CAR_Public/140521.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 100

                             Headlines


ADVANCED MICRO: Faces Calif. Suit Over 32nm and "Llano" Product
AFFYMAX INC: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks
BANK OF AMERICA: Not Liable to Shareholders in $10BB Fraud Suit
BB&B MANAGEMENT: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
BLUE BUFFALO: Misrepresents Nature of Pet Foods, Ill. Suit Says

BP: Court Refuses to Reconsider Oil Spill Settlement Ruling
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Sold Misbranded Food Products, Consumer Claims
CALIX INC: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment in "Steinhardt"
CARGILL INC: "Martin" Suit Transferred From Minnesota to Hawaii
CENTERSTATE BANKS: Faces Suit in Fla. Over First Southern Merger

CLINCH RIVER: Accused of Not Paying OT for Hours Worked Over 40
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Suit Plaintiffs Move for Summary Judgment
CONSOL ENERGY: Oral Argument in "Addison" Litigation Held
CONSOL ENERGY: Expenses Down After Settlement of Suit v. CNX Gas
CORELOGIC INC: Sued for Falsifying Copyright Management Info

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removed "Dittmar" Suit to S.D. California
CUSTODIAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
DAKOTA GROWERS: Settles Pasta Class Action for $5 Million
DC REALTY: Faces "Zap" Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: July Argument Set to Strike "Scranton" Claim

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Accused of Manipulating Security Markets
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Firefighters Suit Stayed on Certification Issue
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Labor Suit in Tennessee Conditionally Certified
FIRST ENERGY: Sued for Damages Over Bruce Mansfield Operation
FORD MOTOR: Filing of Amended Complaint Allowed in Apartheid Suit

FORD MOTOR: Ohio Appeals Court Reverses Certification Order
FORMFACTOR INC: To Enter Into Mediation in Calif. Labor Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Skillman" Suit Over Defective Switches
GENERAL MOTORS: Begins Negotiations of Ignition Switch Claims
GENON ENERGY: Still Faces Remaining Natural Gas Litigation

GENON ENERGY: Suit Over Cheswick Plant Emissions Stayed
GREEN FOREST: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
GUARANTEED WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
IMMERSION CORPORATION: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
INTEL CORP: Class Action Over Performance Tests Proceeds to Trial

ITT CORP: Works to Settle Suit Over Payment of Asbestos Claims
JANSSEN PHARMA: South Dakota Gets $2.6MM Share From Settlement
KINDER MORGAN: EPB's Bid to Junk Suit Over SNG Share Sale Denied
KINDER MORGAN: Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit by KMEP Unitholder
KINDER MORGAN: Consolidation of "Burns" With "Slotoroff" Ordered

KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Suit Stayed Pending "Slotoroff" Decision
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Certification Denied in "Henke" Suit
MARIE CALLENDER: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Calif.
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Set on Dismissal of Stock Suit
MB FINANCIAL: Inks MoU to Settle Taylor Capital Merger Suit

MICROS SYSTEMS: Court Designates Conditional Class in Labor Suit
MIDWEST GENERATION: Stay on Residents' Nuisance Lawsuits Lifted
MYLAN INC: Briefing Completed in Suit by Health Insurer Opt-Outs
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Crew Fails in Class Certification Bid
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: 2011 Suit by Crew Members v. NHL Bahamas Stayed

RELIC INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
SOUTH FLORIDA SHAVINGS: Sued for Not Paying Proper Overtime Rate
SYNTROLEUM CORP: Excluded by Plaintiffs in Suit Over Asset Sale
TARGET CORP: Faces "Androscoggin" Suit Over Data Security Breach
TELETECH@HOME INC: Sued in N.D. Ohio for Using Consumer Reports

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Writ for Certified Lawsuit v. TSP Blocked
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Claimant in Dentist Suit to Withdraw Case
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit v. TSS
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Court Mulls Bid to Junk Privacy Suit v. TSS
UNITED ONLINE: Judgment Granted to Trilegiant Suit Plaintiffs

WHITEWAVE FOODS: Recalls Soymilk Over Allergy Risk
WOCKHARDT LTD: Recalls 109,744 Bottles of Metoprolol Succinate
ZYNGA INC: Faces First Amended Securities Litigation in Calif.
ZYNGA INC: Case Management Conference in "Reyes" Suit Set
ZYNGA INC: No Date Yet to Hear Motion to Dismiss "Lee v. Pincus"

* Injuries Related to Baby Gates Quadruples, Study Shows
* Hundreds of Medical Malpractice Patient Deaths Uncovered in Va.
* Medical Malpractice Initiative to Be Put on Nov. 4 Ballot


                            *********


ADVANCED MICRO: Faces Calif. Suit Over 32nm and "Llano" Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. is facing a securities suit styled
Hatamian v. AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to AMD's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29,
2014.

The class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v. AMD, et al., C.A.
No. 3:14-cv-00226 was filed on January 15, 2014, against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint purports to assert claims
against the Company and certain individual officers for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock during the period October 27, 2011 through October
28, 2012. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the
Company and the individual officers regarding the company's 32nm
technology and "Llano" product, which statements and omissions,
the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to inflate artificially
the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.


AFFYMAX INC: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 18, 2014, stayed a securities litigation
against Affymax, Inc. for 90 days to allow the parties to conduct
settlement discussions, according to the company's May 6, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On February 27, 2013, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company, certain
of its officers, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Takeda Global Research &
Development Center, Inc. A second complaint naming the same
defendants was filed on March 6, 2013. On May 2, 2013, the
securities class action complaint that was filed on February 27,
2013 was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.  On May 21, 2013,
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the remaining securities
class action complaint that had been filed on March 6, 2013.  On
July 22, 2013, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company, naming
as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the defendants regarding OMONTYS,
the Company's business practices, financial projections and other
disclosures between August 8, 2012 and February 22, 2013, or the
Class Period.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the Class
Period and seeks damages, costs and expenses and such other relief
as determined by the Court.  On September 20, 2013, the Company
and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On November 19, 2013, the
plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion to dismiss and on
December 19, 2013, Defendants filed their reply in support of
their motion to dismiss.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss
occurred on January 15, 2014.  On January 21, 2014, the Court
issued its order granting the motion to dismiss regarding
violations of Section 20(a) against all Defendants and it granted
the motion to dismiss in part, denying the motion to dismiss in
part, and providing plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend the
complaint.


BANK OF AMERICA: Not Liable to Shareholders in $10BB Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a federal appeals court said Bank of America
Corp. was not liable to shareholders for allegedly concealing a
$10 billion fraud lawsuit by American International Group Inc,
whose filing led to a 20-percent one-day plunge in the bank's
stock price.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on Nay 19 found
no showing that the bank, Chief Executive Brian Moynihan and other
officials had intended to mislead shareholders and acted in a
"highly unreasonable" manner by not disclosing the lawsuit before
it was filed.

AIG sued Bank of America on Aug. 8, 2011 over alleged losses on
more than $28 billion of mortgage-backed securities that the
insurer had bought from the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank
and its Countrywide and Merrill Lynch units.

Bank of America shares fell 20.3 percent on the day the lawsuit
was filed.  Major U.S. stock indexes fell more than 5 percent that
day, the first trading session after Standard & Poor's took away
the United States' triple-A credit rating.

Camcorp Interests Ltd., a Houston-based investment firm, claimed
that the bank knew of AIG's claims as early as February 2011 and
should have revealed them at that time.

But the 2nd Circuit said "the much more compelling conclusion" is
that the bank found no disclosure was necessary in light of
"information already in the marketplace, the aggregate disclosure
of (Bank of America's) findings, and the lack of any definitive
regulatory requirement requiring the disclosure of a possible
lawsuit of indeterminate amount."

The May 19 decision upheld a November 2013 ruling by U.S. District
Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan.

Jason Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- a partner at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro representing Camcorp, declined to comment.  The
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund and the Northern Ireland Local
Government Officers' Superannuation Committee supported the
appeal.

Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson said the bank was
pleased with the decision.

AIG filed the lawsuit as part of its effort to recoup losses that
led to its near-collapse in 2008, as well as $182.3 billion of
federal bailouts.

The case is In re: Bank of America AIG Disclosure Securities
Litigation, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-4422.


BB&B MANAGEMENT: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Scalise, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. B B & B Management Consultants, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, L D Management, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
Mackie-Glo, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Lloyd Lathrop,
individually, and Kristina R. Stewart, individually, Case No.
2:14-cv-00247-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2014) is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

B B & B Management Consultants, Inc., L D Management, Inc., and
Mackie-Glo, Inc., are Florida Profit Corporations conducting
business in Lee County, Florida.  The Corporate Defendants own and
operate bingo halls in Lee County.  The Individual Defendants are
corporate officers, managers or owners of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Paul Rothman, Esq.
          WELDON & ROTHMAN, PL
          7935 Airport Pulling Rd. N, Suite 205
          Naples, FL 34109
          Telephone: (239) 262-2141
          Facsimile: (239) 262-2342
          E-mail: brothman@weldonrothman.com


BLUE BUFFALO: Misrepresents Nature of Pet Foods, Ill. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael D. Stone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., Case No.
3:14-cv-00520-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill., May 7, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in a widespread marketing campaign to
mislead consumers about the nature of its pet food.

Ms. Stone contends that the Defendant's pet food is marketed,
advertised, and sold by the Defendant with material
misrepresentations regarding the ingredients present in its
products.  She insists that the most important misrepresentation
at issue, which is emphasized heavily in the Defendant's marketing
and advertising, is a false claim that its pet food contains "NO
Chicken/Poultry By-Product Meals."  She adds that the Defendant's
pet food does contain significant amounts of chicken/poultry by-
product meals, corn, other grains, and artificial preservatives,
and does not have any superior nutritional value as compared to
competitor products.

