CAR_Public/140522.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 22, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 101

                             Headlines


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: June Hearing in Suit Over Private Sale
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Del. Court Dismisses Suit Over Stock Purhase
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Del. Court Dismisses Suit by Mark Benston
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hearing on Benston's Motion Set for June 6
AKAGUCCI INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

AMCOR PACKAGING: "Morales" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
APPLE INC: iPhone Customers Sue for Text Messages Interference
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Removed "Teamsters" Suit to Delaware
ATOSSA GENETICS: Accord Over Schedule to Respond to Suit Okayed
BANCORPSOUTH BANK: Suit by Ark. Customer Remanded to Fla. Court

BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Keil" Suit Over Pet Food False Labeling
BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Andacky" Suit Over Pet Food False Labeling
BOBBY JINDAL: Mag. Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Marrero" Case
BOBBY JINDAL: Mag. Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Davis" Case
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Posts $1.9MM Charge for Lawnmower Suit Accord

BRIGGS & STRATTON: Discovery Underway in Retirees' Suit
CARGILL INC: Disputes Truvia Misleading Advertising Claims
CITIZENS INC: No Individual Cases Pursued by "Andrade" Plaintiffs
CNO FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid to Nix CLIC from Lifetrend Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Barnes Ordered to Address Suit Deficiencies

CREDIT BUREAU: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CREDIT BUREAU: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
DURHAM SCHOOL: Removed "Talley" Suit to S.D. Indiana
DYNEGY INC: District Court Dismisses "Silsby" Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Under Advisement

EASTMAN KODAK: N.Y. Securities Suit Against Officers Terminated
ELAVON INC: Removed "Radoff" Suit to C.D. Calif.
EZ CAPITAL: Has Invaded Privacy of Class Members, Suit Claims
FENG SHENG: Fails to Pay Class Members Any Wage at All, Suit Says
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in E.D. New York

FLEETMATICS GROUP: June Hearing Set to Approve Brevard Settlement
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Faces Shareholder Litigations in Oregon Court
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Knetzke" Class Suit Over Ignition Switches
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Phaneuf" Class Suit Over Ignition Switches
GENERAL MOTORS: Accused of Fraud for Concealing Ignition Defect

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2.4 Million Cars & Trucks
GENERAL MOTORS: Legal Department Under Probe Over Recalls
GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Propose Timetable for Bankruptcy Issues
GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
GOLDEN PHOENIX: Class Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

GREENSPOON MARDER: Faces "Desir" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
HERSHEY CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Chocolate Price-Fixing Suit Ruling
JRK RESIDENTIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Milbourne" Case Denied
KENLEE GROUP: Refused to Pay Class Members' Overtime, Suit Claims
KEY ENERGY: Removed "Zaragoza" Suit to California District Court

KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 1.2 Million Cases of Cottage Cheese Products
LFI FORT PIERCE: Faces Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Mississippi
LIBERTY GLOBAL: OneLink Faces New "Anticompetitive" Complaint
LIFE PARTNERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shareholder Suit
LONE PINE: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Augenbaum" Litigation Over IPO

MILLENNIA COLLECTIONS: Faces "Teitelbaum" Class Suit in New York
NORTH AMERICAN TITLE: July 18 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
PDC ENERGY: Jury Trial in Suit Over Partnership Purchases Reset
PERCHERON FIELD: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation
PHILADELPHIA: June 3 Autism Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

RETAIL PROPERTIES: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suits Pending
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
RUI CREDIT: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
SRA INTERNATIONAL: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Faces 47 Riata Liability Lawsuits as of May 2014

ST JUDE MEDICAL: One Silzone Litigation Remains in Ontario Court
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Awaits Ruling on Request for Summary Judgment
ST JUDE MEDICAL: December 2012 Securities Suit Partly Dismissed
TARGET CORP: Removed "Betties" Class Suit to C.D. California
TICKETMASTER: Settlement of Calif. Consumer Lawsuit Wins Approval

TOWERS WATSON: Former Towers Perrin Shareholder Suits Now Closed
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Lawsuits Over Hepatitis C Outbreak Continue
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Removed "Gutierrez" Suit to District Court
XTO ENERGY: Accused of Breaching Contract in Eastern Arkansas
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Accessibility Barrier at Various Locations

