaii District Court
PACIFIC FOODS: "Perera" Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
PANASONIC CORP: Consumers Can Pursue SD Card Price-Fixing Claims

PINTO EXPRESS: Never Paid Extra Half Time OT Rate, Suit Claims
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Nov. Trial Set in Complaint Related to Zeus
RUBY TUESDAY: Faces "Krystek" Securities Class Suit in Tennessee
SAMI'S SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
SERVICE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Body-Stacking Practice

SOUTH FLORIDA MULTISPECIALTY: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime
ST CHARLES SCHOOL DISTRICT: Dismissal of Class Action Challenged
T-MOBILE US: "Golovoy" Suit Over MetroPCS Merger Now Settled
TAKEDA PHARMA: Defense Team in Actos Suit May Face Punishments
TARGET CORP: First Hearing Set for Data Breach Suits

TD AMERITRADE: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme by A. Alleca
TENET HEALTHCARE: Accused of Calling Class Without Prior Consent
TODD ENGLISH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Gap Time and Overtime
TRANSCOR OF MIAMI: Removed "Guillaume" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
TRIFECTA MARKETING: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK

UNIV OF MIAMI HOSPITAL: Faces Overtime Class Action
UNIV OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Dismisses Action Over Undisclosed ATM Fees
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Action Over Alleged Bribery in Mexico
WESTERN UNION: Still Liable for Escheat to Calif., AG Says

WESTERN UNION: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Colorado
WESTERN UNION: Faces Ill. Suit Over "Unsolicited" Text Messages
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Units Face Suits Related to Geismar Incident
ZEOBIT LLC: Faces "Yencha" Class Suit Alleging Breach of Contract

* Court Clarifies Professional Responsibility Rules in Class Suit


                            *********


ACTAVIS PLC: Loestrin 24 Litigation Continues in Rhode Island
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation, D.R.I.
MDL No. 13-2472) continue in the federal court for the District of
Rhode Island, 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 April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et
al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages. On April 15, 2013, the
plaintiff in New York Hotel Trades withdrew its complaint and, on
April 16, 2013, refiled it in the federal court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa., Civ. No. 13-02000).
Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors (A.F.
of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan v. Warner Chilcott, et
al., D.N.J. 13-02456, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale
Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co.,
et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-02014). Electrical Workers 242 and 294
Health & Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-2862 and City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott
Public Ltd. Co., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307). The Company
anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or
similar allegations may be filed. In addition to the end-payor
suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct
payors (American Sales Company, LLC v. Warner Chilcott Public
Ltd., Co. et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347 and Rochester Drug Co-
Operative Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et al., E.D.Pa. Civ.
No. 13-133476). On June 18, 2013, defendants filed a motion with
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to
consolidate these cases in one federal district court. After a
hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order
conditionally transferring all related Loestrin 24 cases to the
federal court for the District of Rhode Island. (In re Loestrin 24
Fe Antitrust Litigation, D.R.I. MDL No. 13-2472). A preliminary
hearing was held on November 4, 2013 after which an amended,
consolidated complaint was filed on December 6, 2013. On February
6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the direct and
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' complaints. Plaintiffs' filed
oppositions to the motion on March 24, 2014 and the Company filed
its responses on April 23, 2014. On February 25, 2014, a group of
opt-out direct purchasers filed a complaint based on the same or
similar allegations asserted by the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs. The Company will have forty-five days after the court
rules on the pending motions to dismiss the direct and indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' complaints to respond to the opt-out
plaintiffs' complaint. The consolidated case is still in its early
stages and discovery has not yet begun on either the class
allegations or merits. The Company anticipates additional claims
or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations.


ACTAVIS PLC: Arguments v. Dismissal of Columbia Stock Suit Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The oral argument on the appeal against the dismissal of the
Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation will be held in
July 2014, 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.

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 8, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of Columbia Laboratories' stock
purchasers. The amended complaint generally alleges that between
December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, Watson and certain of its
officers, as well as Columbia Laboratories and certain of its
officers, made false and misleading statements regarding the
likelihood of Columbia Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of
Prochieve progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories' developmental
drug for prevention of preterm birth. Watson licensed the rights
to Prochieve from Columbia Laboratories in July 2010. The amended
complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material information concerning the statistical analysis of the
clinical studies performed by Columbia Laboratories in connection
with its pursuit of FDA approval of Prochieve. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages. On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all of the claims in the amended complaint,
which the court granted on June 11, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint on July 11, 2013. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 9, 2013.
On October 21, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. In ruling on the motion to dismiss, the
court also ruled that if the plaintiffs seek to further amend the
complaint, they must file a motion within thirty days seeking
permission to do so. On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on the district court's motion to dismiss ruling
and filed their opening appellate brief on March 20, 2014.
Respondents' briefs in the appeal were filed on April 9, 2014. The
oral argument on the appeal will be held in July 2014.


ACTAVIS PLC: Faces Suits Over Forest Laboratories Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigations filed over a merger agreement entered by Actavis plc
with Forest Laboratories Inc., among others, are still in their
early stages and discovery has not yet begun, according to
Actavis' May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On February 21, 2014, Actavis plc and certain of its subsidiaries
were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed in
state court in New York (Paul Rosenberg v. Forest Laboratories
Inc., et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, Case No.
650625/2014) by a putative class of Forest Laboratories, Inc.
shareholders. The complaint alleges generally that the Forest
Laboratories board members breached their fiduciary duties in
pursuit of a sale of the company at an unfair price and through an
unfair process. The complaints allege that the Actavis defendants
aided and abetted the fiduciary duty breaches. The complaints seek
injunctive relief to enjoin the transaction from being
consummated. Since the original suit was filed, several additional
actions, each making the same basic claims and seeking the same
injunctive relief, have been filed. (Elenor Turberg v. Forest
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Case No. 650579/2014; Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v.
Forest Laboratories Inc., et al., Supreme Court of the State of
New York, Case No. 650588/2014; Bernice Katz v. Forest
Laboratories Inc., et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Case No. 650601/2014; Andrew Bailis v. Forest Laboratories Inc.,
et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, Case No.
650791/2014; Booth Family Trust v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., et
al., Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 9396-VCP; Ian Alan
Holder v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al. , Delaware Court of
Chancery, Case No. 9400-VCP; Samuel David Scher v. Forest
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No.
9401-VCP; Sandra Missakian v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 9407-VCP). These litigations
are still in their early stages and discovery has not yet begun.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Trial Yet for Certification Issues in Fax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set yet to resolve certification issues in
the matter Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda,
Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of
Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257), 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.

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a
subsidiary of the Company, alleging conversion and alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and
Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In
April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda
as the defendant. The amended complaint alleges that by sending
unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the
class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The TCPA allows recovery of minimum
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled if
the violations are found to be willful. The complaint seeks to
assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other
similarly situated third parties. In April 2008, Anda filed an
answer to the amended complaint, denying the allegations. In
November 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to expand the
proposed class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda
lacked evidence of express permission or an established business
relationship to "All persons who on or after four years prior to
the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages
advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of
Defendant." In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint further expanding the definition and scope of the
proposed class of plaintiffs. On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a
motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on
behalf of putative class members who expressly consented or agreed
to receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay
the court proceedings pending resolution of Anda's petition to the
Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). On April 11, 2011, the
court denied the motion. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed
their motion seeking certification of a class of entities with
Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period
January 2004 through January 2008. The motion has been briefed.
However, the court granted Anda's motion to vacate the class
certification hearing until similar issues are resolved in either
or both the pending Nack litigation or with the FCC Petition. No
trial date has been set in the matter.

On May 1, 2012, an additional action under the TCPA was filed by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., purportedly on behalf of the "end
users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri
to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by
Anda were sent." (Physicians Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. S.D.
Fla., Civ. No. 12-60798). On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer
and affirmative defenses. The parties have filed a joint motion to
stay the action pending the resolution of the FCC Petition and the
FCC's recently filed Public Notice. On April 17, 2014, the court
lifted the stay but has not yet issued a revised scheduling order.

Several issues raised in plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the Medical West matter were addressed by the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case to which Anda
is not a party, Nack v. Walburg, No. 11-1460. Nack concerned
whether there is a private right of action for failing to include
any opt-out notice on faxes sent with express permission, contrary
to a FCC regulation that requires such notice on fax
advertisements. The Eighth Circuit granted Anda leave to file an
amicus brief and to participate during oral argument in the
matter, which was held on September 19, 2012. In its ruling,
issued May 21, 2013, the Eighth Circuit held that Walburg's
arguments on appeal amounted to challenges to the FCC's regulation
and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such
challenges pursuant to the Hobbs Act and it would otherwise not
decide any similar challenges without the benefit of full
participation by the FCC. The defendant in Nack has filed a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

In a related matter, on November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition
with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for
its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with
express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May
2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC
dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an
application for review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full
Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant
the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC has not ruled on
the application for review. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a
Public Notice seeking comment on several more recently-filed
petitions, all similar to the one Anda filed in 2010. Anda was one
of several parties that submitted comments on the Public Notice.


ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott Faces Suits in Canada Over Actonel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Company, LLC is aware of four purported product
liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott
in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that
Actonel caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who
ingested Actonel to suffer atypical fractures or other side
effects, 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.

Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 249 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 383 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 640 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to the Warner Chilcott's
bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel. The claimants allege,
among other things, that Actonel caused them to suffer
osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition
that involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or
atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have
been filed in either federal or state courts in the United States.
Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in these
litigations. The 383 unfiled claims involve potential plaintiffs
that have agreed, pursuant to a tolling agreement, to postpone the
filing of their claims against Warner Chilcott in exchange for
Warner Chilcott's agreement to suspend the statutes of limitations
relating to their potential claims. In addition, Warner Chilcott
is aware of four purported product liability class actions that
were brought against Warner Chilcott in provincial courts in
Canada alleging, among other things, that Actonel caused the
plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested Actonel to
suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected
that these plaintiffs will seek class certification. Of the
approximately 644 total Actonel-related claims, approximately 121
include ONJ-related claims, approximately 506 include AFF-related
claims and approximately four include both ONJ and AFF-related
claims. In some of the cases, manufacturers of other
bisphosphonate products are also named as defendants. Plaintiffs
have typically asked for unspecified monetary and injunctive
relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is reviewing
these lawsuits and potential claims and intends to defend these
claims vigorously.


ALLOMETRICS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Class Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Skiles Greer, Mitchell Greer, and Roger Coffey, individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated employees and former
employees of Defendant v. Allometrics, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
01257 (S.D. Tex., May 6, 2014) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and other commissioned salespeople, technicians, and
non-exempt employees of the Defendant, who were not paid one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

Allometrics, Inc., is a Texas corporation, with its principal
place of business in Harris County, Texas.  Allometrics is engaged
in the business of dealing in laboratory equipment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          G. Scott Fiddler, Esq.
          Andrew W. Reed, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF G. SCOTT FIDDLER, P.C.
          1004 Congress, 2nd Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 228-0070
          Facsimile: (713) 228-0078
          E-mail: scott@fiddlerlaw.com
                  areed@fiddlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven T. Parker, Esq.
          THE PARKER LAW FIRM
          715 Clear Lake Road, Suite 101
          Kemah, TX 77565
          Telephone: (281) 334-1140
          Facsimile: (281) 334-6215
          E-mail: steve@steveparkerlaw.com


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Still Faces Amended Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc. continues to face an amended securities
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, according to the company's May 1, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5,
2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and officers
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 17,
2011, an amended complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers adding alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. HealthpointCapital,
Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and
Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants
in this action. The complaint alleges that the defendants made
false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material facts, about the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Scient'x
transaction and the company's financial guidance following the
closing of the acquisition. The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Stock Suit Stayed Due to "Halliburton"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York Court stayed proceedings in In re American International
Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation pending a decision in
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (U.S. Nov.
15, 2013) (Halliburton II), according to American International's
May 5, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and
certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside
auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the Southern District of New York), alleging claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
Securities Act). On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all
eight of the purported securities class actions as In re American
International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation).

On May 19, 2009, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements. The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG
Common Stock. The alleged false and misleading statements relate
to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act. On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On April 26, 2013, the Court granted a motion for judgment on the
pleadings brought by the defendants. The Court's order dismissed
all claims against the outside auditors in their entirety, and it
also reduced the scope of the Securities Act claims against AIG
and defendants other than the outside auditors.

On January 30, 2014, the Court stayed proceedings in the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation pending a decision in
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (U.S. Nov.
15, 2013) (Halliburton II), in which the U.S. Supreme Court will
consider the validity of, and what is needed to invoke or rebut,
the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance currently
applicable to the certification of classes of claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Court Mulls Certification of ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in In re American International Group, Inc.
ERISA Litigation II, and the Court has not determined if a class
action is appropriate or the size or scope of any class, 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 June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these eight
actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II. On September 4, 2012, lead plaintiffs' counsel
filed a second consolidated amended complaint. The action purports
to be brought as a class action under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all
participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG
and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. In
the second consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On November 20, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint. As of May 5, 2014,
discovery is ongoing, and the Court has not determined if a class
action is appropriate or the size or scope of any class.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Court Stays Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has not determined whether
it has jurisdiction over a securities suit filed against American
International Group, Inc. or granted plaintiff's application to
file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has occurred and
the action has been stayed, 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 November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG
and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the
application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a
statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through
September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on
the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a
pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012 SCC
17. On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the
standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out-of-
province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a defendant must
have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual,"
presence to be deemed to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in future cases,
defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they are found to be
doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their business
activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter
of the litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate. As of May 5, 2014, the Court has not
determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has
occurred and the action has been stayed.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 29 Trial Set in SICO Treasury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the SICO Treasury Action against American International
Group, Inc. is scheduled to begin in the Court of Federal Claims
on September 29, 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.

On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO)
filed a complaint against the United States in the United States
Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing
claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes defined and
derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The
complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant
to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the
FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an
approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges
that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory,
unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered
by the government to other comparable firms at the time and
violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of
the U.S. Constitution.

On November 21, 2011, SICO also filed a second complaint in the
Southern District of New York against the FRBNY bringing claims,
both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO New York Action). This
complaint also challenges the government's assistance of AIG,
pursuant to which AIG entered into the FRBNY Credit Facility and
the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership
in AIG. The complaint alleges that the FRBNY owed fiduciary duties
to AIG as the company's controlling shareholder, and that the
FRBNY breached these fiduciary duties by "divert[ing] the rights
and assets of AIG and its shareholders to itself and favored third
parties" through transactions involving Maiden Lane III LLC (ML
III), an entity controlled by the FRBNY, and by "participating in,
and causing AIG's officers and directors to participate in, the
evasion of AIG's existing Common Stock shareholders' right to
approve the massive issuance of the new Common Shares required to
complete the government's taking of a nearly 80 percent interest
in the Common Stock of AIG." SICO also alleges that the "FRBNY has
asserted that in exercising its control over, and acting on behalf
of, AIG it did not act in an official, governmental capacity or at
the direction of the Department of Treasury," but that "[t]o the
extent the proof at or prior to trial shows that the FRBNY did in
fact act in a governmental capacity, or at the direction of the
Department of Treasury, the improper conduct . . . constitutes the
discriminatory takings of the property and property rights of AIG
without due process or just compensation."