The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Connecticut.  The Defendant is in
the business of marketing, advertising and selling pet food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          Tim Cronin, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com
                  rkeane@simonlawpc.com
                  tcronin@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Sean K. Cronin, Esq.
          DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C.
          201 South Illinois Street
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 212-6500
          Facsimile: (618) 212-6501
          E-mail: scronin@drnpc.com


BP: Court Refuses to Reconsider Oil Spill Settlement Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court on
May 19 refused to reconsider its previous ruling that businesses
don't have to prove they were directly harmed by BP's 2010 Gulf of
Mexico oil spill to collect settlement payments.

The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans could be a step toward resuming a claims process that was
suspended after a district court ruling in December.  However, BP
spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an emailed statement on May 19
that the company is considering its legal options.

BP had asked the full 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans
to rehear the case after a three-judge panel's March ruling.  The
court voted 8-5 against a rehearing.  The action preserves U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier's (BAHR'-bee-ay) ruling that BP had
agreed in a 2012 settlement to pay claims without requiring proof
that losses were directly caused by the spill resulting from the
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11
workers.

Judge Leslie Southwick wrote in the May 19 order that a 2012
policy statement, issued by the court-appointed claims
administrator and developed with "input and assent from BP,"
spelled out the criteria for business claims.

"Instead of direct evidence of a causal connection between the
Deepwater Horizon disaster and the claimant's business losses, the
Exhibit described four geographic zones, several types of
businesses, formulae for presenting economic losses, and various
presumptions regarding causation that apply to specific
combinations of those criteria."

Judge Southwick said all parties agreed to the criteria prior to
final court approval of the 2012 settlement.

Judge Edith Brown Clement dissented.  "Our courts' decisions would
allow payments to 'victims' such as a wireless phone company store
that burned down and a RV park owner that was foreclosed on before
the spill," she wrote.  "Left intact, our holdings funnel BP's
cash into the pockets of undeserving non-victims."  She said the
ruling made the court "party to this fraud" and said judges in the
majority were trying to "shift the blame for these absurdities to
BP's lawyers."

The May 19 ruling consolidated multiple appeals in the case and
appears to settle what BP said were conflicts between two earlier
panel decisions related to the settlement.  It is the latest
development in a complicated legal back-and-forth over to whom BP
owes money following the nation's largest oil spill.  A three-
judge panel ruled in December that Judge Barbier had to consider
BP's arguments.  But Judge Barbier ruled against the company.

"BP is disappointed that the full Fifth Circuit will not be
considering the divided panel decisions relating to the
compensation of claims for losses that have no apparent connection
to the spill," Mr. Morrell's statement said.

Attorneys Steve Herman and Jim Roy, lead lawyers for the steering
committee of plaintiffs in the case, applauded the court's
decision.  "We are pleased that the Court of Appeals agreed that
BP must honor its contract," they said in an email.

The 2012 settlement doesn't have a cap, but BP initially estimated
that it would pay roughly $7.8 billion to resolve the claims.
Later, as it started to challenge the business payouts, the
company said it no longer could give a reliable estimate for how
much the deal will cost.

BP says it has paid out more than $12 billion in claims to people,
businesses and government entities.  A trial scheduled for January
in New Orleans is part of the litigation that will determine how
much the oil giant owes in federal Clean Water Act penalties.


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Sold Misbranded Food Products, Consumer Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph McMahon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03346 (N.D.
Ill., May 7, 2014) is brought on behalf of a statewide class of
Illinois consumers whom, since May 7, 2010, purchased any Bumble
Bee products:

   (1) labeled or advertised as "Excellent Source Omega 3," or

   (2) bearing an American Heart Association seal without
       disclosing it as a paid endorsement.

San Diego, California-based Bumble Bee is a Delaware corporation
doing business in the state of Illinois and throughout the United
States of America.  Bumble Bee produces a variety of seafood
products, and is best known for its tuna products.  Bumble Bee
represents that it is North America's largest branded shelf-stable
seafood company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          120 N. LaSalle, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com


CALIX INC: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment in "Steinhardt"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an opinion
granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in the securities suit Steinhardt v. Howard-
Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL), according to Calix Inc.'s
May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam Networks, Inc. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement"). In response to the announcement of the Merger
Agreement on October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint
was filed by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of
Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-
VCL). On November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended
complaint (the "amended Steinhardt complaint"). The amended
Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which has since been merged into
Calix) and the members of the Occam board of directors as
defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint did not name Calix as
a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011. On
January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for
sanctions brought by the defendants against certain of the lead
plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead plaintiffs Michael
Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex
Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had
engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and dismissed the
Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice. The court
further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i) barred from
receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii) required to self-
report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose their improper
trading in any future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and
(iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5 million, to be
distributed to the remaining members of the class of former Occam
stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the motion of the
remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for
class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as
class representatives. The certified class is a non-opt-out class
consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were
converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to
seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11,
2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.

On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants
named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening
Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing
that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts
of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to
the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013,
and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6,
2013.

On April 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court granted summary
judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as
directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper
actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The ruling also
granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate
entity. The court left in place process-based claims against
Occam's former CEO and CFO, and also declined to grant summary
judgment on separate claims that the director and officer
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy
statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained
misleading disclosures and had material omissions.


CARGILL INC: "Martin" Suit Transferred From Minnesota to Hawaii
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Martin, et al. v. Cargill,
Incorporated, Case No. 0:13-cv-02563, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawaii.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00218-LEK-BMK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit challenges the labeling and marketing of Cargill's
Truvia Consumer Products, which were advertised as "natural."  The
Plaintiffs contend that the Truvia Consumer Products were not
"natural" because they contained ingredients that were "highly
processed" or derived from genetically modified organisms.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of Americas 1808
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Telephone: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: michael@reeserichman.com
                  kim@reeserichman.com

               - and -

          Anna M. Horning Nygren, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: amhorningnygren@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          Susan M. Coler, Esq.
          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                  coler@halunenlaw.com
                  halunen@halunenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam H. Welle, Esq.
          Heather M. McElroy, Esq.
          Christopher W. Madel, Esq.
          Jan M. Conlin, Esq.
          Kate E. Jaycox, Esq.
          Stephen P. Safranski, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI LLP
          800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8782
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: ahwelle@rkmc.com
                  hmmcelroy@rkmc.com
                  cwmadel@rkmc.com
                  jmconlin@rkmc.com
                  kejaycox@rkmc.com
                  spsafranski@rkmc.com

Intervenor Denise Howerton is represented by:

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
          66 West Flagler, Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-0072
          E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com


CENTERSTATE BANKS: Faces Suit in Fla. Over First Southern Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centerstate Banks, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the Circuit Court
of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida
challenging its merger with First Southern Bancorp, Inc.,
according to Centerstate's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On April 24, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach
County, Florida against First Southern Bancorp, Inc. ("First
Southern"), its directors and CenterState challenging the merger
of First Southern with CenterState. Among other things, the
complaint alleges that the First Southern directors breached their
fiduciary duties to First Southern and its shareholders by
agreeing to the proposed merger. Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting
consummation of the merger, recession, damages and attorneys' fees
and costs and other further relief.


CLINCH RIVER: Accused of Not Paying OT for Hours Worked Over 40
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cassondra Phillips and Rhonda Jeffers, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Clinch River Home Health, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00187-PLR-CCS (E.D. Tenn., May 7, 2014) alleges
that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant more than 40 hours
per workweek during certain workweeks, but were not paid overtime
wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 during those workweeks.

Clinch River Home Health, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation
headquartered in Clinton, Tennessee.  The Company provides home
healthcare services to its clients, including nursing care and
assistance with cooking, cleaning, personal care, transportation,
and medications, in the East Tennessee area.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Scott Jackson, Jr., Esq.
          R. SCOTT JACKSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          4525 Harding Road, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 313-8188
          Facsimile: (615) 313-8702
          E-mail: rsjackson@rsjacksonlaw.com


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Suit Plaintiffs Move for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia heard argument on
plaintiffs' summary judgment motions in the suit Hale v. CNX Gas
Company, et. al., according to CONSOL Energy Inc.'s May 6, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010
in the U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v.
CNX Gas Company, et. al. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff
class consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose gas
ownership is in conflict, the Virginia Supreme Court and General
Assembly have decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the
owner of the gas estate, the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 net proceeds royalty to CBM
owners for gas produced under the forced-pooled orders, and CNX
Gas Company relied upon control of only the coal estate in force
pooling the CBM notwithstanding decisions by the Virginia Supreme
Court. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of
the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production (that
is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since production
began) be distributed to the class members. The lawsuit also
alleges CNX Gas Company failed to either pay royalties due to
conflicting claimants, or deemed lessors or paid them less than
required because of the alleged practice of improper below market
sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.
In ruling on the company's Motion to Dismiss, the District Judge
decided that the deemed lease provision of the Gas and Oil Act is
constitutional as is the 1/8 royalty. An amended complaint was
filed, which added additional allegations that include gas hedging
receipts should have been used as the basis for royalty payments,
severance tax should not be allowed as a post-production deduction
from royalties, and damages incurred because gas was produced
prior to the entry of pooling orders. A motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint was filed and denied. The Magistrate Judge
issued a Report & Recommendation on June 5, 2013, recommending
that the District Judge grant plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered
an Order overruling CNX Gas Company's Objections, adopting the
Report & Recommendation and certifying the class with a modified
class definition. CONSOL Energy believes this case cannot properly
proceed as a class action and filed a Petition asking the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the class
certification Order. On November 13, 2013, the Fourth Circuit
entered an Order deferring a ruling on the Petition but assigning
the case to a merits panel. Now fully briefed, oral argument is
scheduled before the Fourth Circuit on May 13, 2014. Plaintiffs
filed Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of ownership of
the gas royalty escrow accounts and seeking an accounting. The
Fourth Circuit denied a Motion to Stay the trial court proceedings
while it considers the class certification issues, and the
District Judge heard argument on the summary judgment motions on
January 6, 2014.