* Judge Intends to Resolve Hurricane Sandy Claims v. Insurers


                            *********


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: June Hearing in Suit Over Private Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has set a hearing
date of June 6, 2014 to consider the motions to dismiss certain
claims in the third amended complaint filed against Activision
Blizzard, Inc. over its Purchase Transaction and Private Sale,
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 addition, on August 14, 2013, the company received a letter
dated August 9, 2013 from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to
Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect
the books and records of the Company to ascertain whether the
Purchase Transaction and Private Sale were in the best interests
of the Company.  In response to that request, the company provided
the stockholder with certain materials under a confidentiality
agreement. On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under seal
by the same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No.
8884-VCL. A public version of that complaint was filed on
September 16, 2013. The allegations in the complaint were
substantially similar to the allegations in the matter filed on
August 1, 2013.  On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended
complaint under seal.  The amended complaint added claims on
behalf of an alleged class of Activision stockholders other than
the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi, ASAC,
investors in ASAC and other stockholders affiliated with the
investors of ASAC.  The added class claims are against the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi
affiliated directors, the members of the special committee of the
Board formed in connection with the Company's consideration of the
transactions with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi for breach of
fiduciary duty, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty against ASAC.  The amended complaint removed the
derivative claims for waste of corporate assets and disgorgement
but continued to allege derivative claims for breach of fiduciary
duties.  The amended complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of a class, damages, reformation of the Private
Sale, and disgorgement of any alleged profits received by the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and ASAC.  On October
29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the Pacchia case
with the Hayes case.  On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery
consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead
plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013.  On
December 3, 2013, the court selected Pacchia as lead plaintiff.
Pacchia filed a second amended complaint on December 11, 2013 and
Activision filed an answer on January 31, 2014.  Also on January
31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly,
Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to
dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. On
February 21, 2014, Pacchia filed a third amended complaint under
seal.  In response to Pacchia's filing of a third amended
complaint, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly,
Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to
dismiss certain claims in the third amended complaint. The Court
of Chancery has set a hearing date of June 6, 2014 to consider the
motions to dismiss such claims. The trial is scheduled for
December 2014.

On September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint
names the company's Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, ASAC, the
General Partner of ASAC, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. ("Davis")
and Fidelity Management & Research Co. ("FMR") as defendants, and
the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated certain provisions of the company's Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation by failing to submit the
matters contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement for approval
by a majority of the company's stockholders (other than Vivendi
and its controlled affiliates); that the company's Board of
Directors committed breaches of their fiduciary duties in
approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that Vivendi violated
fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of the Company in
entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that the company's
Chief Executive Officer and the company's Chairman usurped a
corporate opportunity from the Company; that the company's Board
of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench the
company's Board of Directors and officers in their offices; that
the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and Vivendi; and that
the company's Chief Executive Officer and the company's Chairman,
the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be unjustly enriched through
the Private Sale. The complaint seeks, among other things, the
rescission of the Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to
the Company of all or part of the shares that are the subject of
the Private Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or
mitigate the alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an
order requiring the company's Chief Executive Officer and the
company's Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge
to the Company the amounts by which they have allegedly been
unjustly enriched; and alleged damages sustained by the class and
the Company. In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary
restraining order preventing the defendants from consummating the
transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without
stockholder approval. Following a hearing on the motion for a
temporary restraining order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of
Chancery issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stock
Purchase Agreement pending (a) the issuance of a final decision
after a trial on the merits; (b) receipt of a favorable Activision
Blizzard stockholder vote on the transactions contemplated by the
Stock Purchase Agreement under Section 9.1(b) of the company's
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or (c)
modification of such preliminary injunction order by the Court of
Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court. On September 20, 2013, the
Court of Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary
injunction for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear
the appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the
Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of
Chancery's decision and granted the defendant's motion to hear the
appeal on an expedited basis.  Following a hearing on October 10,
2013, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's
order issuing a preliminary injunction, and determined that the
Stock Purchase Agreement was not a merger, business combination or
similar transaction that would require a vote of Activision's
unaffiliated stockholders under the charter.

On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added
factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October
29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with
the Pacchia case.  On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery
consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead
plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013.  See
the discussion related to the Pacchia matter (now the consolidated
matter) for any further updates to the status of the litigation.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Del. Court Dismisses Suit Over Stock Purhase
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed a suit
filed by a purported shareholder of Activision Blizzard, Inc. over
its Stock Purchase Agreement, 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.