On January 31, 2012 and February 1, 2012, amended complaints were
filed in the Court of Federal Claims and the Southern District of
New York, respectively.

In rulings dated July 2, 2012 and September 17, 2012, the Court of
Federal Claims largely denied the United States' motion to dismiss
in the SICO Treasury Action. Discovery is proceeding.

On November 19, 2012, the Southern District of New York granted
the FRBNY's motion to dismiss the SICO New York Action, and on
January 29, 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the Southern
District of New York's dismissal of the SICO New York Action. On
April 29, 2014, SICO filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari,
seeking review of the Second Circuit's order by the Supreme Court
of the United States.

In both of the actions commenced by SICO, the only claims naming
AIG as a party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on
behalf of AIG. On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation
demand on the company's Board demanding that the company pursues
the derivative claims in both actions or allow SICO to pursue the
claims on the company's behalf. On January 9, 2013, the company's
Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on
January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel
for SICO describing the process by which the company's Board
considered and refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons for
the company's Board's determination.

On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action and denied the United States'
motion to dismiss SICO's direct claims.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September
22, 2008; and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG
Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those
shares at AIG's June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. SICO
has provided notice of class certification to potential members of
the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25,
2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to
participate in either class. On November 15, 2013, SICO informed
the Court that  286,892 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two
class periods had opted into the classes.

While no longer a party to these actions, AIG understands that
SICO is seeking significant damages. Trial in the SICO Treasury
Action is scheduled to begin in the Court of Federal Claims on
September 29, 2014.

The United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its
answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its
representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery
in the SICO Treasury Action, and seeks a contingent offset or
recoupment for the value of net operating loss benefits the United
States alleges that the company received as a result of the
government's assistance. On November 8, 2013, the Court denied a
motion by SICO to strike the United States' affirmative defenses
of indemnification and contingent offset or recoupment.

The FRBNY has also requested indemnification in connection with
the SICO New York Action from AIG under the FRBNY Credit Facility
and from ML III under the Master Investment and Credit Agreement
and the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement
of ML III.

A determination that the United States is liable for damages,
together with a determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify
the United States for any such damages, could have a material
adverse effect on the company's business, consolidated financial
condition and results of operations.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Certification of Caremark Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. is appealing to the Alabama
Supreme Court the class certification of a suit that arise out of
the 1999 settlement of a case involving Caremark Rx, Inc., and the
case in the trial court will be stayed until that appeal is
resolved, according to American International's May 5, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the
second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the
second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. AIG and the other
defendants have appealed that order to the Alabama Supreme Court,
and the case in the trial court will be stayed until that appeal
is resolved. General discovery has not commenced and AIG is unable
to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from the litigation.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: 2015 Trial Set in "Krueger" ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in the suit Roger Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise
Financial, et al. is currently scheduled for March 1, 2015,
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 October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to the
present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA, by selecting and retaining primarily
proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor performance
histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options
and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial or its
subsidiaries. The action also alleges that the Company breached
fiduciary duties under ERISA because it used its affiliate
Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan trustee and record-keeper and
improperly reaped profits from the sale of the record-keeping
business to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Plaintiffs allege over $20 million
in damages. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 7,
2012. On April 11, 2012, the Company filed its motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint, which was denied on November 20, 2012. On
July 3, 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment on statute of
limitations grounds. On March 20, 2014, the Court filed its
decision, granting in part and denying in part the motion. A
hearing on class certification was held on December 10, 2013, and
the parties are awaiting a decision. The parties are engaged in
discovery. The trial is currently scheduled for March 1, 2015.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Suit Over REIT
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss Jeffers vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et
al. has been fully briefed and submitted to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for review
and decision, according to Ameriprise Financial Inc.'s May 5,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jeffers
vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois relating to its sales of the Inland Western
(now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc. ("RPAI")) REIT.
The action also names as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI's
executives, and several members of RPAI's board. The action
alleges that the Company failed to perform required due diligence
and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including fees
charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and
valuation of the shares on client account statements. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages. The Company was served in December 2012,
and, on April 19, 2013, moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion
has been fully briefed and submitted to the Court for review and
decision.


APPLE INC: To Unveil Details of No Poach Settlement by May 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe
Systems have settled a class-action lawsuit alleging they
conspired to prevent their engineers and other highly sought
technology workers from getting better job offers from one
another.

The agreement announced recently averts a Silicon Valley trial
that threatened to expose the tactics deployed by billionaire
executives such as late Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs and former
Google Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt to corral less affluent employees
working on a variety of products and online services.  Had they
lost, the companies also faced the prospect of paying as much as
$9 billion.

The trial had been scheduled to begin May 27 in San Jose.

Terms of the settlement aren't being revealed yet.  Those details
will be provided in documents that will be filed in court by
May 27.


APPLE INC: Plaintiff Lawyers Need to Rework Privacy Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
sent plaintiffs lawyers back to the drawing board on May 14 to
rework their claims that a host of app makers illegally siphoned
information from consumers' address books on iPhones and other
Apple devices.

In a 57-page order, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern
District of California picked apart the lion's share of claims
filed in a massive class action against Apple and the
manufacturers of popular apps, including Twitter, Facebook,
Instagram and Angry Birds.  In one consolation prize for
plaintiffs, Judge Tigar allowed a common-law claim alleging app
makers violated users' reasonable expectation of privacy to move
forward without amendments.

But the rest of the plaintiffs' claims left him wanting, more
often than not, for details.  For example, he wrote that
plaintiffs must identify the particular advertisements viewed by
consumers in order to sufficiently allege that Apple misled them
about the security of their devices.

"What the [consolidated amended class action complaint] fails to
do is connect any specific plaintiff to any specific
representation," Judge Tigar wrote.  "The court now concludes,
even reading the complaint in the light most favorable to
plaintiffs, that plaintiffs have failed to allege that any one of
them saw any particular representation."

Judge Tigar is shepherding five related cases that claim Apple and
14 app makers violated users' privacy by stealing and distributing
the contact information stored on their devices.  Although Apple's
policies appeared to prohibit such disclosures, the New York Times
reported last year that scores of popular applications were
tapping into users' address books, spawning the suits.

Judge Tigar named Kerr & Wagstaffe and Phillips, Erlewine & Given
as colead counsel for the plaintiffs last year.  A spate of Big
Law attorneys have entered the fray for the defendants, including
Cooley for Facebook Inc., Perkins Coie for Twitter Inc., Durie
Tangri for Yelp Inc., ZwillGen Law for Electronic Arts Inc. and
Gibson Dunn for Apple.

Last year, Judge Tigar found that a plaintiff in one case, Pirozzi
v. Apple, had done enough to show which statements from Apple were
relied on as consideration in whether to purchase the devices.
But defendants prodded Judge Tigar to reconsider, and he came
around to their side on May 14, finding that the plaintiff had
merely alleged that she visited Apple's website, not that she read
particular statements she claimed were misleading.

But Judge Tigar was more receptive to plaintiffs' common-law claim
that the app makers defied the expectations of privacy by
plundering plaintiffs' address books.  The defendants contended
that the claim should be tossed because the intrusion was not
"highly offensive."  But that judgment should be left to a jury,
Judge Tigar wrote.

"While the court recognizes that attitudes toward privacy are
evolving in the age of the internet, smartphones and social
networks, the court does not believe that the surreptitious theft
of personal contact information . . . has come to be qualified as
'routine commercial behavior,'" he wrote.


AVON PRODUCTS: 511,000 Ergonomic Eyelash Curler Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer Avon Products, Inc., Freeport, NY, announced voluntary
recall of about 478,000 in the United States and 41,795 in Canada
"Ergonomic Eyelash Curler."  The eyelash curler can break,
exposing a metal pin, which poses an eye injury hazard to
consumers.

This recall involves an Avon Ergonomic Eyelash Curler which is
silver with black ergonomic finger grips.  The word Avon is
engraved in the silver upper lash curling bar. The recalled curler
has the Avon model number F3093441 which can be found on the
product's box.

Avon has received 24 reports of the Ergonomic Eyelash Curler
breaking, including six reports of the spring breaking.  These 24
incidents include 13 reports of injury, including three for which
the consumer received medical attention.

Consumers may contact Avon Products toll-free at (877) 217-5076
(English) or (877) 217-5077 (Espa¤ol) from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or online at www.avon.com and click on
Product Recall at the bottom of the page.  Consumers should
immediately stop using the recalled Ergonomic Eyelash Curler and
return it to Avon in exchange for either a refund or a Mega
Effects Mascara.

The product is sold through Independent Avon sales representatives
or online at www.avon.com from January 2007 through April 2014 for
about $5.  The product is made in China.


BANK SAFRA: Gordon Dadds Calls on Investors to Join Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Have you invested in financial products promoted by Bank Safra
Sarasin?

Gordon Dadds disclosed that it has been engaged on behalf of a
group of investors who have incurred significant losses arising
from investments made in products promoted by Bank Safra Sarasin.

If you have invested in any products promoted by this bank and
suffered loss and wish to consider joining with others in a
similar position please contact:

          Michael Hatchwell
          Gordon Dadds
          6 Agar Street
          London WC2N 4HN
          E-mail: michaelhatchwell@gordondadds.com


BLACKROCK ADVISORS: Sued for Charging Disproportionately Big Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Davidson, in His Capacity as Trustee on Behalf of West
Putnam Avenue Trust, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated v. BlackRock Advisors, LLC, BlackRock Investment
Management, LLC, and Blackrock International Limited, Case No.
3:14-cv-02863-JAP-DEA (D.N.J., May 6, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants have breached their fiduciary duty by charging and
receiving investment advisory fees from the BlackRock Global
Allocation Fund, Inc. that are so disproportionately large that
they bear no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and
could not have been the product of arm's-length bargaining.

The action is brought by Mr. Davidson in his capacity as trustee
of West Putnam Avenue Trust, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated shareholders of the Fund pursuant to the
Investment Company Act of 1940.

The Defendants are investment advisers or subadvisers to the Fund
and receive an annual fee from the Fund for providing investment
advisory services, including managing the Fund's portfolio of
assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602
          Facsimile: (212) 952-0608
          E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com


BMC: Recalls Three Models of Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BMC, of San Diego, Calif., announced voluntary recall of about 160
BMC Alpenchallenge, Masschallenge and Urbanchallenge Bicycles with
Aprebic Forks.

The bicycle forks can crack or break above the brake mount posing
a fall hazard to consumers.

The recall involves certain models of Alpenchallenge,
Urbanchallenge and Masschallenge bicycles equipped with full
carbon Aprebic bike forks model ACC-A704DN50B.  The fork model
number is printed behind the top arch. Specific bicycle models
included in the recall are Alpenchallenge AC01 105 Tiagra,
Alpenchallenge AC01 Rival, Masschallenge MC01 Team and the
Urbanchallenge UC01 Alfine 11. Both the Alpenchallenge and
Urbanchallenge bicycles include the 2012 and 2013 model years. The
Masschallenge bicycle includes model year 2012. The model year is
printed on the top tube of the bike. The bicycles come in black
and yellow, or black and red color combinations.

No injuries have been reported.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled bicycles
immediately and contact their local BMC authorized dealer for
instructions on receiving a replacement fork.

The bicycles are sold at authorized BMC bicycle dealers nationwide
from December 2011 to June 2013 for about $1,000.  The bikes are
manufactured in Taiwan.

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.  Consumers may contact: BMC at (800)
819-4262 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online
at www.bmc-racing.com and click on "Service" then click on the
"Recall page" link or email at infousa@bmc-switzerland.com for
more information.


CABELA'S: Recalls Electronic Jerky Blaster Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cabela's announced voluntary recall of about 600 Electronic Jerky
Blaster.  The battery charger adapter can overcharge causing the
Electronic Jerky Blaster's battery and battery charger adapter to
overheat.

This recall involves Cabela's Electronic Jerky Blaster, which
resembles a caulking gun. The product has a black handle, a gold-
toned 15" tube that holds the meat with "Cabela's Power Jerky"
written on it and interchangeable tip at the end. The hand-held,
battery powered appliance is used for making jerky sticks or
strips. It was sold as a set with interchangeable tips and
cleaning brushes. The recalled item number IK-540848 can be found
underneath the barcode on the cardboard packaging that comes with
the product and on the front of the instruction manual.

There has been one report of the battery and the battery charger
overheating.  There are no reports of injury.

Consumers may contact: Cabela's at (800) 237-4444, anytime or
online at www.Cabelas.com and click on "Consumer Product Safety"
at the bottom of the page, for more information.

The product is sold exclusively at Cabela's nationwide from August
2013 through March 2014 for about $150.  The manufacturer is Blue
Sky Innovation Group, North Ridgeville, Ohio.  The product is
manufactured in China.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, Abigail Rubenstein and Kurt Orzeck, writing for
Law360, report that Costco Wholesale Corp. failed to pay
pharmacists and department managers at its California stores
overtime or provide those employees appropriate rest and meal
breaks, according to a proposed class action removed to California
federal court on May 7.

In a complaint initially filed April 4 in San Diego Superior
Court, named plaintiff Paula Dittmar claimed Costco violated
California labor law by requiring its pharmacists and department
managers to work substantial periods of time off the clock without
proper compensation. Costco removed the suit to the Southern
District of California.

"Despite having worked such overtime, plaintiff and the pharmacist
class and department manager class were not compensated for this
time at the applicable overtime rates," the complaint said.

Ms. Dittmar was hired as a pharmacist at a San Diego-area Costco
in August 2010, and became manager of the store's pharmacy
department in June 2011.  She remained in that position until she
was terminated in December 2013 for undisclosed reasons.

According to Ms. Dittmar, she and other pharmacists and department
managers were required to work off the clock without pay,
including from home, while sick or on vacation, and while
traveling to and from stores other than their "home stores."

Costco also failed to compensate those employees for expenses
including automobile mileage, didn't provide appropriate rest and
meal breaks and failed to pay pharmacists and department managers
who quit or were terminated unpaid wages and accrued, unused
vacation wages either at the time of discharge or within 72 hours,
according to the suit.

Ms. Dittmar is seeking to represent two classes -- a class of all
current and former nonexempt pharmacists employed by Costco in
California within four years before the filing of the suit, and a
class of current and former nonexempt department managers employed
by Costco in the state during that span.  The suit asks for
damages for unpaid overtime, unpaid wages and nonreimbursed gas
mileage, along with punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
relief.

Costco has been the subject of numerous employment-related class
and collective actions in recent years.