CONSOL ENERGY: Oral Argument in "Addison" Litigation Held
---------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Circuit Court scheduled a May 13, 2014 oral argument in
the suit Addison v. CNX Gas Company, et al., according to CONSOL
Energy Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in
the United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled
Addison v. CNX Gas Company, et al.  The lawsuit alleges that the
plaintiff class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in
conflict. The lawsuit alleges that the Virginia Supreme Court and
General Assembly have decided that the plaintiff owns the gas and
is entitled to royalties held in escrow by the Commonwealth of
Virginia or CNX Gas Company. The lawsuit also alleges CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due these conflicting
claimant lessors or paid them less than required because of the
alleged practice of improper below market sales and/or taking
alleged improper post-production deductions. Plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment regarding ownership, an accounting and
compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract;
conversion; negligence (voluntary undertaking) for improperly
asserting that conflicting ownership exists, negligence (breach of
duties as an operator); breach of fiduciary duties; and unjust
enrichment. The District Judge granted, in part, CNX Gas Company's
Motion to Dismiss. An Amended Complaint was filed which added an
additional allegation that gas hedging receipts should have been
used as the basis for royalty payments. A motion to dismiss those
claims was filed and was denied. The Magistrate Judge issued a
Report & Recommendation on June 5, 2013, recommending that the
District Judge grant plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
overruling CNX Gas Company's Objections, adopting the Report &
Recommendation and certifying the class with a modified class
definition. CNX Gas believes this case cannot properly proceed as
a class action and filed a Petition asking the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to review the class certification
Order. On November 13, 2013, the Fourth Circuit entered an Order
deferring a ruling on the Petition but assigning the case to a
merits panel. Now fully briefed, the Fourth Circuit has scheduled
oral argument for May 13, 2014. Plaintiffs have filed Motions for
Summary Judgment on the issue of ownership of the gas royalty
escrow accounts and seeking an accounting. The Fourth Circuit
denied a Motion to Stay the trial court proceedings while it
considers the class certification issues, and the District Judge
heard argument on the summary judgment motions on January 6, 2014.


CONSOL ENERGY: Expenses Down After Settlement of Suit v. CNX Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The corporate costs of CONSOL Energy Inc. decreased partly due to
the CNX Gas Company LLC shareholder settlement that was the result
of an agreement in principle for the resolution of the class
actions brought by shareholders of CNX Gas, according to CONSOL's
May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Other corporate costs of CONSOL Energy Inc. decreased partly due
to the CNX shareholder settlement that was the result of an
agreement in principle for resolution of the class actions brought
by shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the tender offer by CONSOL
Energy to acquire all of the share of CNX Gas common stock that
CONSOL Energy did not already own for $38.25 per share in May
2010. The total settlement provided for payment to the plaintiffs
of $43 million, of which the Company's portion was $20 million.


CORELOGIC INC: Sued for Falsifying Copyright Management Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CoreLogic, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:14-cv-01158-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 7, 2014) arises from
CoreLogic's alleged falsification, removal or alteration of the
Plaintiff's and the other Class members' copyright management
information in their photographic works.

CoreLogic Inc. is a Delaware corporation with offices in San
Diego, California.  CoreLogic is the largest provider of
technology services to Multiple Listing Service organizations in
the United States.  MLS organizations typically require every
listing contain at least one, and sometimes several, photographs
of property offered for sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren J. Quinn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARREN J. QUINN
          12702 Via Cortina, Suite 105
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858) 509-9401
          Facsimile: (858) 509-9411
          E-mail: dq@dqlaw.com

               - and -

          Joel B. Rothman, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER ROTHMAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
          4651 North Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 404-4350
          E-mail: Joel.rothman@sriplaw.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removed "Dittmar" Suit to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Dittmar v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00009806-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01156-LAB-JLB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts class-wide claims for (1) failure to pay
overtime premium wages, (2) failure to pay all wages dues, (3)
failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, (4) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, (5) failure to pay all
earned wages upon separation from employment, (6) failure to pay
accrued vacation at discharge, (7) unfair business practices, and
(8) conversion.  She seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
          CASKEY & HOLZMAN
          24025 Park Sorrento, Suite 400
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 657-1070
          Facsimile: (323) 461-1823
          E-mail: dholzman@caskeyholzman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          San Diego, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: kyoumans@seyfarth.com
                  dkadue@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          Emily E. Schroeder, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 S. Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com
                  eschroeder@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Tara Wilcox, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
          501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-6608
          Facsimile: (619) 234-3815
          E-mail: twilcox@sheppardmullin.com


CUSTODIAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Guadalupe Duran Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Custodial Service
Institute, LLC, and Michael T. Barnas, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-03348 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2014) seeks redress for the
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, in connection with their
failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a week.

Custodial Service Institute, LLC is an entity doing business in
Illinois.  Michael T. Barnas is the Managing Member of Custodial
Service Institute, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin Narvaez, Esq
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
                  consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


DAKOTA GROWERS: Settles Pasta Class Action for $5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a company accused of falsely
advertising the health benefits of its nationally distributed
Dreamfields Pasta line has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit
and pay $5 million to consumers who bought the products in the
last decade.

The complaint, filed last summer against Carrington, North Dakota-
based Dakota Growers Pasta and its parent company at the time,
challenged claims that the product was a low-carbohydrate
alternative to traditional pasta but didn't sacrifice the taste.
Dreamfields is marketed under the slogan "Healthy Carb Living."

Under the agreement, consumers will be refunded $1.99 for each box
of pasta bought since February 2004.  It limits the payments to 15
boxes of pasta bought at any store, but all boxes bought online
will be reimbursed.  The deal also calls for new labeling.

A U.S. District judge who presided over the mediation called the
settlement "extraordinary."  On May 9, U.S. District Judge Joel
Pisano in New Jersey signed a preliminary approval order for the
settlement; a Sept. 24 hearing has been set to finalize the deal.

Dakota Growers vice president and general manager Ed Irion told
The Associated Press on Friday he could not talk about the case.
Lorna Dotro, the defendants' lawyer, and Daniel Gluck, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs, did not return numerous phone messages left on
three consecutive days.  Dreamfields spokeswoman Zina Fizer did
not respond to requests for comment.

There were two separate federal complaints in the case.  One suit
was filed in New Jersey on July 23, 2013, and brought by men from
New Jersey, New York, California and Michigan; the other action
was filed in Minnesota by a man from Texas on July 19, 2013.

The plaintiffs said they would not have bought the more expensive
Dreamfields pasta had they known about the false claims on
carbohydrate intake and low glycemic index, a system that ranks
foods on a scale from 1 to 100 based on their effect on blood-
sugar levels and is often monitored by people with diabetes.

Dreamfields had touted its patent-pending formula and unique
manufacturing process that created what it called a matrix within
the pasta that kept 31 grams of carbs per serving from being
digested.  Each box stated there were only five grams of
digestible carbs per serving and it had a 65 percent lower
glycemic index than regular pasta.

But a study at the University of Minnesota showed people who ate
Dreamfields pasta did not have a smaller blood-glucose increase
than those who ate regular pasta, the plaintiffs said.  In
response, the defendants said the study was not published in a
peer-reviewed journal and was "flawed methodologically."

Earlier this month, Kellogg Co. agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit for $5 million and the removal of "All Natural" and
"Nothing Artificial" labels on certain Kashi products, which
plaintiffs in the suit had said was misleading because the
products contained a variety of synthetic and artificial
ingredients.

The Dakota Growers' website says the company makes 150 pasta
shapes and formulas for retail private label, food service and
ingredient customers.  It began production in 1994 and was founded
as a farmers' cooperative, though later changed its ownership
structure.  The company was sold in 2010 to Viterra Inc., a
Canadian grain and food processor, which was recently bought by
Post Holdings Inc.

The complaint begins, "Americans Love Pasta," and goes on to note
many people opt for whole grain or higher fiber pastas, which
often have a grainy or mushy texture and do not taste like
traditional noodles.  Dreamfields had advertised its low-carb
pasta has "the authentic taste and al dente" texture of
traditional pasta, according to the complaint.

The defendants weren't quite as eager to make a sweeping statement
in their response: "Defendant lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to whether 'Americans love pasta,'
and therefore denies the same."


DC REALTY: Faces "Zap" Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zap Cellular, Inc., and E-Z Roamer, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rabbi David Cynammon,
Aaron Cynammon, D C Realty and Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-02858
(E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen G. Dickerman, Esq.
          128 Brighton 11th Street, Suite 1
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 337-8766
          Facsimile: (646) 355-0242
          E-mail: sdickerman@nywinlaw.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: July Argument Set to Strike "Scranton" Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motions of E*TRADE Financial Corporation to
strike and for a demurrer to a second amended complaint filed by
John Scranton, is scheduled for July 18, 2014, according to the
company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13,
2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint
were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted
leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed
on January 31, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to
strike and for a demurrer to the second amended complaint. A
hearing on these motions is scheduled for July 18, 2014.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Accused of Manipulating Security Markets
-----------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation is facing lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
manipulation of the U.S. Securities markets, according to the
company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 18, 2014, a putative class action was filed by the City
of Providence, Rhode Island against forty-one high frequency
trading firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-
dealers, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the high
frequency trading firms, certain broker-dealers managing dark
pools, and the exchanges manipulated the U.S. Securities markets,
and that numerous market-makers and broker-dealers participated in
that manipulation by doing business with the high frequency
traders. As to the Company, the Complaint alleges violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On May 2, 2014, a
similar putative class action was filed by American European
Insurance Company against forty-two high frequency trading firms,
stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers,
including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The action filed by American European
Insurance Company made allegations substantially similar to the
allegations in the City of Providence complaint.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Firefighters Suit Stayed on Certification Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
All trial court proceedings in a suit filed against Federal Signal
Corporation by firefighters seeking damages as a result of
exposure to sirens are stayed pending a final decision from the
Illinois Appellate Court on the issue of class certification,
according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming
that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing
and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases
filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of
2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were
filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County
involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company
and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million.
The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the
Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company
thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois
Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company
sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal
with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29,
2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order declining
to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the Company
satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which has
resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, the trial court on March 12, 2012 entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company in
this trial.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order. On April 23, 2013, the Illinois Appellate
Court granted the Company's petition for review. Briefing on this
appeal was completed during July 2013. Pursuant to Illinois law,
all class proceedings in the trial court are stayed pending a
final decision from the Illinois Appellate Court on this issue.