Further, on September 18, 2013, the Company received a letter from
another purported stockholder of the Company, Milton Pfeiffer,
seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company
to investigate potential wrongdoing or mismanagement in connection
with the approval of the Stock Purchase Agreement.  On November
11, 2013, Pfeiffer filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220 containing
claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia and Miller.  The Company answered
on November 27, 2013.  On January 21, 2014, the Court of Chancery
entered the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Del. Court Dismisses Suit by Mark Benston
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed a suit
filed by Mark Benston against Activision Blizzard, Inc., 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 December 17, 2013, the Company received a letter from Mark
Benston requesting certain books and records of the Company
pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
Benston is represented by the same law firm as Milton Pfeiffer.
On January 2, 2014, Benston filed a lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220
containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller.
The Company answered on January 17, 2014. On February 14, 2014,
the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order
of dismissal.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hearing on Benston's Motion Set for June 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will hear arguments
on Benston's motion for a leadership role in the consolidated
Pacchia litigation on June 6, 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 March 14, 2014, Benston filed a putative class action and
derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, captioned Benston
v. Vivendi S.A. et al., No. 9447-VCL. The complaint makes claims
similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller, but also adds J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as defendants
and a so-called Brophy claim for insider trading against certain
of the defendants. Benston and his attorneys have petitioned the
Court of Chancery to appoint them as co-lead plaintiff and co-lead
counsel, respectively, for purposes of pursuing the Brophy claim
as part of the consolidated Pacchia litigation. The Court of
Chancery will hear arguments on Benston's motion for a leadership
role in the consolidated Pacchia litigation on June 6, 2014.


AKAGUCCI INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert James Dreyer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Akagucci, Inc. d/b/a
Saffron Dining, and Sonali Roy, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03351 (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 relating to their failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees earned minimum
wage and appropriate overtime wages for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a week.

Akagucci, Inc., doing business as Saffron Dining, is an entity
doing business in Illinois.  Sonali Roy is the owner of Akagucci.

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


AMCOR PACKAGING: "Morales" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Trinidad Morales v. Amcor
Packaging (USA), Inc., et al., Case No. BC 540163, was removed
from the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
03612-ODW-AJW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cat-Tuong N. Bulaon, Esq.
          Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
          R. Duane Westrup, Esq.
          WESTRUP KLICK LLP
          444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-2551
          Facsimile: (562) 435-4856
          E-mail: cbulaon@westrupassociates.com
                  ppoliner@westrupassociates.com
                  jveloff@westrupassociates.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Erik B. Von Zeipel, Esq.
          Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-1539
          E-mail: evonzeipel@seyfarth.com
                  sskibbe@seyfarth.com


APPLE INC: iPhone Customers Sue for Text Messages Interference
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that two recent
federal lawsuits accuse Apple Inc. of improperly interfering with
the text messages of its former iPhone customers.

Messages sent between iPhone users are transmitted via Apple's
iMessage service, which the company says is faster, more efficient
and gives texters the ability to see when their messages have been
read.  But plaintiffs allege when a customer switches to a non-
Apple device, his or her phone number remains stuck in the
iMessage network.  Therefore, Apple retains control of text
messages sent by other iPhone users, and the messages often never
make it to their intended recipient, according to the complaints,
both filed in the Northern District of California.

The first complaint, filed on May 15 by Roy Katriel of the Katriel
Law Firm in La Jolla, accuses Apple of contract interference and
unfair competition.  The second suit, filed a day later by
William Audet of Audet & Partners in San Francisco, also accuses
Apple of privacy breaches.

"Apple's authorization to access the text messages of its
iPhone/iMessage user customers ends when they cease to be iPhone
users," Mr. Audet wrote.  "Apple fails to remove former
iPhone/iMessage information from its iMessage system, which
results in Apple's continued improper accessing and intercepting
of text messages sent to former iPhone/iMessage users."

According to the suit, text messages sent to former iPhone users
will register as "delivered" even though they have been
intercepted by Apple.  That constitutes a violation of the Stored
Communications Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law, according to Mr. Audet, who
seeks to represent a putative national class of iPhone users.

Apple has failed to correct the problem despite being aware of it
since at least January 2012, according to Mr. Audet.  His
complaint quotes headlines from several media articles on the
subject, including one from Gizmodo titled, "When Apple damns your
texts to iMessage purgatory."