A California federal judge in April decertified a class of
approximately 30,000 Costco employees who claim the company locked
them inside its warehouses at the end of their shifts and didn't
pay them overtime, citing lack of predominance.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel determined that though
plaintiffs could prove the existence of a policy that sometimes
resulted in unpaid detention time, there was no classwide method
for determining whether, how often and for how long the class
members were shorted on off the clock pay as a result of it.

And in December, Costco agreed to pay $8 million and update its
policies to resolve a class action in California federal court
accusing it of overlooking women for promotions to certain
warehouse management positions. Costco didn't admit any wrongdoing
under the deal, which resolved a nearly decadelong legal battle.

Ms. Dittmar is represented by Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden
LLP and Caskey & Holzman.

Costco is represented by Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Paula Dittmar v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al., case
number 3:14-cv-01556, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


CR ENGLAND: "Dunlap" Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Dunlap v. C.R. England, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 37-2014-00008298-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
San Diego County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01144-L-DHB to the proceeding.

The case arises from alleged labor issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William D. Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          625 Broadway, Suite 625
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Walter Pena, Esq.
          THEODORA ORINGHER PC
          535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7109
          Telephone: (714) 549-6200
          Facsimile: (714) 549-6201
          E-mail: wpena@tocounsel.com


DAKOTA GROWERS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a pasta manufacturer that landed in hot water over claims that its
product is suitable for low-carbohydrate diets is working towards
a $7.9 million settlement of a class-action suit.

Dakota Growers Pasta Co., under an agreement preliminarily
approved by a federal judge in Trenton, N.J., would pay $5 million
to consumers in refunds for purchases of Dreamfields, which is
touted as causing lower increase in blood sugar than conventional
pasta.

The company would also pay the plaintiff attorney fees of $2.9
million.

U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano on May 9 certified a class of
persons who bought boxes of Dreamfields with labels referring to
"glycemic index" or "digestible carbs" after February 2004.
He set Sept. 24 as the date for a fairness hearing on the
settlement.

The plaintiffs allege that the Carrington, N.D., company has no
scientific support for its claims about the lower glycemic value
of its products, which cost more than twice as much as Barilla,
SanGiorgio, Muellers or Ronzoni pasta.

Dakota Growers allegedly claimed that Dreamfields' glycemic index
-- which measures the rate of blood sugar increase after
consumption -- is 65 percent lower than other pasta because of a
special manufacturing process.  It further claimed Dreamfields
contains five grams of digestible carbohydrates per two-ounce
serving and has the ability to reduce or control spikes in blood
glucose levels.

The company said its assertions were supported by its own
scientific studies but no reports of such studies were ever made
public, the suit charged.  Further, the plaintiffs cited a study
by University of Minnesota researchers, finding that blood sugar
levels in test subjects eating Dreamfields rose at almost exactly
the same rate as those in subjects eating conventional pasta.

The plaintiffs sued for unjust enrichment, breach of warranty
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of consumer
protection laws in New Jersey, New York, California and Michigan,
the states where the four class representatives reside.

The settlement was reached in a 12-hour mediation session on
Dec. 10, 2013, with Garrett Brown Jr., retired chief judge of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, who is now
with JAMS.

The settlement would reimburse buyers for purchases of up to 15
boxes of Dreamfields at $1.99 a box.  Mr. Brown said in a
declaration that the $5 million fund to be created "appears to
represent at least 100 percent relief on a per-box basis to most
members of the settlement class, an extraordinary result."

Any funds left over after class members are paid would go to the
American Diabetes Association.

The settlement also calls for the company to remove from product
labels allegedly misleading language about the products' effects
on blood sugar levels.

Mr. Brown said that relief presented challenges because the
negotiations took place while Dakota Growers was being sold by its
current parent, Glencore Xstrata of Switzerland.  The buyer, Post
Holdings of St. Louis, agreed to keep the labeling revisions in
effect for one year after final approval of the settlement.

The settlement includes a provision allowing the company to
withdraw from it, rendering it null and void, if more than a
certain number of class members choose to opt out.  The parties
seek permission to keep the number required to trigger that
provision confidential.

Another clause bars parties and counsel from talking to the media
about the settlement, except to say the litigation has been
satisfactorily resolved.

Plaintiff counsel are John Zaremba -- jzaremba@zbblaw.com -- of
Zaremba Brownell & Brown in New York, Brian Penny --
penny@gskplaw.com -- of Goldman Scarlato Karon & Penny in Wayne,
Pa., William Federman -- wbf@federmanlaw.com -- of Federman &
Sherwood in Oklahoma City, and Charles Branham III --
tbranham@branham-law.com -- of Branham Law Group in Dallas.

The defense lawyers are Michael Davis -- mdavis@sidley.com -- of
Sidley Austin in Chicago, and Lorna Dotro --
ldotro@coughlinduffy.com -- of Couglin Duffy in Morristown.


DEL MONTE: Oregon Court Refuses to Review 2009 Verdict
------------------------------------------------------
Gosia Wozniacka, writing for Associated Press, reports the Oregon
Supreme Court has declined to review a 2009 Multnomah County
jury's class action verdict, upholding a finding that a Portland
food-processing plant violated Oregon's wage and hour laws.  The
denial on May 8 was the last appeal possible for Del Monte Fresh
Produce, short of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A trial jury ordered the company to pay about $800,000 to 330
workers who washed, cut and packaged fruits and vegetables at the
facility from 2006 to 2007 for time spent putting on and taking
off employer-required work clothing.  That comes out to more than
$2,000 per worker.  Attorney fees and costs, awarded at the trial
court level at $1.4 million, would also be paid by Del Monte.

One of the suit's named plaintiffs, Abdias Cortez Liborio, lost
her job when federal immigration officials raided the Portland
plant in June 2007 and arrested 167 employees on immigration
violation charges.  Mr. Liborio, who has three U.S. citizen
children and spent 20 years in the United States at the time of
the raid, has since gained legal immigration status.

At the time of the raid, federal investigative documents described
poor working conditions and improper pay at the plant.  Workers
filed suit against Del Monte a few months after the raid.

In January, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the 2009 verdict by
a Multnomah County jury.

This is the second of three class action suits against the plant
involving the same violations.  The first resulted in a settlement
on behalf of workers employed between 2003 and 2005.  The third,
which covers workers employed from 2007 to 2009, is pending trial,
set to begin this fall.

"Del Monte has spent years and millions defending its conduct,
rather than changing its practices and paying the wages due its
workers", said Jim McCandlish, one of the attorneys representing
the employees.


DESSAU INC: Judge Refuses Citizen Class Action
----------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that a Superior Court judge has
refused a request for a citizen class-action suit against six
engineering firms who admitted to or were accused of collusion
before the Charbonneau Commission, a decision that may be
appealed.

In the name of Erik Charest, lawyer David Bourgoin filed the
request for a class-action suit on behalf of all Montrealers who
paid taxes to the city between January 1998 and December 2010.
The suit was demanding the engineering firms, including Dessau
Inc., SNC Lavalin and Genivar, pay the claimants 20 per cent of
the monetary value of all the contracts they were awarded in that
time period, arguing that city overpayments to the firms led to a
decrease in services to citizens.

The figure was based on evidence presented at the commission in
the winter of 2013.  Witnesses testified the engineering firms
colluded among themselves, bribed municipal officials and donated
heavily to political parties to guarantee they would receive city
contracts, which allowed them to inflate prices by 20 to 30 per
cent.  The claimants of the class-action suit said the money
recouped would go into a trust to be used for Montreal contracts
and services.

Judge Louis Lacoursiere refused the request based on the fact the
claimants could not prove they had directly been denied services
due to the firm's actions, and because it was the city that has
the onus to demand lost funds, and the claimants have not shown
the city doesn't intend to do so.  Montreal has in fact said it
intends to go after engineering and construction firms to recoup
any lost funds.

"Following the logic of the class-action suit submitted, any
taxpayer could try to sue, in a private class-action suit, in the
name of a city (or of a province or a country) anyone that has
defrauded or harmed it," Judge Lacoursiere wrote in his judgment.
"The proposal disregards the concept of personal interest
necessary to sue."

Lawyer Bourgoin has a similar class-action suit request filed for
alleged collusion in Laval, before the same judge.  He said he is
seriously considering appealing the Montreal decision.

"The judge is closing the door to citizens to have any recourse
against contractors that defrauded their city," he said.  "For me
there is a principal to defend . . . given the fact that the
citizens are the first recipients of service, and they are the
ones who pay for it when there is fraud."


DIMENSION INDUSTRIES: Recalls Outdoor Dining Chairs
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dimension Industries Co., Ltd., of Taipei, Taiwan, as distributor,
announced voluntary recall of about 6,700 Fairview 7-Piece Patio
Woven Dining Set.  The legs of the chairs can bend and break,
posing a fall hazard to the user.

The recall includes the chairs sold with the Fairview 7-piece
woven patio dining set. The set includes an 80" long by 42" wide
by 29" high rectangular table with a tan with white border
porcelain tile table top and black metal framed base and six
chairs. The chairs have a black metal frame with brown woven
wicker seats and seatbacks. The chairs measure 24" wide by 27"
deep by 40" high. "7 piece Woven Dining Set" and "Imported by
Costco Wholesale" is printed on the product packaging. The item
number is printed on the instructions sold with the set and reads
"ITM./ART. 966630."

Dimension has received three reports of the chair legs bending or
breaking and causing falls, including one consumer who bumped his
head when falling.

Consumers may contact: Dimension at (800) 598-6532 from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at www.agio-usa.com and
click on "Service Center" and then "Recall Information" for more
information.  Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled
chairs and contact the firm for instructions on receiving a full
refund for the set. Costco has contacted its customers directly.

The chairs are sold exclusively at Costco Wholesale stores
nationwide from January 2014 to March 2014 for about $1,300 per
set.  The chairs are made by Shelton Corporation Jiaxing Ltd., of
Zhejiang, China, and imported by Costco Wholesale Corp., of
Issaquah, Wash.


DOUBLE HOSPITALITY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chang Yan Chen and Xiang Jie Jiang, on behalf of themselves and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. Double C Hospitality LLC, Min Xing
Wang and Jing Zhang, Case No. 1:14-cv-03282-GBD (S.D.N.Y., May 6,
2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum
wages, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Double C Hospitality LLC is a New York domestic business
corporation doing business as Legend 55 Restaurant, with a
principal place of business located in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants are officers or owners of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ENERGY XXI: Faces Litigations Over Merger Agreement with EPL Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy XXI (Bermuda) Limited faces several lawsuits in connection
with its recent announcement that it signed a definitive merger
agreement with EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., according to Energy XXI's May
1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 19, 2014, an alleged EPL stockholder (the "Lopez
plaintiff") filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of EPL
stockholders against EPL, its directors, Energy XXI, Energy XXI
Gulf Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Energy XXI ("OpCo"), and Clyde Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of OpCo
("Merger Sub" and collectively, the "defendants"). This lawsuit is
styled Antonio Lopez v. EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
9460, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Lopez lawsuit"). On April 14, 2014, another alleged EPL
stockholder (the "Lewandoski plaintiff") filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of EPL stockholders against defendants. This
lawsuit is styled David Lewandoski v. EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 9533, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Lewandoski lawsuit"). On April 23, 2014, another alleged EPL
stockholder (the "Feinstein plaintiff") filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of EPL stockholders against defendants. This
lawsuit is styled Roberta Feinstein v. EPL Oil & Gas, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 9570, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Feinstein lawsuit" and, together with the Lopez
lawsuit and Lewandoski lawsuit, the "lawsuits").

Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub,
and EPL (the "merger agreement"), which provides for the
acquisition of EPL by Energy XXI. Plaintiffs allege that (a) EPL's
directors have allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection
with the merger and (b) Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub, and EPL have
allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiffs' causes of action are based on their
allegations that (i) the merger allegedly provides inadequate
consideration to EPL stockholders for their shares of EPL common
stock; (ii) the merger agreement contains contractual terms --
including, among others, the (A) "no solicitation," (B) "competing
proposal," and (C) "termination fee" provisions -- that will
allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from making competing
offers for shares of EPL common stock; (iii) certain of EPL's
officers and directors are allegedly receiving benefits --
including (A) an offer for one of EPL's directors to join the
Energy XXI board of directors and (B) the triggering of change-in-
control provisions in notes held by EPL's executive officers --
that are not equally shared by EPL's stockholders; (iv) Energy XXI
required EPL's officers and directors to agree to vote their
shares of EPL common stock in favor of the merger; and (v) EPL
provided, and Energy XXI obtained, non-public information that
allegedly allowed Energy XXI to acquire EPL for inadequate
consideration. The Lopez plaintiff also alleges that the
Registration Statement filed on Form S-4 by EPL and Energy XXI on
April 1, 2014 omits information concerning, among other things,
(i) the events leading up to the merger, (ii) EPL's efforts to
attract offers from other potential acquirors, (iii) EPL's
evaluation of the merger; (iv) negotiations between EPL and Energy
XXI, and (v) the analysis of EPL's financial advisor. The
Feinstein plaintiff also alleges that (a) certain of EPL's
officers and directors are allegedly receiving additional benefits
-- including (i) future coverage under the surviving company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance, (ii) bonuses, and
(iii) consulting roles -- that are not equally shared by EPL's
stockholders; and (b) the Joint Proxy Statement filed by EPL and
Energy XXI on April 21, 2014 omits information concerning, among
other things, (i) certain management projection metrics, (ii) the
analysis of Energy XXI and EPL's financial advisors; (iii) the
events leading up to the merger, (iv) EPL's efforts to attract
offers from other potential acquirors; and (v) the aforementioned
voting agreements.

Based on these allegations, plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger. To the
extent that the merger is consummated before injunctive relief is
granted, plaintiffs seek to have the merger agreement rescinded.
Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys' fees.
The Lopez plaintiff has served defendants (other than Energy XXI)
and is seeking expedited proceedings. Defendants date to answer,
move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Lopez lawsuit is May
5, 2014, though this date may be changed if the Court grants
expedited proceedings. The Lewandoski plaintiff and Feinstein
plaintiff have not yet served the defendants.


FRISKYLABS INC: Has Sent Texts Without Prior Consent, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Friskylabs, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-03309 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2014) alleges that in an effort
to market its products and services, Friskylabs sent, or directed
to be sent on its behalf, unsolicited text messages to the
wireless telephones of the Plaintiff and each of the members of
the Class without prior express written consent in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Friskylabs is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Mateo
County, California.  Friskylabs develops and markets applications
for use on mobile devices, including cell phones and tablets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 470-6588
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  gbarbakoff@siprut.com
                  isalam@siprut.com


GARY A. KAY: Accused of Using Unfair Means to Collect Debt
----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn M. Good, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Law Office of Gary A. Kay, Esq., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02886-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., May 6, 2014) is brought on
behalf of a class of New Jersey consumers seeking redress for the
Defendants' actions of using an alleged unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Law Office of Gary A. Kay is a domestic law firm with its
principal office located in Millstone Township, New Jersey.  The
Firm is a company that uses mail, telephone, and facsimile and
regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to
attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

               - and -

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Wagners Law Firm Files Class Action in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Medel, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that a
Halifax law firm filed a proposed class-action lawsuit on May 9 in
Nova Scotia Supreme Court against General Motors of Canada Ltd.
and its U.S. counterpart, General Motors Co.  The suit, seeking
general and special damages, was begun on behalf of Canadian
residents whose vehicles were the subject of a Feb. 7 recall
because of faulty ignition switches, said a news release from
Wagners law firm.