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Labor Suit in Tennessee Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The labor case filed against First Acceptance Corporation has
recently been conditionally certified as a class action, according
to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In January 2014, the Company became the subject of litigation
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Lykins, et al. v. First Acceptance Corporation, et al.,
alleging certain improper wage and hour law practices.


FIRST ENERGY: Sued for Damages Over Bruce Mansfield Operation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Firstenergy Corp. is facing a purported class action complaint
over damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce
Mansfield Plant, according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO2 and NOx
emissions regulations under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO2
and NOx reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) by burning
lower-sulfur fuel, utilizing combustion controls and post-
combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower or
non-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances.

In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs
were filed against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions
from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints
also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating
except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner." One
complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the
other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a class
with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives.


FORD MOTOR: Filing of Amended Complaint Allowed in Apartheid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A district court ruled that plaintiffs in a suit filed on behalf
of South African citizens against Ford Motor Company may move for
leave to file an amended complaint, according to the company's May
1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The company is a defendant in purported class action lawsuits
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of South African citizens
who suffered violence and oppression under South Africa's
apartheid regime. The lawsuits allege that the defendant companies
aided and abetted the apartheid regime and its human rights
violations. In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals remanded the
cases to the District Court with instructions to dismiss, but on
April 17, 2014, the District Court ruled that plaintiffs may move
for leave to file an amended complaint.


FORD MOTOR: Ohio Appeals Court Reverses Certification Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eight Appellate District reversed
the trial court order certifying classes in Ford Motor Credit
Company v. Sudesh Agrawal and remanded the case for further
proceedings, according to Ford Motor Company's May 1, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

This action is pending in the Ohio state court system and was
certified by the trial court judge as a nationwide class action
with an Ohio subclass in a counterclaim arising out of a
collection action. Class claimants allege breach of contract,
fraud, and statutory violations for Ford Credit's lease-end wear
and use charges. Class claimants allege that the standard applied
by Ford Credit in determining the condition of vehicles at lease-
end is different than the standard set forth in claimants' leases.
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eight Appellate District, affirmed
nationwide class certification and certification of an Ohio
subclass. The company appealed, and on December 17, 2013, the
Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded
the case for further proceedings. On March 13, 2014, the Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court order certifying the classes and
remanded the case for further proceedings.


FORMFACTOR INC: To Enter Into Mediation in Calif. Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a suit filed by a former employee against
FormFactor, Inc. have agreed to conduct informal discovery and
participate in a mediation during the third quarter of fiscal
2014, according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2014.

In August 2013, a former employee ("Plaintiff") filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws
and unfair business practices on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's
Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009 to the present. In
February 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike
portions of Plaintiff's first amended complaint, clarifying the
scope of the putative class. Procedurally, the case is in the
early stages of litigation and the parties have agreed to conduct
informal discovery and participate in a mediation during the third
quarter of fiscal 2014.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Skillman" Suit Over Defective Switches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meaghan Skillman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. General Motors LLC and Delphi Automotive
PLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03326-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2014) arises from
GM's alleged defective design of ignition switches, which
presented serious safety issues.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
in Detroit, Michigan.  GM was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10,
2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed certain
liabilities of General Motors Corporation through a sale under the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miles Greaves, Esq.
          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
          E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com
                  bcebulash@tcllaw.com
                  klandau@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Sara J. Payne, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  spayne@gustafsongluek.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Begins Negotiations of Ignition Switch Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a mediator for General Motors
has begun negotiations about settling more than 300 claims related
to a deadly ignition switch problem in some older model small
cars.

Kenneth Feinberg confirmed in an interview with The Associated
Press that he met for four hours on May 2 with Robert Hilliard, a
Corpus Christi, Texas, lawyer who said he represents families of
53 people killed and 273 injured in crashes of defective GM
vehicles.  Mr. Feinberg would not comment specifically on what was
discussed.

"I'm evaluating various compensation options for GM to consider,"
said Feinberg, who said he plans to present the options to GM in
the next few weeks.  "I'm glad I met with him.  It was an
interesting meeting," Mr. Feinberg said.

Mr. Feinberg said he listened to Mr. Hilliard and four colleagues
explain the "quality and quantity" of their cases. Hilliard said
no dollar figures were discussed, adding that he won't settle at a
discount to what his clients could get through court mediation.

GM has recalled 2.6 million small cars, mostly Chevrolet Cobalts
and Saturn Ions, to replace the faulty switches, which can slip
unexpectedly out of the "run" position and cause the engines to
shut down.  If that happens, power-assisted steering and brakes
will fail, making cars difficult to control.  Also, the air bags
won't inflate in a crash.  GM has admitted knowing about the
problem for more than a decade, but it didn't start recalling the
cars until February.  The company counts far fewer victims than
Mr. Hilliard, saying 13 deaths and 31 crashes are linked to the
switches.

GM announced Mr. Feinberg's hiring at a congressional hearing last
month.  He is an expert in disaster fund management who handled
the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund as well as funds for victims
of the Boston Marathon bombing and the BP oil spill.

At the hearing, GM CEO Mary Barra stopped short of saying the
company would compensate victims.  "We will make the best
decisions for our customers, recognizing that we have legal
obligations and responsibilities as well as moral obligations,"
she said.

There's a lot at stake in the negotiations.

Mr. Hilliard claims that if all the cases go to trial and juries
rule against GM, punitive damages could place the company in
financial jeopardy.  He cited a case earlier this month where a
Louisiana federal court jury ordered Japanese drugmaker Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. and its U.S. counterpart, Eli Lilly and Co., to
pay $9 billion in punitive damages over a diabetes medicine linked
to cancer.

The $9 billion is likely to end up much smaller on appeal, said
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in
Virginia.  "It's a fair comparison, but I don't think if we got to
punitive damages it would be that substantial," Mr. Tobias said.
But he said the potential remains for large verdicts against GM,
depending on how far the company went to conceal its problems.

In October, an Oklahoma City jury awarded $3 million in an
unintended acceleration lawsuit that killed a woman and injured
another. Toyota settled the case before the jury decided punitive
damages.

GM, which had $27 billion in cash at the end of March, would not
comment on the size of potential verdicts or the meeting.

According to Mr. Hilliard, GM will not try to use its 2009
bankruptcy as a shield from ignition switch claims.  A bankruptcy
judge ruled then that claims prior to GM leaving court protection
will go against GM's predecessor company, which has few assets.
Feinberg wouldn't comment on that.  "That's GM's call, not mine,"
he said.  Mr. Hilliard said Feinberg has to place a value on the
deaths and figure out lost income for each person.  Some of those
injured have permanent disabilities and need care for life, he
said.

"There are knowable objective numbers, plus the subjective numbers
caused by the tragedy of the human loss," he said.


GENON ENERGY: Still Faces Remaining Natural Gas Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc. continues to face four of five lawsuits filed
in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001,
according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

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


GENON ENERGY: Suit Over Cheswick Plant Emissions Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
stayed further proceedings in the case filed against GenOn Energy,
Inc. over emissions from the Cheswick generating facility, pending
a decision on a petition for a writ of certiorari, according to
the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
GenOn in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating
facility have damaged the property of neighboring residents.
GenOn disputes these allegations.  Plaintiffs have brought
nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims seeking
both damages and injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a
class that consists of people who own property or live within one
mile of the plant. In July 2012, GenOn removed the lawsuit to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In
October 2012, the court granted GenOn's motion to dismiss, which
Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. On August 20, 2013, the Third Circuit reversed the
decision of the District Court. On September 3, 2013, GenOn filed
a petition for rehearing with the Third Circuit which was
subsequently denied. In February 2014, NRG filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review and
reversal of the Third Circuit decision. The District Court has
stayed further proceedings in the case pending a decision on the
petition for a writ of certiorari.


GREEN FOREST: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Green Forest Food Corp. d/b/a Associated Supermarket,
Johnny Diaz, and Johnny Diaz, Jr., Case No. 1:14-cv-03328-RJS
(S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2014) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime compensation; (2) liquidated
damages; (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (4)
attorneys' fees and costs.

Associated is a New York domestic business corporation with a
principal place of business in Bronx, New York.  The Individual
Defendants are owners and officers, directors, managers, and
proprietors of Associated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GUARANTEED WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Ballstaedt, a married man v. Guaranteed Waterproofing &
Construction, LLC a Utah Limited Liability Company; IMX
Technologies, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; Scott
Whipperman and Jane Doe Whipperman, husband and wife; Justin
Mellen and Jane Doe Mellen, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00346-PMW (D. Utah, May 7, 2014) is brought against the Defendants
for alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages and failure to
pay minimum wage in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Guaranteed Waterproofing & Construction, LLC and IMX Technologies,
LLC were incorporated in the state of Utah and headquartered in
Sandy, Utah.  The Individual Defendants are corporate officers,
managers or owners of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, Utah 85012
          Telephone: (602) 258-8900
          E-mail: treyd@phillipslaw.com


IMMERSION CORPORATION: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of In re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation
is under appeal, according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers. Over the following five
weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed. (One of
these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.) The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the
Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.
The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May
2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the
same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss the action
on June 15, 2010 and that motion was granted with leave to amend
on March 11, 2011. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
April 29, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
on July 1, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the motion to dismiss was
granted with prejudice and on December 19, 2011, judgment was
entered in favor of defendants. On January 13, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In May 2012, plaintiff filed his opening appeals brief.
On July 13, 2012, the Company filed its response brief. On
September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed his reply. The Court heard oral
argument on February 12, 2014 and took the matter under
submission.


INTEL CORP: Class Action Over Performance Tests Proceeds to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that after 10
years of buildup, a class action accusing Intel Corp. of
manipulating product performance tests will continue to trial,
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan ruled on
May 15.