Mr. Katriel's complaint centers on unfair competition.
"Apple's iMessage service and Messages application penalizes those
Apple device owners who deign to switch away from Apple to other
non-Apple wireless cellular devices," Mr. Katriel wrote.

Mr. Audet, who didn't know Mr. Katriel was working on a similar
case until after both complaints had been filed, hopes the two
firms can work together.

"Hopefully, we'll just get together and work out strategy and
present a unified front with our prospective claim," he said.

Mr. Katriel and an Apple spokesman both declined to comment on the
pending litigation.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Removed "Teamsters" Suit to Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund,
et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Case No. 04C-11-
191-CHT, was removed from the Superior Court of the state of
Delaware, New Castle County, to the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-00587-UNA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of third-party payers nationwide,
alleging that, in 2001, the Defendants launched their prescription
drug, NEXIUM(R) by falsely promoting it as superior to Priloseco,
another AstraZeneca drug that is now available in generic and
over-the-counter formulations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq.
          A. Zachary Naylor, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          222 Delaware Avenue, 11th Floor
          P.O. Box 1035
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-2500
          Facsimile: (302) 656-9053
          E-mail: pamelatikellis@chimicles.com
                  zacharynaylor@chimicles.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
          Daniel M. Silver, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Renaissance Centre
          405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-6301
          Facsimile: (302) 984-6399
          E-mail: mkelly@mccarter.com
                  dsilver@mccarter.com


ATOSSA GENETICS: Accord Over Schedule to Respond to Suit Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez signed a stipulation and order
regarding the schedule for responding to a consolidated amended
complaint in IN RE ATOSSA GENETICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01836 RSM, (W.D. Wash.).

Based upon the stipulation of Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants, by
and through their counsel of record, and for good cause appearing,
the Atossa Defendants and/or Underwriter Defendants have until May
30, 2014 to answer or otherwise respond to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint. If the Atossa Defendants and/or Underwriter
Defendants move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
Lead Plaintiffs have until July 11, 2014 to oppose the motion(s)
to dismiss, and the Atossa Defendants and/or Underwriter
Defendants have until July 31, 2014 to reply to Lead Plaintiffs'
opposition(s). Any motion to dismiss filed under this agreed
schedule will be noted for August 1, 2014.

A copy of the April 18, 2014 stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/FapCsKfrom Leagle.com.

Barry M. Kaplan -- bkaplan@wsgr.com -- Gregory L. Watts --
gwatts@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Seattle, WA,
Attorneys for Defendant Atossa Genetics, Inc. and Individual
Defendants

Jeremy Roller -- jroller@yarmuth.com -- YARMUTH WILSDON PLLC
Seattle, WA, Ralph V. De Martino -- rdemartino@schiffhardin.com --
Susan Ciallella -- sciallella@schiffhardin.com -- Mark S. Radke --
mradke@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN LLP Washington, DC,
Attorneys for Underwriter Defendants

Dan Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com -- ZWERLING, SCHACHTER &
ZWERLING, LLP Seattle, WA, Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs

Counsel For Lead Plaintiffs are Jeffrey C. Block --
jeff@blockesq.com -- Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com --
Steven P. Harte -- Steven@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP
Boston, MA, and

   Marc I. Gross, Esq.
   Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
   Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
   Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
   POMERANTZ LLP
   600 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10016
   Telephone: (212) 661-1100
   Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

      - and -

   Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
   POMERANTZ LLP
   10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
   Chicago, IL
   Telephone: (312) 377-1181
   Facsimile: (312) 377 1184


BANCORPSOUTH BANK: Suit by Ark. Customer Remanded to Fla. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case filed by an Arkansas customer of BancorpSouth Bank has been
remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida for further proceedings, according to BancorpSouth 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 May 18, 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit
challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer
protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in
an unspecified amount and equitable relief. The case was
transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida wherein an
order was entered certifying a class in this case.  The
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation
court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further
proceedings.


BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Keil" Suit Over Pet Food False Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Keil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., Case No. 4:14-cv-00880
(E.D. Mo., May 7, 2014) arises from the Company's alleged
widespread marketing campaign to mislead consumers about the
nature of its pet food.

One of the most significant misrepresentations 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," the Plaintiff contends.