Two plaintiffs, Sue Brown of Bedford and Sandra Dee of Halifax,
are listed in the suit.  If the lawsuit is certified, the two Nova
Scotia women will lead the case on behalf of nearly 150,000 people
across Canada who received the recall notice from GM, the release
said.

The statement of claim says Ms. Brown's 2005 Saturn Ion suddenly
lost all power as she neared a Halifax intersection on Jan. 5,
2011, but avoided a collision.  She eventually restarted her car
and the problem has never recurred.

Ms. Brown still has the vehicle but avoided driving it for a
couple of months after the unexplained power failure.

In March, Ms. Brown received a letter from General Motors,
informing her of a defect and the auto company's recall, the
statement of claim says.

The lawsuit documents filed on May 9 allege that GM and GMC were
negligent in designing, making and installing ignition switches in
various models of vehicles.

The fault may lead to an unexpected shutdown of a vehicle's engine
and electrical system while it is being operated in a normal
manner, Wagner said in the release.

General Motors must be notified of the pending lawsuit and will
hire a lawyer before a certification hearing is scheduled to
determine if the case can proceed, said Mike Dull, a lawyer with
the Wagner law firm.

The hearing will be sometime this year, he said on May 9.

"We encourage other . . . people whose automobiles are affected by
the GMC recall to register with us," Mr. Dull said.

"That will allow us to provide them with notice of the action."

But owners are not required to register and will automatically be
included if they have one of the affected vehicles.  The suit
alleges GM has known of the defect for many years and did nothing
about it.

"As a result of that, the value of all the (affected) vehicles is
reduced," said Mr. Dull.

Out-of-pocket costs associated with repairs and alternative
transportation are also part of the damages sought.

The individual claims might be relatively modest and that makes a
class action a worthwhile pursuit, Mr. Dull said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued for Concealing Power Steering System Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Hausmann Frank, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21652-
MGC (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2014) arises from GM's alleged
unconscionable failure to disclose and active concealment of a
defect in certain GM vehicles that renders them unsafe to drive
and has likely killed and injured innocent victims.

The defect involves the vehicles' power steering system, causing a
sudden loss of electric power to the steering assist making the
vehicle virtually incapable of being driven.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.  GM is responsible for the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of all GM automobiles in the
United States of America, as well as engineering design, research
and development, and manufacturing activities in the U.S., Canada
and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY & PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com

               - and -

          David Buckner, Esq.
          Seth Eric Miles, Esq.
          Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1150
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442-8666
          Facsimile: (305) 285-1668
          E-mail: dbu@grossmanroth.com
                  sem@grossmanroth.com
                  bvb@grossmanroth.com


GURSTEL CHARGO: Faces "Alexander" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Alexander, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A., and Razor Capital, LLC, Case No.
0:14-cv-01417-JRT-JJK (D. Minn., May 6, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J D Haas, Esq.
          J D HAAS & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          10564 France Avenue South
          Bloomington, MN 55431
          Telephone: (952) 345-1025
          Facsimile: (952) 854-1665
          E-mail: jdhaas@jdhaas.com


H&M HENNES: Recalls Girls' Leggings Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., of North Arlington, N.J., announced
voluntary recall of about 65,000 H&M Girls' Leggings.  A metal
part on the belt can detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

This recall involves girls' leggings sold in the following colors:
black/pink belt, black/silver belt, black and white stripe/black
belt, blue and white stripe/blue belt, blue hounds-tooth/blue
belt, grey check/pink belt, grey with dots/pink belt, khaki/pink
belt, khaki with dots/pink belt, pink and white check/white belt,
purple/purple belt and red and blue plaid/blue belt. The knit
leggings were sold sizes 1 « to 8 years and have a plastic belt
with bow-shaped buckle. H&M is printed on the back of the care
label. The care label is either black or white and attached to the
waistband in the back of the leggings. The garments have an O/N
(order number) and P/N (product number) printed on the top of the
care label. The following O/N numbers are included in the recall:
345180, 400690, 400691, 441760, 441761, 441762, 446960, 446961,
446962, 446963, 446965 and 978210.

The firm has received one report of a choking incident in the
United Kingdom, but no reports of consumer incidents or injuries
related to the use of these products in the U.S.

Consumers should stop using the belt and remove it from the
leggings and contact H&M Customer Service for instructions on
returning the belt for a $20 gift card.  Consumers should contact:
H&M Customer Service toll-free at (855) 466-7467 from  8 a.m. to 1
a.m. ET any day, email at customerservice.us@hm.com or online at
www.hm.com  and click on "Product Safety Recall - read more" at
the bottom of the page for more information.

The leggings are sold exclusively at H&M stores nationwide and
online at HM.com from August 2012 to April 2014 for between $3 and
$15.  The leggings are manufactured in Bangladesh, China and
Turkey.


INTERACTIVE MARKETING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Jackson, Lemarcus Owens, Manuel A. Reyes, George A.
Tidwell Jr., Glen Longstreet, William Lasley, and Arturo Luna, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
known and unknown v. Interactive Marketing Services, Inc. d/b/a
Broadband Interactive, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03303 (N.D. Ill.,
May 6, 2014) is brought as a collective/class action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for BBI's alleged
failure to properly pay minimum wage and overtime.

BBI is in the business of providing various services to large
cable companies like Comcast.  One of the services that BBI
provides to Comcast is the collections of past due payments, and
the disconnection of accounts and recovery of cable boxes from
individuals, who do not pay their bills.  BBI has a facility
located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL LTD.
          Two Prudential Plaza
          180 N. Stetson, Suite 3150
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 540-1230
          Facsimile: (312) 540-1231
          E-mail: bmanewith@cslaw.com
                  msiegel@cslaw.com

               - and -

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


JCS ENTERPRISES: Operates Ponzi Scheme, Victims Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
Troy Payne and Crystal Payne, individually and on behalf of their
minor children; Chelsea Payne and Colt Payne; and John and Tori
Sorrells v. Joseph Signore; Laura Signore; Paul Lewis Schumack,
II; Christine Schumack; JCS Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a JCS
Enterprises Services, Inc.; T.B.T.I. Inc.; My Gee Bo, Inc.; and
PSCS Holdings, LLC, Case No. 9:14-cv-80607-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 6,
2014) alleges that the Defendants ran an illegal Ponzi Scheme
since as early as 2011, whereby the Defendants, as principals of a
fraudulent investment operation, guaranteed monthly payments to
passive investors, including the Plaintiffs, who purchased
"Virtual Concierge Machines," but to the extent those guaranteed
payments were actually made, they were not made with advertising
revenue or profits (as represented to the investors by the
Defendants), but rather were paid only with existing investor
funds, or new investor funds.

In furtherance of their Ponzi scheme, the Plaintiffs contend, the
Defendants exercised unauthorized dominion and control over the
Plaintiffs' property when they stole and converted the investments
and money of Passive Investors.

JCS Enterprises, Inc., doing business as JCS Enterprises Services,
Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 2011 and subsequently
registered to do business in Florida, having its principal place
of business in Jupiter, Florida.  JCS was used to sell VCMs and
related investments, but neither JCS nor its investment offerings
have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
or any appropriate state authority.

T.B.T.I. Inc. is a sales agent for JCS.  My Gee Bo, Inc. is owned
and controlled by the Signores and was allegedly used by them to
improperly convert investor's funds for their own use and benefit.
PSCS Holdings, LLC is owned and controlled by Paul Lewis and
Christine Schumack and was allegedly used by them to improperly
convert investor's funds for their own use and benefit.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Guy M. Burns, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Coleman, Esq.
          Ryan C. Griffin, Esq.
          JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP
          333 3rd Avenue N., Suite 200
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 800-5980
          Facsimile: (727) 800-5981
          E-mail GuyB@jpfirm.com
                 JonathanC@jpfirm.com
                 ryang@jpfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronnie G. Penton, Esq.
          John O. Pieksen, Esq.
          THE PENTON LAW FIRM
          209 Hoppen Place
          Bogalusa, LA 70427
          Telephone: (985) 732-5651
          Facsimile: (985) 735-5579
          E-mail: fedcourtmail@rgplaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Bellino" Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 7:14-cv-03139-NSR
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2014) arises from the Company's alleged failure
to timely file mortgage satisfaction documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
          Shin Young Hahn, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                  shahn@fbfglaw.com


KBR INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of KBR, Inc.,
on May 9 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of KBR securities
between April 25, 2013 and May 5, 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.

KBR operates as an engineering, construction and services company,
supporting the energy, hydrocarbons, power, minerals, civil
infrastructure, government services, industrial and commercial
market segments.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants issued false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning KBR's
business, operations and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- The Company had improperly estimated costs to complete
certain contracts.

   -- The Company's revenue and financial results were overstated
as a result of accounting errors in timing the recognition of
revenues and from understating its income tax provision.

   -- The Company's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

   -- The Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

   -- As a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 5, 2014, KBR announced that the Audit Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors concluded that KBR's previously
issued consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2013, should no longer be relied upon and should be
restated.  KBR determined that the estimated costs to complete
seven Canadian pipe fabrication and module assembly contracts that
were awarded during 2012-2013 will result in pre-tax charges of
more than $150 million, including the reversal of more than $20
million in previously recognized pre-tax profits.  The Company
further announced that it intends to restate its consolidated
financial statement for fiscal 2013, and will postpone filing its
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014, until after the
amended Form 10-K for 2013 is complete.  As a result of this news,
KBR shares declined $1.61, nearly 7%, to close on May 5, 2014, at
$24.23 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later
than 60 days from the date of this Notice 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.


KEURIG GREEN: Accused of Monopolizing Single-Serve Brewers Market
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia J. Nelson, On Her Own Behalf And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. f/k/a Green
Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., and Keurig, Inc., Case No. 3:14-
cv-01143-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal., May 6, 2014) alleges that Green
Mountain has monopolized the market for the sale of single-serve
brewers, as well as the market for the sale of single servings or
"portion packs" of coffees or other beverages that are used in
those brewers.

Green Mountain previously owned certain patents that allowed it to
exclude competition for the sale of the most popular format of
those "portion packs" -- the "K-Cup" format.  The patents expired
in 2012.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., formerly known as Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Waterbury, Vermont.  Green Mountain designs, manufactures, and
sells a variety of Single-Serve Brewers under the brand name
Keurig, including K-Cup Brewers, Vue Brewers, and Rivo Brewers,
each of which uses a different type of Portion Pack that is
incompatible with the other types of brewers.

Keurig, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Reading,
Massachusetts.  Keurig is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KGM.
Keurig offers a variety of Single-Serve K-Cup Brewers that, for
the most part, are marketed for use in the home, office, or
hospitality sector, including hotels.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  livesay@whafh.com

               - and -

          Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com

               - and -

          Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
          E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
                  malmstrom@whafh.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          George Stephen Cary, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN AND HAMILTON LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 974-1920
          Facsimile: (202) 974-1999
          E-mail: gcary@cgsh.com


KRAFT FOODS: Judge Denies Baristas' Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, Igor Kossov and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360,
report that a Michigan federal judge on May 9 denied certification
to a putative class of at-home baristas that allege in a $5
million suit that Kraft Foods Global Inc. misled them into
thinking they could use their specialized coffeemakers to brew
Starbucks Corp.-brand coffee.

U.S. District Judge Gordon J. Quist found that plaintiff Pamela
Montgomery's claims lacked materiality, according to the decision,
because she hadn't shown that the bulk of buyers of Kraft's
Tassimo brewers were expecting to be able to make Starbucks
coffee.

The coffeemakers brew individual servings of coffee from special
cups, called "T-discs," which means that, if Starbucks doesn't
make the discs, customers can't make Starbucks-brand coffee at
home.  But Judge Quist found that Kraft had shown enough customers
bought the machines without the expectation of the ability to brew
the Starbucks brand, according to the May 9 decision.

"In this case, Kraft's market research demonstrates that consumers
made the decision to purchase a Tassimo for a variety of reasons,
many of which had nothing to do with the ability to brew
Starbucks," Judge Quist wrote in the May 9 ruling.  "For many
purchasers, the representation that the Tassimo could brew
Starbucks was not important, nor did it affect their decisions to
purchase the brewer."

Starbucks was, at one time, associated with the Tassimo brewers,
but that deal fell apart.

Starbucks recently agreed to settle with Kraft for $2.75 billion
in a different case after it pulled out of an agreement to
distribute Starbucks packaged coffee for use in Kraft's Tassimo
coffee machines three years ago.

In the settlement, Starbucks had to pay $2.2 billion in damages
and $527 million in prejudgment interest to Mondelez International
Inc., which comprises the international snacking and food brands
of the former Kraft Foods.  The dispute stemmed from Starbucks'
termination of a $1 billion contract giving Kraft the exclusive
right to distribute its products in grocery stores and other
retailers.

Starbucks said it has adequate cash on hand and available
borrowing capacity to fund the award payment, which will be booked
as a charge to its fiscal year 2013 operating expenses.

In her would-be class action, Montgomery claims the companies
misled customers by making it appear as if they were still
associated and their products still worked together in 2012.
Montgomery says that she bought a Kraft Tassimo coffee machine
only to find out that Starbucks brewing cups for the product were
no longer available.


Ms. Montgomery is represented by Peter W. Macuga II --
PMacuga@mldclassaction.com -- of Macuga Liddle & Dubin PC and
Timothy H. McCarthy Jr. of the McCarthy Law Group PC.

Kraft is represented by Craig H. Lubben --
lubbenc@millerjohnson.com -- and Christopher James Schneider --
schneiderc@millerjohnson.com -- of Miller Johnson PLC and Thalia
L. Myrianthopoulos -- tmyrianthopoulos@jenner.com -- Dean Nicholas
Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- and Richard P. Steinken --
rsteinken@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block LLP. Starbucks is
represented by Aaron M. Panner -- apanner@khhte.com
-- of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC and Edward P.
Perdue of Dickinson Wright PLLC.

The case is Montgomery v. Kraft Foods Global Inc. et al., case
number 1:12-cv-00149, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan.


LEGRAND WIREMOLD: Recalls 46,169 Under-Cabinet Power Strip
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Legrand Wiremold, West Hartford, Conn., announced voluntary recall
of about 46,000 in the U.S. and about 169 in Canada (About 14,200
were previously recalled September 2012) of under-cabinet power
strip in the red packaging due to electric fire hazard.  The
internal electrical connections of the power strips are
substandard, posing risks of overheating and fire.