Plaintiffs accuse Intel of creating performance tests that falsely
raised the value of its Pentium 4 processor, which they allege was
in reality a subpar product.  The tests artificially inflated
prices, plaintiffs argue.

Intel has tried persistently to get the 2004 suit thrown out.  Its
last attempt, a motion for summary judgment filed in March,
claimed plaintiffs can't prove the performance tests influenced
plaintiffs because most customers never saw those tests.

Plaintiffs also can't prove prices went up as a result of the
tests, the defense argued.

Judge Kirwan, in keeping with a tentative ruling he issued in
April and comments he made at a subsequent hearing, disagreed with
Intel.

"The court finds that the Intel internal documents could support
the inference that Intel's benchmarking efforts had an actual
effect on performance perception in the market," Judge Kirwan
wrote in his order.

The trial, originally scheduled to begin May 5, was pushed back to
the end of next month after one of Intel's witnesses fell ill.

"At this point Intel has basically played all of its cards and it
will face trial on June 30," Danko Meredith partner Mike Danko --
mdanko@dankolaw.com -- said on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Munger Tolles & Olson partner Gregory Stone, in Los Angeles,
represents Intel.


ITT CORP: Works to Settle Suit Over Payment of Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corp. continues to engage in settlement negotiations in the
suit ITT Corporation and Goulds Pumps Inc., v. Travelers Casualty
and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna Casualty and Surety Company),
according to ITT's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In January 2012, ITT and Goulds Pumps filed a putative class
action suit in federal court in Connecticut against Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company (ITT Corporation and Goulds Pumps
Inc., v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna
Casualty and Surety Company), (Fed Dist Ct, D. Conn., CA NO.3:12-
cv-00038-RN)), alleging that Travelers is unilaterally
reinterpreting language contained in older Aetna policies so as to
avoid paying on asbestos claims. This action was stayed pending a
decision by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in the Cannon
action on interpretation of policy language. On January 29, 2014,
the Superior Court issued its opinion upholding the Goulds Pumps'
claims that it is entitled to receive reimbursement from
Traveler's for asbestos claims. The Connecticut Court has now
lifted the Stay and allowed the case to proceed. In 2013, the
Company finalized a settlement with its insurer PEIC that resolves
all outstanding issues between the Company and PEIC related to the
primary policies issued by PEIC during the period from 1977 to
1985. PEIC has agreed to make structured payments overtime to a
Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) to be used for asbestos related
costs. The Company continues to engage other defendants in
settlement negotiations as appropriate.


JANSSEN PHARMA: South Dakota Gets $2.6MM Share From Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Attorney General Marty Jackley
says South Dakota is using its share of a large multistate
settlement with a drug company to fund behavioral health
initiatives.

Mr. Jackley and attorneys general in 35 other states in April 2012
reached a $200 million settlement with Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc. over allegations it marketed anti-psychotic drugs for non-
approved uses.

Janssen did not admit wrongdoing, but it agreed not to promote the
drugs for off-label use or make misleading claims.

South Dakota's share of the settlement was just under $2.6
million.  Mr. Jackley on May 19 said the money is funding
treatment, education, training and outreach programs.

The state Consumer Protection Division and Department of Social
Services determined the funding uses.


KINDER MORGAN: EPB's Bid to Junk Suit Over SNG Share Sale Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP
Company, L.L.C., et al. was denied, and defendants' motion for
summary judgment is pending, according to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s
May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In May 2012, a unitholder of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB)
filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court,
alleging both derivative and non derivative claims, against EPB,
and EPB's general partner and its board. EPB was named in the
lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal
Defendant." The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to
EPB of a 25% ownership interest in Southern Natural Gas Company,
L.L.C. (SNG). Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied, and
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is pending.


KINDER MORGAN: Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit by KMEP Unitholder
----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMEP) and defendants Kinder
Morgan Inc. (KMI) and Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. (KMGP) moved to
dismiss Slotoroff v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P.,
Inc., et al., according to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On February 5, 2014, a putative class action and derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware (Case No. 9318) against defendants KMI, KMGP and nominal
defendant KMEP. The suit was filed by Jon Slotoroff, a purported
unitholder of KMEP and seeks to assert claims both individually
and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders
of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the
date of the filing of the suit. The suit alleges direct and
derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership
agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other
things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith
allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions
and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions
to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would
have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation
of maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified
monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees. On
March 3, 2014, nominal defendant KMEP and defendants KMI and KMGP
moved to dismiss this suit.


KINDER MORGAN: Consolidation of "Burns" With "Slotoroff" Ordered
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware ordered that the
suit Burns et al. v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.
et al. be consolidated with the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff,
according to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On March 27, 2014, a putative class action and derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware (Case No. 9479) against defendants Kinder Morgan Inc.
(KMI), Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. (KMGP) and nominal defendant
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMEP). The suit was filed by
Darrell Burns and Terrence Zehrer, purported unitholders of KMEP,
and seeks to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units
during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the
filing of the suit. The suit asserts claims and allegations
substantially similar to the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff. On April
8, 2014, the Court ordered that this suit be consolidated for all
purposes with the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff and that the caption
of the consolidated action shall be In Re Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 9318.


KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Suit Stayed Pending "Slotoroff" Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Harris County, Texas entered an order
staying the case Walker v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan
G.P., Inc. et al. until the defendants' motion to dismiss is
decided in the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff, according to Kinder
Morgan, Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No.
2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against Kinder Morgan
Inc. (KMI), Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. (KMGP), Kinder Morgan
Management, LLC (KMR), Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A.
Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal
defendant KMEP. The suit was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported
unitholder of KMEP, and alleges direct and derivative causes of
action for alleged violation of duties owed under the partnership
agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, "abuse of control" and "gross mismanagement" in
connection with the calculation of distributions and allocation of
capital expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and
maintenance capital expenditures. The suit seeks unspecified money
damages, interest, punitive damages, attorney and expert fees,
costs and expenses, unspecified equitable relief, and demands a
trial by jury. Defendants believe that this suit is without merit
and intend to defend it vigorously. On April 9, 2014, the Court
entered an order staying the case until the defendants' motion to
dismiss is decided in the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff.


MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Certification Denied in "Henke" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
denied plaintiff's motion for Class Certification in the suit
Glenn A. Henke, et al. v. Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P., et al.,
according to Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.'s May 6, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, ARCO Midcon L.L.C. and WilTel Communications, L.L.C.
("WilTel"). The complaint alleges that the property owned by
plaintiffs and those similarly situated has been damaged by the
existence of hazardous chemicals migrating from a pipeline
easement onto the plaintiffs' property and seeks recovery for such
damages. The company acquired the pipeline from ARCO Pipeline
("APL") in 1994 as part of a larger transaction and subsequently
transferred the property to WilTel. The company are required to
indemnify and defend WilTel pursuant to the transfer agreement.
Prior to the company's acquisition of the pipeline property from
APL, the pipeline was purged of product. Neither the company nor
WilTel ever transported hazardous materials through the pipeline.
A hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was
held in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri in December 2012. In March 2014, the U.S. District Court
denied plaintiff's motion for Class Certification.


MARIE CALLENDER: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in California against Marie
Callender after a man claims its baking mixes are falsely
advertised as "all natural."  The lawsuit against Marie Callender
Pie Shops Inc., Marie Callender's Gourmet Products Division ICC
and Conagra Foods RDM Inc. claims that the falsely advertised "all
natural" baking mixes actually contain synthetic ingredients.

The predominant issue in the class action complaint is the use of
sodium acid pyrophosphate, an odorless white power that is a
chemical that must be created synthetically, according to a
complaint filed May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Edward Musgrave claims sodium acid pyrophosphate is used in many
different applications, such as leather treatment, removal of iron
stains on hides during processing, stabilizing hydrogen peroxide
solutions against reduction, facilitating hair removal in hog
slaughter and feather removal from birds in poultry slaughter.

The defendants use SAPP in their all natural products that they
sell to consumers and label the products as all natural, according
to the suit.

"Not only is SAPP a synthetic ingredient, but excessive use can
lead to imbalanced levels of minerals in the body and bone loss,"
the complaint states.

Mr. Musgrave claims the defendants engaged in a fraudulent
advertising and marketing scheme because they knew that their
target market values "all natural" food products and will pay more
for these items due to the association consumers make between "all
natural" food products and a wholesome way of life, the perceived
higher quality, health and safety benefits of the products, and/or
low impact on the environment.

As such, the defendants' "all natural" labeling is central to
their marketing of the products and part of their overall strategy
to capture the rapidly expanding natural foods market, according
to the suit.  Mr. Musgrave claims due to the allegedly deceptive
labeling of the products, he suffered an economic injury because
he otherwise would not have purchased the Marie Callender's
products.

"Since . . . plaintiff and the members of the classes are not at
fault for failing to discover defendants' wrongs before now and,
thus, had no actual or presumptive knowledge of facts sufficient
to put them on inquiry, and since . . . defendants have concealed
and suppressed the true characteristics of the products,
defendants' continuing concealment tolls the applicable statute of
limitations," the complaint states.

Mr. Musgrave claims the Marie Callender products that allegedly
contain the synthetic ingredient include Marie Callender's
Original Corn Bread Mix, Marie Callender's Cord Bread Muffin Mix,
Marie Callender's All Purpose Biscuit Mix, Marie Callender's Sweet
Potato Muffin Mix, Marie Callender's Honey Butter Corn Bread and
Muffin Mix and Marie Callender's Multigrain Muffin Mix.

Mr. Musgrave claims as a direct and proximate result of the
defendants' unfair and wrongful conduct, he and class members were
misled into purchasing the products; received a product that
failed to meet their reasonable expectations and the defendants'
promises; and paid a sum of money for a product that was not as
represented and, thus, were deprived of the benefit of the bargain
because the purchased products had less value than what was
represented by the defendants.