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 M. 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 -

          Donovan Rose Nester, Esq.
          DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C.
          210 South Illinois Street
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 212-6500
          Facsimile: (618 212-6501


BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Andacky" Suit Over Pet Food False Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Andacky and Melissa Baggett, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., Case
No. 2:14-cv-02938-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) arises from the
Defendant's alleged false and misleading labeling and marketing of
its cat and dog food products in the: (a) "Life Protection" line
(b) "Wilderness" line (c) "Freedom" line and (d) "Basics" line.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's "TRUE BLUE PROMISE" is
false and misleading.  Indeed, they insist, scientific testing
reveals that, contrary to the "TRUE BLUE PROMISE," the Mislabeled
Pet Foods do, in fact, contain significant amounts of
chicken/poultry by-product meal.

The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., is a Delaware corporation with its
corporate headquarters in Wilton, Connecticut.  Blue Buffalo is in
the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling pet food,
pet treats, and related products nationwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com


BOBBY JINDAL: Mag. Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Marrero" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael B. North issued a Report and
Recommendation in the case captioned LAWRENCE MARRERO v. BOBBY
JINDAL, ET AL. SECTION: "I"(5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-539, (E.D.
La.).

Plaintiff, Lawrence Marrero, a state inmate, filed this federal
civil rights complaint pro se and in forma pauperis against these
defendants: Bobby Jindal, the Governor of the State of Louisiana;
James LeBlanc, the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections; and Robert Tanner, the Warden of the B.B.
"Sixty" Rayburn Correctional Center. The Plaintiff claims that the
defendants are illegally imprisoning him at hard labor.

In his April 8, 2014 Report and Recommendation, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/JghKo6from Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge
North recommended that the matter be dismissed.  He also
recommended that plaintiff's "Motion for Certification of the
Class" be denied saying "it is well-established that pro se
litigants, such as plaintiff, should not be allowed to serve as
class representatives."

"It is further recommended that plaintiff's federal civil rights
complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous," held Judge
North.

Lawrence Marrero, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


BOBBY JINDAL: Mag. Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Davis" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a Report and Recommendation dated April 8, 2014, entered in
BENYALE DAVIS v. BOBBY JINDAL, ET AL., SECTION: "I"(5), CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-555, (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Michael B. North
recommended that plaintiff's "Motion for Certification of the
Class" be denied.

Plaintiff, Benyale Davis, a state inmate, filed this federal civil
rights complaint pro se and in forma pauperis against these
defendants: Bobby Jindal, the Governor of the State of Louisiana;
James LeBlanc, the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections; and Robert Tanner, the Warden of the B.B.
"Sixty" Rayburn Correctional Center. Plaintiff claims that the
defendants are illegally imprisoning him at hard labor.

Magistrate Judge further recommended that plaintiff's federal
civil rights complaint be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

A copy of the Report and Recommendation is available at
http://is.gd/T45LRffrom Leagle.com

Benyale Davis, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Posts $1.9MM Charge for Lawnmower Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the Canadian Lawnmower Class Action National
Settlement Agreement, Briggs & Stratton Corporation recorded a
total charge of US $1.9 million as a Litigation Settlement expense
on its Statement of Operations in the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2013, 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 30, 2014.

On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears
Canada, Inc. et al., Court File No. 766-2010) against the Company
and other engine and lawnmower manufacturers alleging that the
horsepower labels on the products they purchased were inaccurate
and that the Company conspired with other engine and lawnmower
manufacturers to conceal the true horsepower of these engines. On
May 3, 2010, other plaintiffs filed a similar complaint in the
Montreal Superior Court in Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere
& Company, et al., Court File No. 500-06-000507-109). Both
proceedings were based on various theories of Canadian law and
sought unspecified damages.

On June 27, 2013, the Company entered into a Canadian Lawnmower
Class Action National Settlement Agreement ("Settlement") that
resolved all horsepower claims brought by all persons in Canada
who purchased lawn mowers in Canada during the class period
(defined as January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2012), except
certain specified persons. The Settlement was approved by the
Ontario Court and the Quebec Court in September 2013, and all
payments required by the Company have been made. As a result of
the Settlement, the Company recorded a total charge of US $1.9
million as a Litigation Settlement expense on the Statement of
Operations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Discovery Underway in Retirees' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A class has been certified in a suit filed by Briggs & Stratton
Corporation retirees, and discovery is underway in the case before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
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 30, 2014.