This recall involves all Wiremold and Plugmold under-cabinet power
and lighting strips with part number PX1001. The recalled power
strips have four outlets and one fluorescent light and were
manufactured from January 2011 through December 2013. From January
2011 through June 2012, the power strip came in a red package with
the words "Legrand" and "Under Cabinet Power and Lighting" on the
top front and "Wiremold-Series Part PX1001" on the bottom front.
From July 2012 to April 2013, the power strip came in a white
package with the word "Legrand" on the top front and "Plugmold
Power Light," "Under-Cabinet Power and Lighting" and "PX1001" on
the bottom front. The manufacture date code is on the bottom of
the recalled power strip in a circle with the year shown as "11,"
"12" or "13" in the center and an arrow pointing to the number
representing the month. Part number PX1001, and UPC number 0 86698
00125 3, are imprinted on the bottom of the power strip.

The firm received one report of an incident. No injuries were
reported.

Consumers may contact Legrand Wiremold toll-free at (855) 692-4620
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or at
www.legrand.us and click on Recall Information for more
information.  Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using
the power strips and return them to Legrand Wiremold for a full
refund.

The product is sold at Ace Hardware, CED, City Electric, Cortland
Wholesale, Crawford Electric, Do it Best, Hill Country Electric,
Home Depot, Orgill, REXEL, Springfield Electric, Sutherland, TEC
Electric, True Value Hardware and World Electric stores
nationwide, and online at Amazon.com from February 2011 to April
2014 for about $40.  It is manufactured in China.


LINN ENERGY: In Talks to Settle Lawsuit by Royalty Owners
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a statewide case against LINN Energy, LLC over
disputed royalty payments and royalty valuations are currently
engaged in settlement negotiations, according to the company's May
1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits,
including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty
payments and royalty valuations. With respect to a certain
statewide class action case, the parties in this case are
currently engaged in settlement negotiations and based on the
current status of those negotiations, the Company estimates a
range of possible loss of $1 million to $4.5 million for which an
appropriate reserve has been established. For a certain statewide
class action royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet
been established, the Company has denied that it has any liability
on the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if
accepted by the court, will result in no loss to the Company.
Based on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to reverse
class certification orders in two unrelated certification cases,
the court has permitted additional limited discovery prior to the
briefing and hearing on class certification. Briefing and the
hearing on class certification have not yet been set by the court.


LINN ENERGY: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINN Energy, LLC filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities lawsuit with the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 9, 2013, Anthony Booth, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B.
Rottino (the "Booth Action"). On July 18, 2013, the Catherine A.
Fisher Trust, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the
same defendants (the "Fisher Action"). On July 17, 2013, Don
Gentry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy,
LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A.
Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn,
Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various
underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering (the "Gentry
Action") (the Booth Action, Fisher Action, and Gentry Action
together, the "Texas Federal Actions"). The Texas Federal Actions
each assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on
allegations that LINN Energy made false or misleading statements
relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's energy production.
The Gentry Action asserts additional claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements
relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration
statement for LinnCo's initial public offering. On September 23,
2013, the Southern District of Texas entered an order transferring
the Texas Federal Actions to the Southern District of New York so
that they could be consolidated with the New York Federal Actions.

On July 10, 2013, David Adrian Luciano, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja
Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap,
Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C.
Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo's initial
public offering (the "Luciano Action"). The Luciano Action asserts
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
based on alleged misstatements relating to LINN Energy's hedging
strategy, the cash flow available for distribution to unitholders,
and LINN Energy's energy production in the prospectus and
registration statement for LinnCo's initial public offering. On
July 12, 2013, Frank Donio, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David
B. Rottino (the "Donio Action"). The Donio Action asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on
allegations that LINN Energy made false or misleading statements
relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's energy production.
Several additional class action cases substantially similar to the
Luciano Action and the Donio Action were subsequently filed in the
Southern District of New York and assigned to the same judge (the
Luciano Action, Donio Action, and all similar subsequently filed
New York federal class actions together, the "New York Federal
Actions"). The Texas Federal Actions and the New York Federal
Actions have now been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Combined
Actions"). In November 2013, LINN Energy filed a motion to dismiss
the Combined Actions. The motion is currently pending before the
Southern District of New York. There has not been any discovery
conducted in the Combined Actions.


M&T BANK: Class Action to Proceed to Pre-Trial Phase
----------------------------------------------------
Allissa Kline, writing for Buffalo Business First, reports that a
three-times revised lawsuit against M&T Bank's wealth management
services unit will move forward to the pre-trial phase more than
three years after the initial claim was filed.

That's according to M&T's latest quarterly report, which details a
class action lawsuit originally filed against Wilmington Trust
Corp. in November 2010, about a year-and-a-half before M&T
acquired the wealth advisory company in a deal valued at $351
million.

The lawsuit alleges that Wilmington Trust's financial reporting
and securities filings were in violation of securities laws.  The
claim was filed with the U.S. District Court in Delaware, which
dismissed both the original and revised claims in March 2012 and
in June 2013, respectively.  Following a fourth amended complaint
filed last summer, the court on March 20 issued an order denying
Wilmington Trust's motion to dismiss.

That means the case now moves on to the discovery phase.  A
spokesperson for Buffalo-based M&T said the banking company does
not comment on pending litigation.

Also noted in M&T's quarterly filing are two ongoing, previously
disclosed federal investigations into Wilmington Trust.  Both the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice
are investigating "financial reporting and securities filings" of
Wilmington Trust that predate M&T's April 2011 acquisition.

The DOJ is also reviewing "certain commercial real estate lending
relationships" related to the company's subsidiary bank,
Wilmington Trust Co., according to M&T, which said that "either of
these investigations could lead to administrative or legal
proceedings resulting in potential civil and/or criminal remedies
or settlements" that may include enforcement actions, fines,
penalties, restitution or additional costs and expenses.


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Dooley" Suit to W.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Dooley v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-002020-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02329-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

Timothy Dooley alleges that he suffered injuries as a result of
his exposure to components or individual parts of Medtronic's
Infuse(R) Bone Graft/LT-Cage(TM) Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device
(Infuse(R)).

Medtronic, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. is a
Tennessee corporation headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.  MSD is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Renfro, Esq.
          BECKER LAW OFFICE
          9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 581-1122
          E-mail: krenfro@beckerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart L. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Marlene J. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-4662
          E-mail: slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com
                  mjgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com

               - and -

          Turner W. Branch, Esq.
          Margaret M. Branch, Esq.
          Adam T. Funk, Esq.
          BRANCH LAW FIRM
          2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 243-3500
          E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  mbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  afunk@branchlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr., Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0717
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com


MISTY MATE: 9,000 High Pressure Personal Misters Recalled
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
manufacturer Misty Mate Inc., of Tempe, Ariz., announced voluntary
recall of about 9,000 Misty 2.5 High Pressure Personal Misters.
The mister can shatter during use, posing a risk of laceration to
the consumer.

This recall involves Misty Mate 2.5 ounce high pressure personal
misters. The air misters are approximately 8 inches tall and are
designed to spray a mist of water for personal cooling. They have
a clear plastic cylinder to hold water, blue base and top and a
nylon carrying strap attached to the top. The cylinder measures
between 1.25- and 1.5-inches in diameter. A horizontal line with
the word "fill" is printed on the cylinder.

Misty Mate has received two reports of incidents involving
shattered personal misters, including a report of minor
lacerations.

Consumers may contact: Misty Mate at (800) 233-6478 from 8 a.m. to
5 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or online at www.mistymate.com
and click "Press Releases" at the bottom of the page for more
information.  Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled
personal mister and return it to Misty Mate for a refund.

The product is sold exclusively at Hibbet Sports stores nationwide
from May 2013 through July 2013 for about $8.  It is manufactured
in China.


NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Felt Easter Baskets Recalled
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nantucket Distributing Co. LLC, of Middleboro, Mass., announced
voluntary recall of about 24,200 Felt Easter Baskets.

Decorative beads on the felt Easter baskets can detach and pose a
choking hazard to young children.

The recall includes felt Easter baskets with scalloped edges and a
handle. The felt baskets were sold in five colors including blue,
two shades of green and two shades of pink. The basket models
include a blue basket with a small stuffed bunny face, a bright
green basket with a bow, a light green basket with white and pink
bunny ears, a bright pink basket with a bow and a pink basket with
a bow and a yellow flower attachment. Black or white decorative
beads are used as the eyes of the bunny and the center of the
yellow flower attachment. The baskets measure 14" high by 9" wide
at the widest point.  The model number ct12011 and SKU number
30173064 are printed on a hangtag on the basket handle.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

Consumers should immediately stop using or displaying these felt
Easter baskets and return them to any Christmas Tree Shops,
andThat! or Christmas Tree Shops andThat! stores to receive a full
refund.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled
consumer product.  Consumer should contact: Christmas Tree Shops
toll-free at (888) 287-3232 anytime or online at
www.christmastreeshops.com and go to the "Product Recalls" link at
the bottom of the homepage for more information.

The items are sold exclusively at Christmas Tree Shops, andThat!
and Christmas Tree Shops andThat! stores nationwide from February
2013 to March 2014 for about $3.  They are manufactured by Santa's
Village Ind. Ltd., of Jinhua City, Zhejiang, China.


NCL CORP: Supreme Court Won't Review Labor Lawsuit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied a request by crew member
plaintiffs who filed a suit against NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to review
its decision affirming the denial of class certification to the
case, according to NCL Corporation Ltd.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits. In December 2010, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In February 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the
Court's Order on Class Certification which was denied. The Court
tried six individual plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012
awarded wages aggregating approximately $100,000 to such
plaintiffs. In October 2013, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings as to the
denial of Class Certification and the trial verdict. The
Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court's
decision which was denied in March 2014.


NCL CORP: Bahamas Unit Faces Suit Over Crew Wage "Deductions"
-------------------------------------------------------------
NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. is facing a lawsuit in Florida federal court
alleging violations of the Seaman's Wage Act, according to NCL
Corporation Ltd.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract. In July 2012,
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July
2009.


NEC CORP: June 23 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you Bought An Optical Disk Drive, Either As A Standalone
Product Or Which Was Incorporated Into A Desktop or Notebook
Computer, A Class Action Settlement May Affect You.

A settlement has been reached with one defendant in a class action
lawsuit involving ODDs.  ODD stands for "Optical Disk Drive."
ODDs are defined to mean any device which uses laser light (or
electromagnetic wavelength) to read and/or write data to or from
an optical disc.  ODDs consist of both international drives built
to be incorporated or inserted into electronic devices (including
notebook and desktop computers, and Microsoft Xboxes) and external
drives that attach to a notebook or desktop computer or other
electronic device by means of an external interface, such as a
Universal Serial Bus ("USB") connection.  ODDs utilize the
following optical disc formats: (a) compact discs ("CDs"), such as
CD-ROMs or CD-recordable/rewritable discs ("CD-R/RWs); (b) digital
versatile discs ("DVDs") , such as DVD-ROMs or DVD-
recordable/rewritable discs ("DVD-R/RWs"); (c) Blu-ray products
such as Blu-ray discs ("BDs") and Blu-ray-recordable/rewritable
discs ("BDR"/"BD-RWs"); (d) High Definition DVDs ("HD-DVDs"); and
(e) Super Multi-Drives or other combination drives that read from
and/or write to various types of the foregoing media.

What is this lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and Co-Conspirators engaged in
an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
prices of ODDs.  Plaintiffs allege that as result of the unlawful
conspiracy involving ODDs, they and other direct purchasers paid
more for ODDs than they would have absent the conspiracy.
Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.

Who's included in the Settlement?

The settlement class includes persons and entities who, from
January 1, 2004 until at least January 1, 2010, directly purchased
an ODD in the United States from any Defendant or subsidiary or
affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator ("Settlement Class").  As
used herein the term "ODD" includes (a) a drive sold by a
Defendant or its subsidiary or affiliate as a separate unit that
is to be inserted into, or incorporated in, an electronic device;
(b) a drive sold by a Defendant or its subsidiary or affiliate as
a separate unit that is to be attached to an electronic device
through an external interface such as a Universal Serial Bus
connection; and (c) an internal drive sold as a component of a
laptop or desktop computer by a Defendant or its subsidiary or
affiliate.

Who are the Released Defendants?

Only one of the Defendants has agreed to settle the lawsuit at
this time -- NEC Corporation ("NEC" or "Settling Defendant").  The
Court has previously approved settlements with (1) Hitachi-LG Data
Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., LG
Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, and Hitachi, Ltd. and (2)
Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America
(collectively, "Settled Defendants"). The remaining non-settling
and non-settled defendants are referred to as "Non-Settling
Defendants."  A complete list of Defendants is set out in the Long
Firm of Notice available at
www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com

What does the Settlement provide?

The Settlement with NEC provides for payment of $6,000,000 in
cash, plus interest (plus up to an additional $150,000 toward
notice costs).  The Settlement provides that $750,000 of the
Settlement Fund, subject to Court approval, maybe used to pay
expenses incurred in the litigation for prosecution of the action
on behalf of the Class against the Non-Settling Defendants.  NEC
has agreed to produce witnesses in the case against the remaining
Non-Settling Defendants.  Money will not be distributed to
Settlement Class members at this time.  The lawyers will pursue
the lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants to see if any
future settlements or judgments can be obtained based on the value
of your ODD purchase, to reduce expenses.

What are my rights?

If you wish to remain a member of the Settlement Class you do not
need to take any action at this time.  If you do not want to be
legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself in
writing by June 23, 2014, or you will not able to sue, or continue
to sue, NEC about the legal claims that were or could have been
asserted in this case.

If you wish to comment on or disagree with any aspect of the
proposed Settlement, you must do so in writing no later than
June 23, 2014.  The Settlement Agreement, along with details on
how to object to it, is available at
www.ODDDirectPurchaser/AntitrustSettlement.com

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a Fairness Hearing at 3:00 p.m. on August 14, 2014, at
the United States District Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94102.  The
hearing may be moved to a different date or time without
additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the website for
information.

The Court has appointed the law firm of Saveri & Saveri, Inc. as
Interim Lead Class Counsel, to represent Direct Purchaser Class
members.  The Court will hold a hearing at 3:00 p.m. on August 14,
2014, to consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.  If there are objections or comments, the Court will
consider them at that time.  You may appear at the hearing, but
don't have to.  We do not know how long these decisions will take.
Please do not contact the Court about this case.

This is the Short Form Notice.  For more details, call toll free
1-888-270-0759, visit
www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com or write to ODD
Direct Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 6002, Larkspur,
CA 94977-6002.