The defendants' caused the plaintiff and class members to ingest a
substance that was other than what was represented by the
defendants and that the plaintiff and class members did not expect
or give informed consent to and they were caused to ingest a
product that did not bring about the health benefits the
defendants promised, and which may be harmful to health, according
to the suit.

Mr. Musgrave is seeking compensatory and punitive damages with
pre- and post-judgment interest. He is being represented by
Molly A. DeSario -- mDeSario@scalaw.com -- of Scott Cole &
Associates.

The class action follows a growing number of food mislabeling
class action lawsuits filed mainly in federal courts in California
that focus mainly on labels using claims the products are all
natural when they are not.

In March, Heinz was sued when a woman claimed its "all natural"
vinegar contained genetically modified corn.

Trader Joe's agreed to a $3.375 million settlement in February
over alleged mislabeling of products as "all natural" or "100%
natural" that actually contained synthetic ingredients.

The FDA is currently hearing comments regarding whether or not
food labels should be allowed to use these terms.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Donna M. Ryu.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 4:14-cv-02006


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Set on Dismissal of Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California was expected to hear final arguments and issue an
opinion on the motion to dismiss a consolidated securities suit
against Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at a hearing on May 19, 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.

From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers. These actions were
entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March
21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-
cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April
19, 2013). The complaints alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding its financial performance and
business prospects and overstated the Company's reported revenue.
The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive.
The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs. On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs
filed motions to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed
lead plaintiff and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a
written order consolidating the case under the heading In re
Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended
complaint which slightly adjusted the class period to April 29,
2011 to March 19, 2013, and removed a former officer as a
defendant. In response, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff
opposed. The court is expected to hear final arguments and issue
an opinion on the motion to dismiss at a hearing on May 19, 2014.


MB FINANCIAL: Inks MoU to Settle Taylor Capital Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated suit James Sullivan v. Taylor Capital
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-CH17751 entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the suit, according to MB
Financial, Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On July 26, 2013, an action captioned James Sullivan v. Taylor
Capital Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-CH17751 (the "Sullivan
Action") was commenced against Taylor Capital, the board of
directors of Taylor Capital (the "Taylor Capital Board"), and MB
Financial (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"), alleging that the Taylor
Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
pending MB Financial/Taylor Capital merger (the "Merger") and that
MB Financial aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.
On August 8, 2013, a stockholder class action captioned Dennis
Panozzo v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2013-CH-
18546 (the "Panozzo Action") was commenced against the Defendants
in the Court making similar allegations in connection with the
Merger. Subsequently, on September 10, 2013, the Sullivan Action
and the Panozzo Action were consolidated pursuant to Court order
under the first-filed Sullivan Action, Case No. 2013-CH17751 (as
so consolidated, the "Action"). On October 24, 2013, the
plaintiffs in the Action (the "Plaintiffs") filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint, alleging that the Taylor Capital
Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger,
including by making incomplete and misleading disclosures
concerning the Merger, and that MB Financial aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty.

On February 17, 2014, solely to eliminate the costs, risks,
burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and to put
the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, the
Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
with the Plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Action
pursuant to which Taylor Capital and MB Financial agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures concerning the Merger, which each
of Taylor Capital and MB Financial did in a Current Report on Form
8-K filed by each company on February 18, 2014 (the "Form 8-Ks").
The MOU also provides that, solely for purposes of settlement, the
Court will certify a class consisting of all persons who were
record or beneficial stockholders of Taylor Capital when the
Merger was approved by the Taylor Capital Board or any time
thereafter (the "Class"). In addition, the MOU provides that,
subject to approval by the Court after notice to the members of
the Class (the "Class Members"), the Action will be dismissed with
prejudice and all claims that the Class Members may possess with
regard to the Merger, with the exception of claims for statutory
appraisal, will be released. In connection with the settlement,
the Plaintiffs' counsel has expressed their intention to seek an
award by the Court of attorneys' fees and expenses. The amount of
the award to the Plaintiffs' counsel will ultimately be determined
by the Court. This payment will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid by MB Financial or that any Taylor
Capital stockholder will receive in the Merger.


MICROS SYSTEMS: Court Designates Conditional Class in Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee granted a stipulation entered by Micros Systems, Inc. to
designate the Conditional Class and the California Conditional
Subclass in a suit filed by former employees, according to the
company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On November 26, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee by Kristy Wilson, Darren Moore and Kisha Ulysse, three
former employees of the Company, individually and on behalf of a
purported class and, in the case of plaintiff Ulysee, on behalf of
a purported California class.  As subsequently stipulated by the
parties, a conditional class was designated consisting of all
individuals who worked for the Company as an Implementation
Specialist paid by salary at any time within the period beginning
three years before the filing date of the complaint through the
date of judgment (the "Conditional Class"), and a conditional
subclass was designated including any such individual who
performed any work as an Implementation Specialist within the
State of California at any time within the period beginning four
years before the filing date of the complaint through the date of
judgment (the "Conditional California Subclass").   The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company willfully violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by willfully classifying the
plaintiffs as exempt and thereby failing to pay them the legally
required amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.  With respect to the Conditional
California Subclass, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to
pay overtime and other premium wages allegedly required under the
applicable statutory provisions. The complaint seeks, among other
things, damages equal to unpaid overtime wages, an equal amount to
the overtime wages as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and other costs and, with respect to the Purported California
Class, in addition to the foregoing, the complaint seeks unpaid
premium wages, statutory penalties, and injunctive and other
equitable relief.

On January 17, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint
denying the allegations of the complaint, and asserting a number
of affirmative defenses.  Also on that date the Company moved to
dismiss certain of the claims for injunctive and equitable relief
asserting, among other things, that because the three original
plaintiffs are no longer Company employees, they lack standing to
seek such injunctive or equitable relief. On March 7, 2014, the
parties agreed to stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of
those claims.

On January 30, 2014, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a
stipulation designating the Conditional Class and the California
Conditional Subclass, which was agreed to by the parties solely to
preserve resources and in the interests of judicial economy; the
Company maintains its right to seek decertification of the
conditionally certified classes. The Court granted the
stipulation, ordered that the Company provide the plaintiffs with
specified information relating to all individuals in the
Conditional Class, and ordered the plaintiffs to send notices to
the identified individuals that, among other things, provide an
opportunity to opt into the Conditional Class.  The opt-in period
expired on April 29, 2014 (separately, the members of the
Conditional California Subclass will be subject to an "opt-out"
process).


MIDWEST GENERATION: Stay on Residents' Nuisance Lawsuits Lifted
---------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the confirmation of the Reorganization Plan of
Midwest Generation, LLC, the automatic stay imposed under the
Bankruptcy Code no longer applies to two complaints filed against
Midwest Generation in Illinois state court by residents living
near the Crawford and Fisk Stations, according to the company's
May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In January 2012, two complaints were filed against Midwest
Generation in Illinois state court by residents living near the
Crawford and Fisk Stations on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance, negligence,
trespass, and strict liability. The plaintiffs seek to have their
suits certified as a class action and request injunctive relief,
as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The complaints are
similar to two complaints previously filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which were
dismissed in October 2011 for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Midwest Generation's motions to dismiss the cases were denied in
August 2012, following which the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints alleging substantially similar claims and requesting
similar relief. Midwest Generation has filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaints, and these complaints were stayed as a
result of the Chapter 11 Cases. As a result of the confirmation of
the Plan, the automatic stay imposed under the Bankruptcy Code no
longer applies to such actions.


MYLAN INC: Briefing Completed in Suit by Health Insurer Opt-Outs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the issues of additional discovery and a new trial on
damages is complete in a case brought against Mylan Inc. by four
health insurers who opted out of earlier class action settlements,
and a decision is pending, 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 June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc., and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation and
Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has
been accrued for by the Company. The jury found that Mylan and its
co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and
Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with API supply
agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier
(Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these
drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who
opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the
Company in 2001 and represents the last remaining antitrust claims
relating to Mylan's 1998 price increases for Lorazepam and
Clorazepate.

Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as
a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss two
of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict. On December
20, 2006, the Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law and
motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were
denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs
requested that the verdict be trebled and that request was granted
on January 24, 2008. On February 6, 2008, a judgment was issued
against Mylan and its co-defendants in the total amount of
approximately $69.0 million, which, in the case of three of the
plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory damages in the
original verdict (approximately $11.0 million in total) and, in
the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of the
compensatory damages in the original jury verdict plus doubling
this compensatory damage award as punitive damages assessed
against each of the defendants (approximately $58.0 million in
total), some or all of which may be subject to indemnification
obligations by Mylan. Plaintiffs are also seeking an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation costs in unspecified amounts and
prejudgment interest of approximately $8.0 million.

The Company and its co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and have challenged the verdict as
legally erroneous on multiple grounds. The appeals were held in
abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest,
which has been granted. Mylan has contested this ruling along with
the liability finding and other damages awards as part of its
appeal, which was filed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. On January 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a
judgment remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings based on lack of diversity with respect to certain
plaintiffs. On June 13, 2011, Mylan filed a certiorari petition
with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of the judgment of
the D.C. Circuit. On October 3, 2011, the certiorari petition was
denied. The case is now proceeding before the District Court. On
January 14, 2013, following limited court-ordered jurisdictional
discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint
containing additional factual averments with respect to the
diversity of citizenship of the parties, along with a motion to
voluntarily dismiss 755 (of 1,387) self-funded customers whose
presence would destroy the District Court's diversity
jurisdiction. The plaintiffs also moved for a remittitur
(reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages
award. Mylan's brief in response to the new factual averments in
the complaint was filed on February 13, 2013. In addition to
disputing the sufficiency of many of the plaintiffs'
jurisdictional averments, Mylan argues that the case should be
dismissed in its entirety, or that alternatively all of the self-
funded customer claims should be dismissed. Mylan also argues for
additional discovery and a new trial on damages. Briefing on these
issues is complete, and a decision is pending.