On May 14, 2010, the Company notified retirees and certain
retirement eligible employees of various amendments to the
Company-sponsored retiree medical plans intended to better align
the plans offered to both hourly and salaried retirees. On August
16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who retired prior to August
1, 2006 and the United Steel Workers filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Merrill,
Weber, Carpenter, et al.; United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v. Briggs & Stratton
Corporation; Group Insurance Plan of Briggs & Stratton
Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket No. 10-C-0700),
contesting the Company's right to make these changes. The
complaint seeks an injunction preventing the alleged unilateral
termination or reduction in insurance coverage to the class of
retirees, a permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever
making changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution
with interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs. A
class has been certified, and discovery is underway in the case.


CARGILL INC: Disputes Truvia Misleading Advertising Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
in litigation that could cost Cargill Inc. millions of dollars,
the Minnesota-based food company is fighting to keep the sugar
substitute Truvia on supermarket shelves labeled as a "natural"
sweetener.

Lawyers for Cargill appeared in federal courts across the United
States during the past several months to resolve consumer claims
that the company deceived them about the composition of the
product, marketed as "Nature's Calorie-Free Sweetener."

Consumers filed complaints in federal courts in California,
Florida, Hawaii and Minnesota asserting that Truvia mainly
consists of a synthetic ingredient and that the stevia plant
extract used in the sweetener is made through a chemical process.

The class actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for Hawaii, where a status conference is set for this
summer.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
May 12 urging the court to order Cargill to end its "untrue and
misleading advertising" of Truvia and to pay damages.

The plaintiffs didn't specify how much money they're seeking. In
the Minnesota case, they requested $5 million -- a sum that U.S.
District Senior Judge Richard Kyle in St. Paul rejected as
potentially not high enough to compensate consumers.  He suggested
the damages could exceed $100 million.

"The main thing is when something is labeled natural, it is really
important the consumer knows what that means," said William "Tony"
Baird, an Agoura Hills, Calif., attorney at Marlin & Saltzman,
which represents the plaintiffs with Colchester, Conn.-based Scott
& Scott and other law firms.  Stephen Safranski --
spsafranski@rkmc.com -- a partner at Minneapolis-based Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, which has handled most of the litigation
for Cargill, declined to comment on the cases.

Cargill general counsel Laura Witte declined to talk about the
litigation beyond saying that her company stands behind its Truvia
labeling, which appears on packets and multiple-serving containers
of the sweetener for sale at stores throughout the country.

"We continue to believe that the current labeling of Truvia is
truthful, accurate and complies with labeling laws," Witte said in
a written statement.

At the heart of the dispute is the meaning of "natural," a word
federal regulators haven't done much to clarify.  The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration doesn't have a definition for "natural"
but the agency says it doesn't object to its use as long as it
isn't applied to food that has "added color, artificial flavors or
synthetic substances."

"From a food-science perspective, it is difficult to define a food
product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been
processed and is no longer the product of the earth," the agency
says on its website.

Plaintiffs attorneys maintain, however, that it's clear that the
sweetener isn't natural.  Truvia's packaging says its stevia leaf
extract comes from "dried stevia leaves [that] are steeped in
water, similar to making tea."

The consumers' attorneys contend Truvia is made with a "highly
chemically processed and purified form of stevia leaf extract"
that makes up only 1 percent of the sweetener, according to an
amended complaint filed by Scott & Scott attorney Joseph
Guglielmo.

The sugar substitute primarily consists of erythritol, a
synthetic, according to the lawsuit.

"A reasonable consumer understands a natural product to be one
that does not contain man-made, synthetic ingredients, is not
subject to harsh chemical processes and is only minimally
processed," Mr. Guglielmo wrote in court papers.

                     Trade Group Weighs In

As the litigation continues, a top industry trade group that
includes Cargill and other major food companies is trying to put
an end to similar cases.  Karin Moore, general counsel of the
Grocery Manufacturers Association, in December sent a letter to
the FDA calling on it to determine whether food ingredients
developed through the use of special technology are natural.
"FDA's involvement in this issue is needed to ensure consistent
and uniform rules for foods with 'natural' claims and ingredients
derived from biotechnology," Ms. Moore wrote.  "Despite the
agency's existing guidance, the nation's courts have been
inundated with cases in which claims have been made concerning
'natural' labeling and ingredients derived from biotechnology."
In 2013, consumers filed 58 cases related to the use of the word
on labels, according to Food Navigator-USA.com, a news site that
covers industry trends.  And they've been winning.  As recently as
May 2, plaintiffs secured a $5 million settlement with Kashi Co.
in a class action that alleged the cereal company falsely
advertised its products as "all natural" or contained "nothing
artificial" when they had synthetic and artificial ingredients.
The deal required Kashi to change the labeling on some of its
products.