NUM PANG: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlon Cabrera, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Num Pang Holdings LLC, Num Pang Holdco LLC, Num
Pang Commissary LLC, 32 For 16 Hospitality LLC, 16 For 8
Hospitality LLC, 8 For 4 Hospitality LLC, John Doe Corps 1-5,
Ratha Chaupoly and Benjamin Daitz, Case No. 1:14-cv-03283-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff and the
Class are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Defendants operate a number of sandwich shops under the trade
name "Num Pang Sandwich Shop."  The food services enterprise is
comprised of five sandwich shops in various New York locations.
The Num Pang Restaurants are commonly owned by the Individual
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OHANA MILITARY: Removed "Barber" Suit to Hawaii District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Barber, et al. v. Ohana
Military Communities, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-1-0850-04, was
removed from the First Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Hawaii.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-00217-HG-KSC to the proceeding.  The lawsuit
arises from certain contract disputes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrance Matthew Revere, Esq.
          Malia R. Nickison-Beazley, Esq.
          REVERE & ASSOCIATES
          Pali Palm Plaza
          970 N. Kalaheo Ave., Suite A-301
          Kailua, HI 96734
          Telephone: (808) 791-9550
          Facsimile: (808) 791-9551
          E-mail: terry@revereandassociates.com

               - and -

          Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq.
          LYNCH, HOPPER, SALZANO & SMITH
          970 N. Kalaheo, Pali Palms, Suite A301
          Kailua, HI 96734
          Telephone: (808) 791-9555
          Facsimile: (808) 791-9556
          E-mail: kyle@lhsshawaii.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christine A. Terada, Esq.
          Lisa W. Munger, Esq.
          Randall C. Whattoff, Esq.
          GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL LLLP
          First Hawaiian Center
          999 Bishop St., Suite 1600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 547-5600
          Facsimile: (808) 547-5880
          E-mail: cterada@goodsill.com
                  lmunger@goodsill.com
                  rwhattoff@goodsill.com


PACIFIC FOODS: "Perera" Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Perera v. Pacific Foods of Oregon
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-01788, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
Northern District Court of California Clerk assigned Case No.
3:14-cv-02074-NC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda L. Groves, Esq.
          Sean D. Meenan, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3900
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
          Telephone: (415) 591-1409
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: agroves@winston.com
                  smeenan@winston.com

               - and -

          Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: sobi@winston.com


PANASONIC CORP: Consumers Can Pursue SD Card Price-Fixing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that consumers can
join Samsung Electronics Co. in pursuing price-fixing allegations
against three other manufacturers of flash memory cards.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on May 14
that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of
California had erred when he ruled that purchasers of SD memory
cards waited too long to bring antitrust claims against Panasonic
Corp., Toshiba Corp. and SanDisk Corp. and their joint licensing
ventures, SD Group and SD-3C.

Because the purchasers were seeking only an injunction against
alleged anticompetitive behavior, the four-year statute of
limitations set out in the Clayton Act did not apply, Judge Ronald
Gould wrote for the Ninth Circuit.

The same panel revived Samsung's claims against the same
defendants last month, although for slightly different reasons.
Oliver v. SD-3C centers on memory cards that are used in
cellphones and other electronics.  Panasonic, Toshiba and SanDisk
claim the essential patents to the technology and have widely
licensed it since 2003.  In 2006, the manufacturers established a
new license agreement that maintained their 6 percent royalty
while authorizing licensees to determine a "fair market price" for
calculating royalties.  The plaintiff-consumers allege the
provision shows the defendants intended to fix the price for SD
cards in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.

Before the Ninth Circuit in December, Davis Polk & Wardwell
partner Christopher Hockett said the licensing agreement specifies
that licensees can charge any price they want, and doesn't place
any restrictions on the licensors targeted by the suit.

But Judge Gould wrote on May 14 that at this stage of the
litigation, the court had to accept the plaintiffs' claims as
alleged. And because the plaintiffs are focusing exclusively on
injunctive relief, only the equitable doctrine of laches could
render their claims untimely, he wrote.  The purchases of SD cards
continued until recently, so laches would not apply, he concluded.

Judge Gould was joined by Judge Richard Paez and U.S. District
Judge David Ezra of Texas, sitting by designation.  They also
revived the plaintiffs' state law claims, instructing White to
evaluate them under a California Supreme Court decision issued
last year, after White had ruled in the cases.

Susman Godfrey associate Amanda Bonn argued the case for the
plaintiffs.


PINTO EXPRESS: Never Paid Extra Half Time OT Rate, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Velasquez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Pinto Express, Inc., Pinto Transfer & Packing
Corp and Jorge Perez, Case No. 1:14-cv-21659-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
May 6, 2014) alleges that between 2007 through March 10, 2013, the
Plaintiff worked an average of 58 hours a week for the Defendants
but was never paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked
over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Pinto Express, Inc. and Pinto Transfer & Packing Corp are
corporations that regularly transact business within Miami-Dade
County, Florida.  Jorge Perez is a corporate officer, manager or
owner of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Nov. Trial Set in Complaint Related to Zeus
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in the cross-complaint filed by a representative of Zeus
Technology Limited shareholders against Riverbed Technology, Inc.
and Riverbed Technology Limited is currently scheduled for
November 3, 2014, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In connection with the company's July 2011 acquisition of the
outstanding securities of Zeus Technology Limited (Zeus), the
share purchase agreement provided for certain additional potential
payments (acquisition-related contingent consideration) totaling
up to $27.0 million in cash, based on achievement of certain
bookings targets related to Zeus products for the period from July
20, 2011 through July 31, 2012 (the Zeus Earn-Out period). The
share purchase agreement also provided for a potential $3.0
million payment as an incentive bonus to former employees of Zeus,
based on achievement of certain bookings targets related to Zeus
products for the Zeus Earn-Out period.

In October 2012 the company served the representative of the Zeus
shareholders, as lead defendant and proposed defendant class
representative for all other similarly situated former
shareholders of Zeus, with a lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, for declaratory relief.  The lawsuit
seeks declaratory judgment that, among other things, (a) Riverbed
is not in breach of the share purchase agreement, and (b) Riverbed
does not owe any acquisition-related contingent consideration
under the share purchase agreement because the necessary
conditions precedent to the payment of acquisition-related
contingent consideration did not occur. In November 2012, the
representative of the Zeus shareholders filed a cross-complaint
against Riverbed and Riverbed Technology Limited in the Superior
Court of the State of California. The cross-complaint claims
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and seeks declaratory judgment that Riverbed has
breached the share purchase agreement and that the entire $27.0
million in contingent consideration is payable to Zeus
shareholders. Discovery is ongoing, and the Court has approved a
class treatment of the former shareholders, though several have
declined to participate. The trial is currently scheduled for
November 3, 2014. The company believes that the contention of the
representative of the Zeus shareholders, and the Court-appointed
class representatives for shareholders, is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the company's determination.

In November 2012 the company received a grand jury subpoena issued
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. The subpoena requested documents related to certain
federal government contracting matters, including $19 million
transaction involving the sale of the company's products and
services by a Riverbed reseller to an agency of the federal
government in 2009. In January 2014 the company received a notice
that the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for
the Eastern District of Virginia has opened a civil investigation
into the same matters.


RUBY TUESDAY: Faces "Krystek" Securities Class Suit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Krystek, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., James J. Buettgen, Michael O.
Moore and Kimberly S. Grant, Case No. 3:14-cv-01119 (M.D. Tenn.,
May 6, 2014) is a securities class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Ruby Tuesday between
April 11, 2013, and October 9, 2013, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Ruby Tuesday, Inc., owns, develops, operates and franchises a
chain of casual dining restaurants in the U.S., Guam and
internationally under the Ruby Tuesday and Lime Fresh brands.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          217 Second Ave. North
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 S Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          George Edward Barrett, Esq.
          Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
          217 Second Avenue, N
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com
                  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com


SAMI'S SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norberto Mercado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Sami's Service Station, Inc. and Sami Radwan, in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-03400-TPG
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2014) alleges that throughout the Plaintiff's
employment, the Defendants required him to work 60 hours per week
but they failed to pay him at any rate of pay, let alone at the
statutorily-required overtime or minimum wage rates of pay, for
each hour that he worked per week in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Sami's Service Station, Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in Broadway, New York.  The Company owns and
operates a gasoline service station in the state of New York and
employs customer service representatives and attendants to service
the customers at the gas station.  Sami Radwan is the owner and
operator of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
          Anthony Patrick Malecki, Esq.
          Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
          1010 Northern Blvd., Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


SERVICE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Body-Stacking Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the parent company of more than 400 cemeteries nationwide has been
hit with a potential class action stemming from its alleged
practice of interring multiple bodies in the same graves.

The lawsuit filed on May 12 against Service Corporation
International (SCI) in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
alleged that plaintiff Maya Devinskaya's daughter was buried in a
grave already occupied by another family's deceased relative.  The
complaint alleged Ms. Devinskaya was the victim of SCI's practice
of "overselling" graves in which bodies overlapped.

The complaint also called for the creation of a class to be made
up of at least 1,000 people, who, like Ms. Devinskaya, purchased
burial plots at Shalom Memorial Park (owned by SCI) that had been
previously sold and had bodies already buried within them.  The
recommended compensation for each class member is $100 in addition
to punitive damages and a court-monitored program that would
"restore the integrity of each grave and remedy the alleged
conduct herein."

The complaint also mentioned SCI had been sued previously and
settled other lawsuits for eight-figure sums for the same alleged
practices in different parts of the country.

In the case at hand, SCI is alleged to have violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
and is being sued for unjust enrichment, breach of contract,
trespass and private nuisance, according to the complaint.

SCI "tried to increase their profits by knowingly 'overselling'
grave plots in Shalom Memorial Park," the complaint said.  SCI
"engaged in a policy of selling more burial plots in Shalom
Memorial Park than can physically be derived from the finite
amount of land available to place graves."

"Despite having been repeatedly caught and punished for such
misconduct in the past," the complaint continued, SCI "continues
to knowingly engage in the exact same type of conduct in Shalom
Memorial Park."

According to the complaint, the defendants watched grave sites to
see which ones were visited the least or not at all.  Those graves
were then targeted for additional burials.

Ms. Devinskaya, 73, purchased a burial plot at Shalom for her
daughter, Ella, who died at age 42. Because of financial
constraints, Ms. Devinskaya acquired her daughter's plot by
trading her own plot for another one, according to the complaint.

Months after Ms. Devinskaya's daughter was buried, relatives
visiting the grave site noticed the ground was sinking.  According
to the complaint, when confronted, Shalom's manager said the
family was at the wrong grave.

Two weeks later, a man installing gravestones contacted
Ms. Devinskaya's family and informed them that he had been hired
by the Khrizman family to place a headstone on the site where
Ms. Devinskaya's daughter was buried, thinking that the site
belonged to the Khrizmans, according to the complaint.

"In other words," the complaint said, SCI and Shalom "had sold
plaintiff Devinskaya a burial plot which overlapped with a plot
[the] defendants had previously sold to the Khrizman family and
then [the] defendants buried Ella in a manner in which the two
bodies overlapped."

The complaint also alleged that SCI concealed its policy of
"double-selling" to consumers and that the current case is not an
isolated incident.

SCI was sued in 2001 in a Florida class action for overselling
graves and burying bodies too close to one another.  According to
the complaint, "In an effort to hide this fact, SCI pursued a
policy of secret exhumation, in which bodies were exhumed and
reburied, without notice to authorities or family members."
SCI eventually settled the case, captioned Light v. SCI Funeral
Services, for $65 million and the Florida attorney general
required that the graves be separated and reorganized, the
complaint said.

In 2009, SCI was involved in a class action in the Superior Court
of California for engaging in practices "almost identical" to the
Devinskaya case, according to the complaint.  SCI settled that
case, Sands v. SCI, for $80 million.

According to the docket as of press time, SCI has not yet retained
representation in the matter or filed an answer to the complaint.
SCI spokeswoman Jessica McDunn declined to comment.

Ms. Devinskaya is represented by Stephen P. DeNittis --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- of DeNittis Osefchen and
Gavin Lentz -- glentz@bochettoandlentz.com -- of Bochetto & Lentz
in Philadelphia.

"Basically the bodies of deceased loved ones deserve to be treated
with the utmost dignity and respect," Mr. DeNittis said.  "The
goal of this suit is to help the grieving families and to make
sure this never happens again."


SOUTH FLORIDA MULTISPECIALTY: Sued for Refusing to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes M Aguirre and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. South Florida Multispecialty Associates LLC,
Miguel Garcia and Denis R Weinberg, Case No. 1:14-cv-21660-FAM
(S.D. Fla., May 6, 2014) accuses the Defendants of willfully and
intentionally refusing to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

South Florida Multispecialty Associates LLC is a limited liability
company that regularly transacts business within Dade County.  The
Individual Defendants are corporate officers, managers or owners
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


ST CHARLES SCHOOL DISTRICT: Dismissal of Class Action Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie K. Baer, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
lawsuit seeking monetary damages from St. Charles Community Unit
School District 303 in the controversial reorganization of
Richmond and Davis schools will return to court next month, after
the plaintiffs' attorney filed a motion challenging the court's
decision to dismiss the case.

On March 24, Tim Dwyer, the plaintiffs' attorney, filed the motion
to reconsider a Kane County Circuit Court judge's decision to
dismiss the class-action suit in February, saying that the court
"erroneously applied the law" and misunderstood the issue at hand.
The hearing on the motion to reconsider was originally set for
May 13, but it was rescheduled for June 4, according to a court
order filed on May 13.

"The defendant would like the trial court to believe that
reconfiguration of boundaries is the issue at bar; but it is not,"
the motion reads.  "The issue in this case is whether the
district's March 2011 plan forcing all children to attend the
failing Richmond School was illegal to the extent that children
forced to attend Richmond School have a private right of action
under the school code."

The court order, issued by Kane County Circuit Court Judge
James Murphy on Feb. 26, said that the state's school code does
not allow the court to grant damages in this case because the
"plaintiffs' injury was not one the statute was designed to
prevent."

"These statutes are designed to improve the school system as a
whole by improving the education of students in lower-performing
schools," the order read.  "Plaintiffs in this case who absented
their children from the affected schools by either sending their
children to private school or moving from the district are not the
ones who have a cognizable injury or the persons the statues are
designed to protect."

The suit, which lists two parents and "all others similarly
situated" as plaintiffs, seeks money for parents who moved their
kids out of the district into private schools, moved out of the
Davis school boundary to get around the merger, or did neither and
were forced to have their kids attend Richmond instead of Davis,
according to the original complaint filed last year.

In 2011, 17 parents sued the district and demanded it undo the
reorganization of the two schools.  At the time, Richmond had
failed for three consecutive years to meet federal progress
standards mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The state's school code requires districts to give parents the
option of transferring their children to a non-failing school in
the district after their current school misses the standards for
two years.  But as a result of the merger, parents were no longer
given the option to opt-out of Richmond.

"Once the plaintiffs were forced to attend the failing Richmond
School, without any appeal rights, the plaintiffs had no adequate
remedy," the motion reads.

Mr. Dwyer said on May 13 that the district has failed to address
the fact that parents were forced to send their children to a
failing school.

"The district's response is not responsive to the issue,"
Mr. Dwyer said.  "What the district wants to talk about is how the
reconfiguration was successful."

In a brief filed in response to the motion to reconsider, the
district says that the court did not make an error in its decision
to dismiss the suit and that the plaintiffs in the case "never
even attended the new reconfigured schools."