In connection with the Company's appeal of the judgment, the
Company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party
insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million in February 2008.
On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the
surety bond reduced to $66.6 million.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Crew Fails in Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of
certiorari to crew members who are suing NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.,
according to Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings 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.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: 2011 Suit by Crew Members v. NHL Bahamas Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed by crew members against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in 2011 was stayed pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced in 2009, according to Norwegian Cruise Line
Holdings 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.


RELIC INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Denizard, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Relic Inc., a Florida profit corporation; Trefoil Preservation
Inc., a Florida profit corporation; and Ginger Bridges,
individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-00714-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla., May 7,
2014) is an action for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Relic Inc. is a Florida profit corporation headquartered in
Osteen, Florida.  Trefoil Preservation Inc. is a Florida profit
corporation headquartered in Deland, Florida.  Relic and Trefoil
are primarily engaged in the business of landscaping, and lawn and
foreclosure property maintenance.  Ginger Bridges participates in
the management of both Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com


SOUTH FLORIDA SHAVINGS: Sued for Not Paying Proper Overtime Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amado Lopez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. South Florida Shavings, Inc., and Hillel Frishman, Case
No. 9:14-cv-80614-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2014) alleges that
between 2002 through February 29, 2012, Mr. Lopez worked an
average of 70 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.

South Florida Shavings, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacted business within Palm Beach County during the relevant
period.  Hillel Frishman is a corporate officer, manager or owner
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.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


SYNTROLEUM CORP: Excluded by Plaintiffs in Suit Over Asset Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit against Syntroleum Corporation
over its asset sale to REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, filed a dismissal
without prejudice of Syntroleum from the litigation, according to
the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Three lawsuits challenging the Asset Sale have been filed. First,
on December 26, 2013, Daniel Baxter, on behalf of himself and the
public stockholders of Syntroleum, filed a putative class action
petition in the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Second, on December 30, 2013, Philip Crawley, on behalf of himself
and the public stockholders of Syntroleum, filed a putative class
action petition in the District Court of Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma. Third, on January 10, 2014, George Kashouh and Thomas
Victor, on behalf of themselves and the public stockholders of
Syntroleum, filed a putative class action petition in the District
Court of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma. All of the lawsuits name as
defendants Syntroleum, each member of Syntroleum's board of
directors, REG, and REG Synthetic; the Baxter lawsuit also names
Syntroleum's Principal Financial Officer as a defendant. On
January 14, 2014, the court issued an order consolidating the
first two suits, and on February 12, 2014, the third suit was
consolidated. On January 22, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated petition alleging that (1) Syntroleum's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with entering into
the Asset Purchase Agreement, as publicly disclosed on December
17, 2013, by failing to maximize stockholder value, agreeing to
onerous and unreasonable deal protection devices and failing to
act in accordance with their duties of care, loyalty, and good
faith, (2) Syntroleum, REG and REG Synthetic aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and (3) the combined
proxy statement/prospectus omits material information regarding
the proposed transaction and is otherwise misleading. Based on
these allegations, the amended petition seeks to enjoin the Asset
Sale, to obtain other related declaratory and injunctive relief
(including rescission), and to recover the costs of the action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees. The Baxter plaintiffs filed
an Emergency Motion and Memorandum in Support to Expedite
Discovery and Shorten Prescribed Time Period for Defendants to
Respond to Discovery together with their original petition, which
motion was heard on January 6, 2014 and not granted. On January
24, 2014, the original judge assigned to the consolidated matter
recused herself and the matter was re-assigned to another judge.
No further hearing dates have been set in connection with the
consolidated lawsuits. On March 7, 2014, Syntroleum agreed to
certain supplemental disclosures in the proxy statement/
prospectus relating to the Asset Sale in exchange for plaintiffs'
agreement not to seek to enjoin or otherwise delay a vote by
Syntroleum's stockholders on the Asset Sale on the basis of the
disclosures contained in that proxy statement/prospectus. On April
16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a dismissal without prejudice of
Syntroleum Corporation from the litigation.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Androscoggin" Suit Over Data Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin Bank and Bridgewater Credit Union, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-01422-PAM-JJK (D. Minn., May 7,
2014) arises from one of the largest data breaches in history, in
which criminals obtained sensitive financial and personal data
from the accounts of up to 110 million Target customers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 596-4097
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  gmfishbein@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com


TELETECH@HOME INC: Sued in N.D. Ohio for Using Consumer Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony R. Cox, Jr., on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. TeleTech@Home, Inc., a Delaware Corporation doing
business in Ohio and TeleTech Holdings, Inc. a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00993-JG (N.D. Ohio, May 7, 2014),
is brought on behalf of consumers, who were subject of consumer
reports obtained by Teletech as a precondition of employment with
TeleTech between May 7, 2014, and the present, seeking remedies
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

TeleTech@Home, Inc. is a for-profit corporation operating one or
more call centers in the Northern District of Ohio and a
subsidiary of Teletech Holdings, Inc.  Teletech Holdings, Inc. is
a Delaware for-profit corporation with a principal place of
business in Englewood, Colorado.  TeleTech@Home is a subsidiary of
Teletech Holdings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
          O'TOOLE, MCLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA, CO., LPA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
          E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com
                  apecora@omdplaw.com


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Writ for Certified Lawsuit v. TSP Blocked
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District denied the
authorization to file the writ of appeals in a certified suit
against Triple-S Propiedad, Inc., among others, and discovery is
now ongoing, according to Triple-S Management Corporation's May 6,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association ("JUA") and 18 other defendants,
including Triple-S Propiedad, Inc. ("TSP"), alleging violations
under the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
and the local statute against organized crime and money
laundering. JUA is a private association created by law to
administer a compulsory public liability insurance program for
motor vehicles in Puerto Rico ("CLI"). As required by its enabling
act, JUA is composed of all the insurers that underwrite private
motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and exceed the minimum
underwriting percentage established in such act. TSP is a member
of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs also
claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406,600,000 treble damages under RICO, and equitable relief,
including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment barring
defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that
plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch
a suit cannot be brought, even under RICO, to amend the compulsory
liability insurance rates that were approved by the Puerto Rico
Legislature and the Commissioner of Insurance of Puerto Rico.

On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition. On April
4, 2012, TSP filed a reply in support of the company's motion to
dismiss, which was denied by the court. On October 2, 2012, the
court issued an order certifying the class. On October 12, 2012,
several defendants, including TSP, filed an appeal before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First District, requesting the court to
vacate the District Court's certification order. The First Circuit
denied the authorization to file the writ of appeals. Discovery is
ongoing.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Claimant in Dentist Suit to Withdraw Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation and a claimant in a complaint by
the Puerto Rico Dentists Association against Triple-S Management,
subsidiary Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) and Triple-C, Inc., filed a
voluntary dismissal with prejudice, according to the company's May
6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
("Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico," in Spanish)
filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance against 24 health
plans operating in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.
The Company and two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc.
("TCI"), were included as defendants. This litigation purports to
be a class action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are
similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render. The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150,000,000. In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.
There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits. The Company intends to
vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Company,
opposed. On February 8, 2011, the federal district court in Puerto
Rico decided to retain jurisdiction. The defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss the case on the merits. On August 31, 2011, the
District Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims except for its
breach of contract claim, and ordered the parties to brief the
issue of whether the court still has federal jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Plaintiffs moved
the court to reconsider its August 31, 2011 decision and the
defendants did the same, arguing that the breach of contract claim
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On May
2, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On May 31, 2012,
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their
complaint and the denial of plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On September 25,
2012 the District Court denied without prejudice the defendants'
motion for reconsideration. On October 10, 2012 the parties filed
their briefs with respect to class certification.  On March 13,
2013, the district court denied plaintiffs' request for class
certification and ordered the parties to brief the court on
whether jurisdiction still exists under CAFA following such
denial. On April 24, 2013, all parties briefed the court on this
issue.  On September 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the
Dentist Association for lack of associational standing, leaving
only the individual dentists as plaintiffs.  The court also
granted plaintiffs' leave to amend, on or before September 23,
2013, their complaint to address mediation or settlement
negotiations and, to cure deficiencies pertaining to the breach-
of-contract claims.  On December 23, 2013, five plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") seeking damages in the amount of
$30 in which the dentists alleged that defendants altered the
coding of the claims billed by the dentist, resulting in a lower
payment.  Only one of the five plaintiffs presented a claim
against the Company.  On January 31, 2014, the Company answered
the complaint.  On April 11, 2014, TSS filed a motion to compel
arbitration, as provided by the claimant's provider contract.
Court's decision on this motion is still pending.  On April 24,
2014, the Company and the claimant filed a voluntary dismissal
with prejudice.  TSS and TCI continue to be part of the claim.
The court allowed plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery, which
is currently ongoing.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit v. TSS
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama is yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a suit against
Triple-S Salud, Inc., alleging that the exclusive service area
("ESA") requirements of the Primary License Agreements with Plans
violate antitrust law, according to Triple-S Management
Corporation's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Subsidiary Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with
multiple Blue Plans and the BCBSA in a multi-district class action
litigation filed on July 24, 2012 that alleges that the exclusive
service area ("ESA") requirements of the Primary License
Agreements with Plans violate antitrust law, and the plaintiffs in
these suits seek monetary awards and in some instances, injunctive
relief barring ESAs. Those cases have been centralized in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Prior to centralization, motions have been filed to dismiss some
of the cases and are pending the court's decision.  Plaintiffs
opposed TSS' motion to dismiss.  On April 9, 2014, the court held
an argumentative hearing to discuss the motions to dismiss.
During the hearing, the Court did not issue a ruling on the
motions to dismiss thus, decision on said motions are still
pending. Discovery has not yet commenced. The Company has joined
BCBSA in vigorously contesting these claims.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Court Mulls Bid to Junk Privacy Suit v. TSS
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ruling of the Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico is
pending on whether or not to dismiss a suit against Triple-S
Salud, Inc. over alleged emotional damages due the disclosure of
protected health information, according to Triple-S Management
Corporation's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On September 20, 2013, TSS mailed to the company's approximately
70,000 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries a pamphlet that
inadvertently displayed the receiving beneficiary's Medicare
Health Insurance Claim Number ("HICN"). The HICN is the unique
number assigned by the Social Security Administration to each
Medicare beneficiary and is considered protected health
information under HIPAA.