Although Cargill lawyer Mr. Safranski wouldn't get into the
details of the Truvia litigation, he acknowledged in an interview
that natural-labeling disputes pose a problem for food companies.
"I can't think of any word in the English language that has
spawned more litigation than natural," he said.


CITIZENS INC: No Individual Cases Pursued by "Andrade" Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No individual cases have been further pursued by the plaintiffs in
Delia Bolanos Andrade, et al. v. Citizens Insurance Company of
America, et al. since the 2009 denial by the trial court to
recertify a class in the case, 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.

The company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on August 6, 1999,
in the Texas District Court, Austin, Texas, now styled Delia
Bolanos Andrade, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Citizens Insurance Company
of America, et al., Defendants in which a class was originally
certified by the trial court and reversed by the Texas Supreme
Court in 2007 with an order to the trial court to conduct further
proceedings consistent with its ruling.  The underlying lawsuit
alleged that certain life insurance policies CICA made available
to non-U.S. residents, when combined with a policy feature that
allowed certain cash benefits to be assigned to two non-U.S.
trusts for the purpose of accumulating ownership of the company's
Class A common stock, along with allowing the policyholders to
make additional contributions to the trusts, were actually offers
and sales of securities that occurred in Texas by unregistered
dealers in violation of the Texas securities laws.  The remedy
sought was rescission and return of the insurance premium
payments.  On December 9, 2009, the trial court denied the
recertification of the class after conducting additional
proceedings in accordance with the Texas Supreme Court's ruling.
The remaining plaintiffs must now proceed individually, and not as
a class, if they intend to pursue their claims against the
company.  Since the December 9, 2009 trial court ruling, no
individual cases have been further pursued by the plaintiffs.  The
probability of the plaintiffs further pursuing their cases
individually remains unknown.


CNO FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid to Nix CLIC from Lifetrend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Company remains a defendant in a suit filed
on behalf of certain Lifetrend policyholders, according to CNO
Financial Group, 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 October 25, 2012, a purported nationwide class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and
CNO Services, LLC, Case No. EDCV12-01715VAPSPX.

The plaintiffs bring this action under Rule 23(B)(3) on behalf of
various Lifetrend policyholders who since October 2008 have
surrendered their policies or had them lapse. Additionally,
plaintiffs seek certification of a subclass of various Lifetrend
policyholders who accepted optional benefits and signed a release
pursuant to a regulatory settlement. The plaintiffs allege breach
of contract and seek declaratory relief, compensatory damages,
attorney fees and costs. On November 30, 2012, CLIC and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November
18, 2013, the court granted the dismissal, with leave to amend, of
CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and CNO Services, LLC, and
denied the motion to dismiss CLIC.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Barnes Ordered to Address Suit Deficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------
Chevalier Barnes filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Complaint that
employs the printed form provided by the Clerk's Office for the
Northern District of Illinois for use by persons in custody and
adds to the multitude of cases brought by detainees at the Cook
County Department of Corrections because of what all those
detainees describe as intolerable living conditions there.
Although the large number of Complaints directed at the County
Jail's Division Three have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
under the supervision of the Court's colleague Honorable Robert
Gettleman, with a view toward their possibly being collectivized
in a class action, no corresponding treatment has been established
for the substantial number of cases that make like claims as to
conditions in the Division Three Annex that are also the subject
of Mr. Barnes' grievance.

In the absence of an equivalent class action approach, the N.D.
Illinois Court noted that Mr. Barnes' Complaint has some threshold
difficulties:

1. First, 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(a) makes it a precondition to
filing suit that the prisoner plaintiff must have exhausted all
available administrative remedies. Mr. Barnes has said nothing at
all on that score, and unless he were to cure that flaw properly,
the Court will be obligated to dismiss this action without
prejudice.

2. Next, although Mr. Barnes accompanied his Complaint with an In
Forma Pauperis Application, he has not complied with the 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(a) requirement that he must also provide a printout
of transactions in his trust fund account at the County Jail
during the 6-month period ended March 26, 2014. That information
is essential to the Court's consideration of the Application and
its entry of an order providing for his payment of the $350 filing
fee in future installments rather than up front.