"Essentially, Plaintiffs are seeking court-ordered vouches for
former Davis parents to pay for their children to attend private
school, or reimbursement for their choice to move out of the
District," reads the brief filed April 17.

Superintendent Don Schlomann said that he was only notified about
the motion to reconsider recently and had not seen or read the
documents.


T-MOBILE US: "Golovoy" Suit Over MetroPCS Merger Now Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
The case Adam Golovoy et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al., Cause No.
CC-12-06144-A (Dallas, Texas County Court at Law) was settled and
dismissed in April 2014, according to T-Mobile US, Inc.'s May 1,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

As of March 31, 2014, T-Mobile was a defendant in one putative
stockholder derivative and class action lawsuit challenging the
business combination with MetroPCS and alleging that the various
defendants breached fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted in the
alleged breach of fiduciary duties, to the MetroPCS stockholders
by entering into the transaction - Adam Golovoy et al. v. Deutsche
Telekom et al., Cause No. CC-12-06144-A (Dallas, Texas County
Court at Law).  (Six other cases have either been dismissed or
have settled.)  The complaint alleged claims for relief including,
among other things, rescission to the extent the terms of the
business combination have already been implemented, damages for
the breaches of fiduciary duty, and the payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Golovoy case was settled and
dismissed in April 2014.


TAKEDA PHARMA: Defense Team in Actos Suit May Face Punishments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanya Dhermy at Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, McCartney & Giuffra
LLP, wrote that defense attorneys accused of engaging in
misconduct during a civil trial against Takeda Pharmaceuticals for
injury caused by the drug Actos (pioglitazone), might face
punishments.

Attorney David Wall, representing the woman involved in the case
against Takeda Pharmaceuticals argued that drug manufacturer's
defense team should be held accountable for their actions.
Takeda's defense team is accused of misconduct by violating court
orders, in addition to being persistently disrespectful towards
the Las Vegas district judge Kerry Earley with the intention of
causing mistrial.

Judge Kerry Earley mentioned that the behavior of the defense "has
been absolutely very egregious".  Inappropriate behavior included
pointing fingers at the judge, rolling their eyes during the
trial, as well as telling her she was "getting emotional".
Judge Earley is considering a request to reprimand the attorneys
for such behavior during the trial.

Plaintiffs Delores Cipriano and Bertha Triana of the state of
Nevada were diagnosed with bladder cancer after taking the drug
Actos for diabetes.  According to the FDA, patients prescribed to
take Actos to treat Type 2 diabetes for more than a year may have
an increased risk of bladder cancer.

Product liability lawsuits remain a constant problem for Takeda
pharmaceuticals as it has repeatedly failed to disclose relevant
information to its consumers about the potential risk of bladder
cancer associated with drugs like Actos.  Over 3,000 suits have
been brought against the drug manufacturer.  In addition to
hundreds of lawsuits against the company, it was ordered to pay $6
billion in damages for other Actos related cases.  Pharmaceutical
companies like Takeda must be held accountable for their actions
and the issue of prioritizing sales over patient health must be
addressed in order to increase transparency and avoid health risks
associated with drugs such as Actos.


TARGET CORP: First Hearing Set for Data Breach Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the resignation of Target Corp. chief executive officer Gregg
Steinhafel came as a federal judge in Minnesota holds the first
hearing in the lawsuits filed over the retailer's data breach --
although both sides have expressed interest in settling the
litigation.

Target's board of directors, citing "the right time for new
leadership," announced on May 5 that Mr. Steinhafel had stepped
down.  Although the Minneapolis retailer gave no reasons for his
departure, Mr. Steinhafel oversaw Target's handling of the breach,
which compromised the credit- and debit-card information, and
personal information, of about 110 million customers during the
holiday season last year.

John Mulligan, the chief financial officer who testified in
Washington before congressional committees about the breach, is
now Target's interim chief executive.

In court, where more than 100 lawsuits have been filed over the
breach, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson was set hold an initial
status conference on Wednesday, May 14.  The U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all the cases to Magnuson
last month.

But both sides already have indicated a desire to settle the
litigation before it even begins, according to briefs filed with
the court.

"Target remains open to discussion of settlement and anticipates
exploring the possibility of early resolution with lead counsel
between now and a ruling on Target's forthcoming motions to
dismiss," wrote Target attorney Wendy Wildung --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- a partner in the Minneapolis office
of Faegre Baker Daniels.

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder did not respond to a request for
comment.

Most of the lawsuits are class actions filed by consumers, but 29
were brought by banks and other financial institutions.
Shareholders have filed at least four derivative actions against
Target and its officers and directors, including Mr. Steinhafel.
Charles Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- founding
partner of Zimmerman Reed in Minneapolis, who filed a brief on
behalf of the banks, said he was open to settlement.

"Both sides have indicated a willingness to resolve it," he told
The National Law Journal.  "Target wants and needs a resolution.
The banks want and need a resolution.  Nothing I would do would
get in the way of that."


TD AMERITRADE: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme by A. Alleca
-------------------------------------------------------------
William A. Curry, Robert L. Claxton, John R. Sullivan, Janice M.
Walker, The Walker Family Trust, William J. Kissel, and Robert H.
Ledbetter, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., f/k/a TD Waterhouse Investor
Services, Inc.; TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc.; TD Ameritrade
Holding Corporation, f/k/a Ameritrade Holding Corporation, as
Successor-in-Interest to TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.; and Charles
Schwab & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01361-WSD (N.D. Ga., May 6,
2014) concerns the role of TD Ameritrade and Schwab in
facilitating a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Angelo A. Alleca
that defrauded approximately 390 investors out of approximately
$40.5 million.  Mr. Alleca is the founder, president, chief
operating officer, and chief compliance officer of Summit Wealth
Management Inc.

This deception was achieved -- and could only have been achieved -
- through the Defendants' reckless or intentional lack of
oversight and due diligence and through their eschewal of
compliance with the duties they owed the Plaintiffs and the Class,
according to the complaint.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. was incorporated in New York and based in
Omaha, Nebraska.  TD Ameritrade, Inc., a subsidiary of TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, provides broker-dealer and other
services to its clients and provided those services to the
Plaintiffs and members of the Class during the relevant time
period.  TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. is a subsidiary of TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp. and provides clearing and execution
services to TD Ameritrade, Inc., as well as custodial services to
clients, which services were provided to the Plaintiffs and other
members of the Class.  TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, formerly
known as Ameritrade Holding Corporation, is the successor-in-
interest to TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is an investment banking and securities
brokerage firm.  Schwab provides broker-dealer and other services
to its clients and provided those services to Plaintiff Ledbetter
and other members of the Schwab/TD Subclass.  Charles Schwab &
Co., Inc. is incorporated in California and is based in San
Francisco, California.  Schwab operates as a subsidiary of Schwab
Holdings, Inc., which is, in turn, a subsidiary of The Charles
Schwab Corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
          Badge Humphries, Esq.
          Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: kdean@motleyrice.com
                  bhumphries@motleyrice.com
                  cmoriarty@motleyrice.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Accused of Calling Class Without Prior Consent
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Freeman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, a Nevada corporation,
and Conifer Health Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:14-cv-01362-ODE (N.D. Ga., May 6, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by initiating nonemergency telephone calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system to cellular telephone numbers
without the prior express consent of the subscribers of those
cellular telephone numbers.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a Nevada corporation.  Tenet
describes itself as "an investor-owned company whose subsidiaries
and affiliates operate regionally focused, integrated health care
delivery networks with a significant presence in several large
urban and suburban markets."  Conifer Health Solutions, LLC is a
Delaware limited liability company organized under the laws of the
State of.  Conifer "provides comprehensive operational management
for patient access, health information management, revenue
integrity and patient financial services, including . . . accounts
receivable management, third-party billing and collections[.]"
Conifer is the revenue cycle management division of Tenet, which
handles payment processing and accounts receivable collection for
Tenet owned hospitals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          P.O. Box 1478
          331 Washington Ave.
          Marietta, GA 30061-1478
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

               - and -

          James M. Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          108 East Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 204
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com


TODD ENGLISH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Gap Time and Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fermin and Janckell Fermin, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. English Enterprises, Inc.,
Olives NY LLC, and Todd English, Case No. 1:14-cv-03281-RA
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2014) seeks to recover from the Defendants (1)
unpaid minimum wages, (2) unpaid gap time and overtime, (3)
liquidated damages, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Todd English Enterprises, Inc., is a Massachusetts domestic
corporation headquartered in Charlestown, Massachusetts.  The
Company owns over 20 restaurants in the U.S., including Todd
English's Olives New York restaurant located in the W New York
hotel in New York City.

Olives NY LLC, is a Delaware foreign limited liability company
also headquartered in Charlestown.  Olives operates Todd English's
Olives New York restaurant.  Todd English is the president of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TRANSCOR OF MIAMI: Removed "Guillaume" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Guillaume v. Transcor of
Miami, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-008892-CA-01, was removed from
the 11th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-21644-MGC to the proceeding.

The case is brought over violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Erika R. Royal, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          515 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-1000
          Facsimile: (954) 463-2030
          E-mail: erika.royal@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Lindsay Dennis Swiger, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 353-2000
          Facsimile: (904) 358-1872
          E-mail: lindsay.swiger@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Edward Diaz, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-8500
          Facsimile: (305) 789-7799
          E-mail: edward.diaz@hklaw.com


TRIFECTA MARKETING: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edelson PC on May 9 disclosed that a recent class action
settlement resolves a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs who allege
they received unsolicited text messages from the phone number 650-
283-0793 between November 28, 2010 and December 2, 2010 sent by
Trifecta Marketing Group, LLC on behalf of Stonebridge Life
Insurance Company.  The named plaintiff alleges that she received
a text message that stated "Thanks 4 visiting our website please
call 877-711-5429 to claim your $100 walmart gift card voucher!
reply stop 2 unsub."  The lawsuit alleges that Defendants
transmitted or authorized the transmission of text messages to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without first
obtaining the proper consent, and that such conduct violates the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  Each of the
Defendants maintains its position that neither violated any laws
and further asserts that each acted properly at all times.

On April 4, 2014, a Federal Court in San Francisco granted
preliminary approval to the settlement, which provides that the
recipients of the text messages at issue may be eligible to
receive $155 if they submit a valid claim form.  The settlement
also requires Defendants to implement certain business practices
related to preventing the transmission of marketing text messages
without prior express consent from the recipients.

Those who received the text messages at issue between November 28,
2010 and December 2, 2010 are encouraged to visit
www.LeeTextMsgCase.net to learn more details about the settlement.
Class members may also call the Settlement Administrator at 1-877-
411-5681 or Class Counsel at 1-866-354-3015 for more information.


UNIV OF MIAMI HOSPITAL: Faces Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, reports that the University of
Miami Hospital neglected to pay a former employee fair overtime
wages, according to a putative class action removed to Florida
federal court on May 8.

Allan Gutierrez, who worked at the University of Miami Hospital as
a nonexempt employee from July 2012 to August 2013, alleged that
he was not paid overtime wages for time worked over 40 hours a
week, was not compensated at all for other time worked and, when
he tried to address these issues, his work hours were reduced in
retaliation, according to the suit.

Mr. Gutierrez's complaint, originally filed in Florida state court
last month, alleges five counts for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.  The hospital removed the case to federal court on Thursday.

"Plaintiff was not paid at the proper overtime rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week, as proscribed by the laws of the
United States and the state of Florida," the complaint said.
"Additionally, throughout plaintiff's employment, he worked
numerous hours for which he received no compensation whatsoever."

He alleged that the hospital "automatically deducted" from his
work time for daily lunch breaks that were not taken.

When he brought these problems about overtime pay and the meal
break deductions in April 2013, the hospital retaliated by cutting
his hours down to about one day per week, forcing him to seek
other employment, the suit alleged.  He said the cutting of his
hours violates the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA because
"the motivating factor that caused plaintiff's adverse employment
action . . . was plaintiff's complaint regarding not being
properly paid for all hours worked."

Mr. Gutierrez said the hospital "knew and/or showed reckless
disregard for the provisions of the FLSA concerning payment of
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
remain owing plaintiff these unpaid wages since the commencement
of plaintiff's employment with defendant . . . as such, plaintiff
is entitled to recover double damages."

The complaint seeks damages "for all front wages until plaintiffs
become 65 years of age" and an award of compensatory damages for
"mental anguish, personal suffering and loss of enjoyment of
life," in addition to a judgment that the hospital violated the
FLSA "willfully, intentionally and with reckless disregard for
plaintiff's rights."

Mr. Gutierrez is represented by Jason Saul Remer and Brody Max
Shulman of Remer & Georges-Pierre PLLC.

The University of Miami is represented by Robert T. Kofman --
rkofman@stearnsweaver.com -- and Jorge Freddy Perera --
fperera@stearnsweaver.com -- of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson PA.

The case is Gutierrez v. University of Miami, case number 1:14-cv-
21695, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


UNIV OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Mayo, writing for WTAE.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed in federal court targets both the University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and a payroll software company it
uses called the Ultimate Software Group, seeking damages and
protection for employees affected by a breach of confidential
data.

As many as 27 000 UPMC employees personal info exposed in breach
The IRS, Secret Service and FBI are investigating.  Employees of
the several Pittsburgh-area hospitals say they were notified that
their information was stolen.

The lawsuit claims the "defendants had a duty to protect the
private, highly sensitive, confidential personal and financial
information and the tax documents" and "failed to safeguard and
prevent vulnerabilities from being taken advantage of."

In April, UPMC Vice President of Privacy and Information Security
John Houston told Pittsburgh's Action News 4, "We are going to
give of our employees the opportunity to sign up for a credit
monitoring service.  We're underwriting the cost for that for one
year."  This lawsuit seeks a court injunction forcing 25 years
worth of identity theft insurance, credit restoration services,
and credit and bank monitoring services.

The employee named as the lead plaintiff, Alice Patrick, works as
a dialysis clinician at UPMC McKeesport, according to the lawsuit.
Both the attorneys who filed the lawsuit on her behalf and
representatives of UPMC declined to be interviewed.


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Dismisses Action Over Undisclosed ATM Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a district judge in Tennessee federal
court has dismissed a multidistrict class action lawsuit against
Wal-mart and the owner of ATMs in its stores that claimed they did
not properly disclose ATM fees.

District Judge Jon P. McCalla ruled that the safe-harbor defense
protects Wal-mart Stores Inc. and Satellite Receivers, which is
doing business as Cash Depot, from liability under federal law.

Judge McCalla granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, deciding that the defendants
provided enough evidence that they attached "on-machine" fee
notices to the ATMs during installation, and that they did not
instruct anyone to remove them.

The plaintiffs claimed the fee notices were not affixed to the
machines and that, in order to establish the safe harbor defense
under the Electronic Fund Transfers Act, the defendants must
affirmatively prove that the notices were removed by someone other
than the operator.

Judge McCalla disagreed, stating that the law does not require
"affirmative evidence that the sticker was removed by a third
party, and not one of defendant's employees."