In connection with this event, on February 10, 2014, one
individual, on his behalf and on behalf of his spouse, filed suit
against TSS in the Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico
asserting emotional damages due the disclosure of his protected
health information.  Also, on February 24, 2014, another
individual filed a class-action suit against TSS claiming
approximately $20,000 in damages.  On February 27, 2014, TSS filed
a motion to dismiss the class-action suit based on several
grounds, including lack of standing.  The court ordered plaintiff
to submit an opposition to TSS' motion to dismiss, subject to the
dismissal of the claim if plaintiff fail to comply. Plaintiff
filed its opposition on March 12, 2014 and, on April 14, 2014, TSS
replied.  Court's ruling on the motions is pending.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.


UNITED ONLINE: Judgment Granted to Trilegiant Suit Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
summarily granted the motion of plaintiff in the suit In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. for entry of partial final judgment
and certification for interlocutory appeal, according to United
Online, Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1-
800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Classmates, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo
Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). The complaint alleges (1)
violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank
fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3)
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA")
by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California
Business and Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant,
Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust
enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants. The defendants responded to the
consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss
filed by other defendants in December 2012.

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank
Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media
LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide,
LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com,
Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham
Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing
Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial
Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions,
LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies"). The complaint
alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire
fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4)
violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the
Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded. In January 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the
Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
action. In March 2014, the Court granted the motion to consolidate
the Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
action, with the latter designated as the lead case.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued an order in the In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action dismissing for lack of Article
III standing, and inadequately pled corporate parent liability for
its subsidiary's actions, Plaintiffs' claims against United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates,
Inc.), FTD Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc. The
Court ruled that because none of the named Plaintiffs alleged they
used services from or were otherwise injured by any of those
defendants, the claims against them are dismissed. The Court's
dismissal was without prejudice. The deadline for Plaintiffs to
file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order expired on
April 11, 2014, without any such motion being filed. On April 28,
2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking entry of partial final
judgment on, and certification for interlocutory appeal of, the
Court's March 28, 2014 orders dismissing the RICO claims and RICO
conspiracy claims, the claims against the Credit Card Company
Defendants, the nationwide Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
class action allegations, and the claims of plaintiffs Warfel,
Reilly, Restrepo and Brian Schnabel based on their participation
in a previous class action settlement. On May 5, 2014, the Court
summarily granted Plaintiff's motion for entry of partial final
judgement and certification for interlocutory appeal. The
Plaintiffs' motion did not seek entry of a partial final judgment
on, nor certification for interlocutory review of, the Court's
dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against United Online, Inc.,
Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD
Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc., for lack of
Article III standing and inadequately pled corporate parent
liability for its subsidiary's actions.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Recalls Soymilk Over Allergy Risk
--------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that WhiteWave Foods is recalling
some of its soymilk because it may contain almond milk.  People
with an allergy to almonds could suffer a life-threatening
reaction if they consume the product.

The company said on May 19 that no injuries have been reported.

WhiteWave is recalling half-gallon containers of its Silk Light
Original soymilk sold in 17 states following a packaging problem.
Fewer than 21,402 half-gallon units were shipped to retailers and
wholesalers in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Consumers may return the recalled product for a refund or exchange
or contact the company at 1-866-663-4349.


WOCKHARDT LTD: Recalls 109,744 Bottles of Metoprolol Succinate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zeba Siddiqui, writing for Reuters, reports that Indian drugmaker
Wockhardt Ltd is recalling 109,744 bottles of a high blood
pressure drug in the United States after it failed a dissolution
test, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said.

The recall of metoprolol succinate began in April and was posted
on the FDA website late on May 14.  Metoprolol succinate extended
release is a cheaper generic form of AstraZeneca Plc's branded
drug Toprol.

Dissolution tests are commonly conducted to check the time taken
for the active ingredient in a drug to release into the body, and
help predict how the drug performs inside the body.

Recalls of medicines by drugmakers are not uncommon, but Wockhardt
is already embroiled in regulatory troubles.

Two of its manufacturing plants were banned last year from
exporting to the United States after the FDA found violations of
manufacturing standards that the agency believed could compromise
the quality of drugs.  One of those plants was making metoprolol
succinate for the United States.

The FDA website said the recalled lots were manufactured at a
Wockhardt plant in Mumbai.


ZYNGA INC: Faces First Amended Securities Litigation in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A first amended complaint is filed in In re Zynga Inc. Securities
Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW, 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 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of the
company's current and former directors, officers, and executives.
Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26,
2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re
Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW.
On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31,
2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First
Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including
attorneys' fees. The deadline for the Company to respond to the
complaint is May 2, 2014.


ZYNGA INC: Case Management Conference in "Reyes" Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------
A case management conference in the suit Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et
al. was scheduled for May 19, 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 addition, a purported securities class action captioned Reyes
v. Zynga Inc., et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San
Francisco County Superior Court. The action was removed to federal
court, and was later remanded to San Francisco County Superior
Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements
in connection with an April 2012 secondary offering of Class A
common stock. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons
who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to
the secondary offering. On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a
demurrer and motion to stay the action. On August 26, 2013, the
court issued orders overruling the demurrer and granting the
motion to stay all deadlines in the action pending a ruling on the
motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action. The stay
remains in effect.


ZYNGA INC: No Date Yet to Hear Motion to Dismiss "Lee v. Pincus"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has not set a date
for hearing on the motions to dismiss an amended complaint and a
motion to stay discovery in the suit Lee v. Pincus, et al.,
according to Zynga Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of the company's current
and former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint
alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering. The defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on May 10, 2013. On
December 23, 2013, the district court granted the plaintiff's
motion to remand the action to the Court of Chancery. On January
8, 2013, the Chancery Court entered a scheduling order. On January
17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 6,
2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
and a motion to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss is
pending. The plaintiff has opposed both motions. Briefing on the
motion to stay was completed in March 2014. Briefing on the motion
to dismiss was completed in April 2014. The court has not set a
date for hearing the motions.


* Injuries Related to Baby Gates Quadruples, Study Shows
--------------------------------------------------------
KABC-TV/DT reports that a recently published study reveals that
the number of child injuries seen in emergency rooms related to
baby gates have quadrupled in the past two decades.

Researchers from the Center for Injury Research and Policy at
Nationwide Children's Hospital found the number of children
involved in these accidents went from 3.9 per 100,000 children in
1990 to 12.5 per 100,000 children in 2010.

The study, published in Academic Pediatrics, revealed that
emergency rooms treated an average of 1,794 injuries related to
baby gates for children under 7 years old every year.  About 60
percent of children injured were younger than 2.

Many fell down stairs after a gate collapsed or was left open.
Those from 2-to-6 years old were injured by climbing on the gate.

Lara McKenzie, the study's co-author, said parents should use
pressure-mounted gates as room dividers or at the bottom of
stairs.  For the top of the stairs, she recommends using gates
with hardware that needs to be screwed into a wall or railing.

"Baby gates are essential safety devices for parents and
caregivers, and they should continue to be used," Ms. McKenzie
said.  "It is important, however, to make sure you are using a
gate that meets the voluntary safety standards and is right type
of gate for where you are planning to use it."

Other tips for baby gates include removing gates after a child
turns 2 and avoiding gates with notches or gaps that can be used
for climbing.


* Hundreds of Medical Malpractice Patient Deaths Uncovered in Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WSB-TV reports that a Channel 2 Action News investigation has
uncovered hundreds of patient deaths linked to medical mistakes at
VA hospitals across the country.

For more than a year Channel 2 Action News dug through documents,
developed sources, and exposed mismanagement, preventable deaths
and other problems at the Atlanta VA hospital.  Disturbing new
findings from the Atlanta VA hospital and around the country come
the night before the VA secretary will be hauled in front of
Congress.

"This is a national crisis and a national disgrace," said
Rep. David Scott, D-Ga.  "The buck stops here, man."

Strong reaction from Rep. Scott after WSB-TV clued him in on a
months-long Channel 2 Action News investigation into medical
malpractice in facilities operated by the Department of Veterans
Affairs.

Channel 2 investigative reporter Aaron Diamant spent time breaking
down a giant VA database he got through a Freedom of Information
Act request.

Mr. Diamant discovered nearly 1,200 claims, from 2000 through
2012, that blamed medical mistakes for patient deaths at VA
facilities nationwide, including 20 at the Atlanta VA Hospital.

"Each number is a human life, and each life, every human life is
important," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

Still, Mr. Diamant found thousands more cases, coast to coast,
claiming bad care caused patients harm.

Since 2000, the VA has shelled out more than $900,000 in taxpayer
money to settle those claims or pay judgments.

Channel 2 Action News brought the findings to national government
watchdog Daniel Epstein with Cause of Action.

"That not only signals an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and a
mentality and a culture at the top that is totally inappropriate,
but it also shows that they're not really concerned about the
problem," Mr. Epstein said.

On May 15, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki was set to appear before
Isakson and the Senate's veteran's affairs committee in Washington
to answer questions about treatment delays and preventable deaths
within the VA system.

"We need to make sure we hold the people at the top accountable,"
Sen. Isakson said.


* Medical Malpractice Initiative to Be Put on Nov. 4 Ballot
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an initiative seeking an
increase in the amount of money that victims can recover in
medical negligence lawsuits has qualified for the November ballot.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified on May 15 that
the measure had received enough signatures to be placed on the
Nov. 4 general election ballot.  The measure would require drug
and alcohol testing for doctors as well as increase the cap on
pain and suffering damages that medical malpractice plaintiffs can
receive, which is currently set at $250,000.  The cap would be
raised to about $1.1 million to account for inflation.

An increase in the cap has been sought by medical negligence
victims' advocates for decades.


                             *********

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  * * *