"The court finds that defendants have satisfied their burden under
the safe harbor defense," the April 28 order states.  "Though
plaintiffs dispute the evidence submitted by defendants as hearsay
. . . the evidence is admissible under Rule 803(6) of the Federal
Rules of Evidence.  Therefore, there is no dispute as to any
material fact relevant to defendants' safe harbor defense."

The order states that the defendants' safe harbor defense protects
them from liability under the EFTA for missing on-machine ATM fee
notices.

The EFTA requires any ATM operator who imposes fees on consumers
in connection with electronic fund transfers to provide notice of
the fact that the fee is being imposed and the amount of the fee,
according to court documents.  In order to charge a fee for
electronic transfers, the law says the ATM operator must post
notice in a prominent and conspicuous location on or at the
machine.

Wal-Mart, which owns and operates more than 1,900 Money Center
Express machines, and Cash Depot charge a $1.50 fee on any cash
withdrawals, according to court documents.  The plaintiffs in the
case did not dispute, however, that the ATMs included notices in
the withdrawal process, according to court documents.

Judge McCalla found that the knowledge of the two managers, Kam
Lam and Rocky Heiser, in question about corporate policies and the
EFTA was sufficient.

The court "finds Lam and Heiser have sufficient personal knowledge
and/or information based on review of the business records of the
corporations as demonstrated in their respective declarations and
depositions to establish, for purposes of admissibility under the
Federal Rules of Evidence as to the facts asserted," according to
Judge McCalla's order.

Because the plaintiffs have provided no evidence to contradict
facts established in Lam and Heiser's sworn declarations and
depositions, which provide the basis for the facts in the case,
"and only dispute the admissibility of the submitted evidence, the
court finds the facts undisputed for the purposes of the instant
motions for summary judgment," the order states.

Neither company had any record of removing the fee notice
stickers, or requesting that an employee do so.

The plaintiffs were represented by Eric C. Calhoun --
eric@travislaw.com -- of Travis Calhoun & Conlon PC and B.J. Wade
of Skouteris & McGee PLLC.

Wal-Mart and Cash Depot were represented by Glen G. Reid Jr. --
greid@wyattfirm.com -- Robert L. Crawford --
lcrawford@wyattfirm.com -- Kacey L. Faughnan --
kfaughnan@wyattfirm.com -- and Byron N. Brown IV --
bbrown@wyattfirm.com -- of Wyatt Tarrant & Combs LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee-Western
Division case number: 2:11-md-02234


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Action Over Alleged Bribery in Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------
James Detar, writing for Investor's Business Daily, reports that
Wal-Mart Stores faces a possible class-action lawsuit over alleged
bribery in Mexico after a magistrate judge in Fayetteville, Ark.,
recommended denying the company's request to dismiss the action.
The recommendation is subject to review by U.S. District Judge
Susan Hickey, who is not bound to follow it.

"We respectfully disagree with the magistrate judge's opinion,"
Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove told Reuters after the judge
dismissed its request, "and continue to believe that the complaint
does not meet the standard necessary to move the case forward."

The case stems from an April 2012 New York Times (NYT)
investigative report that alleged high-level Wal-Mart officials
had tried to cover up an orchestrated campaign by some of the
company's managers to bribe Mexican officials and win contracts.
That report led to probes by the Department of Justice, Securities
and Exchange Commission and Mexican officials.  The report and
subsequent investigations led to a stock drop that ultimately
wiped out about $17 billion in market value, hurting investors,
the suit claims.

The lawsuit is led by Michigan's City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System, which is seeking class-action status
for the suit.  The group alleges Wal-Mart and former CEO Mike Duke
knew as early as 2005 that the Mexico unit may have engaged in
bribery of local officials but didn't act quickly enough to
investigate the matter.


WESTERN UNION: Still Liable for Escheat to Calif., AG Says
----------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company says there is reason to believe that
certain states may bring actions against the Company seeking
reimbursement for amounts equal to the class counsel's fees,
administrative costs and other expenses that are paid from the
Class Settlement Fund of a suit over money transfers that were not
redeemed by recipients, according to the company's May 1, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille
complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended
complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory
relief claim and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. ("WUFSI"),
a subsidiary of the Company, as a defendant. On April 25, 2011,
the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to
compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the
action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied
the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request. Both
companies appealed the decision. On January 24, 2012, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the
companies' request to stay the District Court proceedings pending
their appeal. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties
executed a settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily
approved on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered
an order certifying the class and granting final approval to the
settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of
the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel's
fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from
the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds, which are
included within "Settlement obligations" in the Company's
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the final approval
hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement that had
been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of those
class members filed notices of appeal. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments on March 18,
2014.

The settlement requires Western Union to deposit the class
members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class settlement
fund, from which class member claims, administrative fees and
class counsel's fees, as well as other expenses will be paid. On
November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified
Western Union of the California Controller's position that Western
Union's deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the
class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement "will not satisfy
Western Union's obligations to report and remit funds" under
California's unclaimed property law, and that "Western Union will
remain liable to the State of California" for the funds that would
have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The
State of Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. have expressed similar
views.

There is thus reason to believe that these and potentially other
jurisdictions may bring actions against the Company seeking
reimbursement for amounts equal to the class counsel's fees,
administrative costs and other expenses that are paid from the
class settlement fund. If such actions are brought or claims that
may otherwise require Western Union to incur additional
escheatment-related liabilities are asserted, Western Union would
defend itself vigorously.


WESTERN UNION: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company continues to face a securities lawsuit
filed by the City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On December 10, 2013, the City of Taylor Police and Fire
Retirement System filed a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado against
The Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive
Officer, and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that during the alleged class period, February
7, 2012 through October 30, 2012, defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse facts known to
them, including: (1) the Company was experiencing difficulties in
complying with its increased duties required by the Southwest
Border Agreement and that the State of Arizona was dissatisfied
with the Company's efforts; (2) the Company was spending
significantly more than forecast on its efforts to satisfy the
compliance and monitoring program; (3) the Company had downplayed
the impact that changes in its compliance and regulatory
environment were having on its operations, including its
operations in Mexico and Latin America; (4) the scope of the
Monitor's review was being expanded to include Western Union
Business Solutions, which would increase compliance costs; and (5)
the Company's ability to charge a premium for its core money
transfer product was under competitive pressure, which would
require drastic price reductions to stem market share losses.


WESTERN UNION: Faces Ill. Suit Over "Unsolicited" Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company is facing a suit alleging violation of a
section of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Illinois
federal court, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Units Face Suits Related to Geismar Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various subsidiaries of Williams Partners L.P. are facing class
actions over alleged offsite impacts, property damage, and
personal injury related to the Geismar Incident, according to the
company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

As a result of the Geismar Incident, there were two fatalities,
and numerous individuals (including affiliate employees and
contractors) reported injuries, which varied from minor to
serious. The company is cooperating with the Chemical Safety Board
and the EPA regarding their investigations of the Geismar
Incident. On October 21, 2013, the EPA issued an Inspection Report
pursuant to the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program following
its inspection of the facility on June 24 through 28, 2013. The
report notes the EPA's preliminary determinations about the
facility's documentation regarding process safety, process hazard
analysis, as well as operating procedures, employee training, and
other matters.  The company and the EPA continue to discuss such
preliminary determinations, and the EPA could issue penalties
pertaining to final determinations.  On December 11, 2013, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued
citations in connection with its investigation of the June 13,
2013 incident, which included a Notice of Penalty for $99,000.
Although the company and OSHA continue settlement negotiations,
the company is contesting the citations. On June 25, 2013, OSHA
commenced a second inspection pursuant to its Refinery and
Chemical National Emphasis Program (NEP). OSHA has not issued any
citation to the company in connection with this NEP inspection.
There is a six month statute of limitations for violation of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 or regulations
promulgated under such act. On June 28, 2013, the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) issued a Consolidated
Compliance Order & Notice of Potential Penalty to Williams
Olefins, L.L.C. that consolidates claims of unpermitted emissions
and other deviations under the Clean Air Act that the parties had
been negotiating since 2010 and alleged unpermitted emissions
arising from the Geismar Incident. Negotiations with the LDEQ are
ongoing. Any potential fines and penalties from these agencies
would not be covered by the company's insurance policy.
Additionally, multiple lawsuits, including class actions for
alleged offsite impacts, property damage, and personal injury,
have been filed against various of the company's subsidiaries.


ZEOBIT LLC: Faces "Yencha" Class Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Yencha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZeoBit LLC, a California limited liability company,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00578-JFC (W.D. Pa., May 6, 2014) alleges breach
of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William R. Caroselli, Esq.
          CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY
          20 Stanwix Street, Seventh Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 391-9860
          E-mail: wcaroselli@cbmclaw.com


* Court Clarifies Professional Responsibility Rules in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Williams, Esq., at Sedgwick LLP, reports that the Florida
Supreme Court has clarified that its rules of professional
responsibility govern whether counsel for class action plaintiffs
should be disqualified based on alleged conflicts of interests
that arise after a class action settlement has been entered and
affirmed the disqualification of counsel for plaintiffs who sought
to modify the terms of a $300 million class action settlement in
Young v. Achenbauch, No. SC12-988, 2014 (Fla. Mar. 27, 2014).

Flight attendants initiated a class action based on exposure to
second-hand smoke in airline cabins against several tobacco
companies.  The trial court was prepared to try the case in two
stages.  The first stage would decide causation and common issues
and, in the second stage, individual trials would determine each
plaintiff's damages.

The case resulted in a class action settlement during the first
stage that provided $300 million to sponsor scientific research
for the early detection and cure of diseases associated with
cigarette smoking by creating the Flight Attendant Medical
Research Institute ("FAMRI").  The class action plaintiffs agreed
to waive their intentional tort and punitive damage claims against
the defendants, but retained the right to pursue individual claims
for compensatory damages.  The terms provided that if the
settlement were modified in any way, then it would be canceled and
become null and void.  Several of the class action plaintiffs
became board members of FAMRI.

Many of the flight attendants who had been part of the class
action retained counsel and filed individual suits seeking
compensatory damages, including two of FAMRI's board members.
Counsel for the flight attendants became concerned that FAMRI's
activities were not being supervised by the trial court and
eventually filed a petition against FAMRI, on behalf of several
flight attendants, seeking an accounting of FAMRI's funds and an
injunction against further expenditures, while also requesting
that the underlying settlement money be dispersed directly to
their clients.  Two board members and FAMRI moved to disqualify
the attorneys on the ground of conflict of interest.

One of the board members averred in an affidavit that upon
learning of the petition against FAMRI, she contacted her lawyer
and objected to the petition and that the lawyer subsequently
withdrew as her counsel in her individual suit after representing
her for a decade.  Another member of the board averred that she
met frequently with the group of attorneys representing the flight
attendants in their individual progeny suits, including the
lawyers at issue in the motion to disqualify and she considered
all of the attorneys in the group to be her counsel, but admitted
that the attorneys subject to the motion were not her individual
counsel of record.

The trial court found that the attorneys violated Florida's Rule
of Professional Conduct 4-1.7, which governs conflicts with
current clients, and the Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.9, which
concerns conflicts with former clients.

Rule 4-1.7 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if: (1)
the representation of one client will be directly adverse to
another client or (2) there is a substantial risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be materially limited
by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former
client, a third person or by personal interest.  The matters for
current clients do not need to be substantially related.

Rule 4-1.9 provides that a lawyer who has formerly represented a
client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person
in the same or a substantially related matter in which that
person's interests are materially adverse to the interest of the
former client, unless the former client gives informed consent.

An intermediate appellate court applied a test developed in
federal courts that balances a party's right to select his or her
own counsel against a client's right to the undivided loyalty of
his or her counsel for determining when to disqualify an attorney
based on a potential conflict of interest in the context of a
class action proceedings, rather than applying Florida's Rules of
Professional Conduct.

The appellate court relied upon a ruling of the Third Circuit that
even where some class representatives have objected to a proposed
class action settlement, class counsel may continue to represent
the remaining class representatives and the class as long as the
interest of the class in continued representation by experienced
counsel is not outweighed by the actual prejudice to the objectors
of being opposed by their former counsel.

The appellate court also considered a view expressed by the Second
Circuit that apparent conflicts between multiple clients in a
federal class action do not require a court to jettison entirely
an attorney for the class because the attorney for the class is
normally allowed to oppose contentions of class members who have
appeared in court in opposition to a proposed settlement of a
class action, although the Code of Professional Responsibility
would seem to prohibit a lawyer from doing so.  Indeed, class
action settlements are submitted to a court for its consideration
of the class' interests -- not an individual client's interests --
which means that differences of opinion between attorneys and
class members do not automatically preclude an attorney's
continued service as counsel.

The duty of class counsel, moreover, is to ensure the best
interests of the class, rather than individual clients.  The
intermediate appellate court applied the balancing test and
reversed the disqualification order.  The FAMRI petitioners argued
on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court that the appellate court
erred by failing to apply the Florida Rules of Professional
Conduct.

The Florida Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate
court, reinstated the trial court's disqualification order and
asked the Florida Bar to investigate whether any rules of
professional conduct were violated during the underlying and
appellate proceedings.  The Florida Supreme Court ruled that
Florida's Rules of Professional Conduct control whether counsel
should be disqualified and rebuked the intermediate court for
applying the federal court balancing test.

The Florida Supreme Court determined that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in disqualifying the attorneys because the
action against FAMRI was directly adverse to the interests of the
board members, thus violating Rule 4.1-7, and that the petition
against FAMRI -- the individual progeny suits -- and the original
class action were all substantially related because they involved
the same transaction or legal dispute, and thus the attorneys also
violated Rule 4.1-9.

The Florida Supreme Court noted that, notwithstanding a conflict
under the initial provision of Rule 4.1-7, the rule also provides
that a lawyer might still be able to represent a client provided
that the representation is not prohibited by law, the lawyer
reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect
his responsibilities to the other client and the other client
consents after consultation.

The Florida Supreme Court did not address, however, whether more
routine objections to a proposed class action settlement from
certain members of a class would preclude class counsel from
continuing representation of the class, the federal courts'
observation that class counsel's primary loyalty is owed to the
class rather than to individual class member or how Florida's
conflict rules could be cohered generally with class action
procedures.

In light of the somewhat extraordinary facts at issue in the case,
the ultimate ruling logically could have been framed in terms of
disagreeing with the intermediate appellate court's application of
the balancing test.  The Florida Supreme Court did not go so far
as to proclaim that a disqualifying conflict of interest would
arise whenever a prospective member of a class action objected to
a proposed settlement, but it did specifically overrule the use of
the federal balancing test to evaluate a potential conflict of
interest in class action proceedings.

This decision underscores the importance of scrutinizing whether a
conflict of interest may have arisen subsequent to the entry of a
class action settlement based on the evolving positions and
interests of former class members, class counsel and individual
counsel.  It also highlights the need for lawyers involved with
class action proceedings in state courts to be mindful of how a
particular state resolves alleged conflicts of interest and
applies its rules of professional conduct.


                             *********

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  * * *