"If Barnes' satisfies both of those requirements by a filing on or
before May 16, 2014, this Court will enter an appropriate order
dismissing Toni Preckwinkle and Cook County D.O.C. as defendants
(the former because she is clearly not personally implicated in
any Section 1983 violations and the latter because it is not a
legal entity), leaving only Sheriff Tom Dart as the sole initial
defendant in the case," ruled Senior District Judge Milton I.
Shadur.  "If Barnes fails to do so, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice," he added.

The case is CHEVALIER BARNES, Plaintiff, v. TONI PRECKWINKLE, TOM
DART, and COOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants, CASE
NO. 14 C 2450, (N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the District Court's April 18, 2014 Memorandum Order
is available at http://is.gd/9lf7KKfrom Leagle.com

Chevalier Barnes, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CREDIT BUREAU: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Boruch Oldak, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., dba
Chase Receivables, Case No. 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y.,
May 8, 2014) is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CREDIT BUREAU: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Indig, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Credit Bureau Collection Services, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02952-MKB-JO (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


DURHAM SCHOOL: Removed "Talley" Suit to S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Talley, et al. v. Durham School
Services, L.P., et al., Case No. 49D10-1404-PL-011842, was removed
from the Marion County Superior Court, Indiana, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00716-RLY-TAB to
the proceeding.

The case is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew P. Wirick, Esq.
          William David Beyers, Esq.
          HUME SMITH GEDDES GREEN & SIMMONS
          54 Monument Circle, 4th Floor
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 632-4402
          Facsimile: (317) 632-5595
          E-mail: awirick@humesmith.com
                  bbeyers@humesmith.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Angela S. Cash, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: acash@scopelitis.com


DYNEGY INC: District Court Dismisses "Silsby" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed the case captioned CHARLES
SILSBY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CARL ICAHN, ET AL., Defendants, NO.
12 CIV. 2307 (JGK), (S.D.N.Y.).

This is an alleged securities fraud action brought on behalf of a
proposed class of investors in Dynegy, Inc.  The lead plaintiff,
Stephen Lucas, brought this consolidated putative class action
suit on behalf of individuals who purchased securities of Dynegy
between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012.  The plaintiffs allege
that various defendants made material omissions in connection with
Dynegy's attempt to restructure its assets in 2011. The plaintiffs
allege that the asserted omissions violate Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. The
plaintiffs also allege that various Dynegy officers, directors,
and shareholders are liable as control persons under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).  The defendants
moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In an opinion and order dated April 30, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/mibOLXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koeltl
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk
of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action and closing the
case.

Stephen Lucas, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian
Porritt, Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Charles Silsby, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Richard William Gonnello
-- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Emily C.
Komlossy -- ekomlossy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP &
Francis Paul McConville -- fmcconville@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP.

Carl C. Icahn, Defendant, represented by:

   Herbert Beigel, Esq.
   Herbert Beigel & Associates, LLC
   63561 E Vacation Dr.
   Tucson, AZ 85739
   United States
      - and -

   Telephone: (520) 797-9188
   Robert R. Viducich, Esq.
   Law Office of Robert R. Viducich
   110 Wall St.
   New York, NY 10005
   United States
   Telephone: (212) 709-8385

Dynegy Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas P. Baumstein --
dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP & Glenn Kurtz --
gkurtz@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP.  These individual
defendants are also represented by White & Case: Robert C. Flexon,
Clint Freeland, Kevin T. Howell, Thomas W. Elward, E. Hunter
Harrison, Michael J. Embler, Vincent J. Intrieri, Samuel Mersamer.


EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation In re Eastman Kodak
ERISA Litigation was heard on May 23, 2013 and has been taken
under advisement, 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.

Subsequent to Eastman Kodak Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between
January 27, 2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action
suits were filed in federal court in the Western District of New
York against the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan
("SOP") and Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain
former and current executives of the Company.  The suits have been
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation.  The allegations concern the decline in
the Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP.
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs. Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was heard
on May 23, 2013 and has been taken under advisement.


EASTMAN KODAK: N.Y. Securities Suit Against Officers Terminated
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities suit filed against Eastman Kodak Company officers in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
been terminated, 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 10, 2012, a suit was filed in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Chief Executive Officer,
the former President and Chief Operating Officer and the former
Chief Financial Officer, as a putative class action suit under the
federal securities laws, claiming that certain Company statements
concerning the Company's business and financial results were
misleading and claiming alleged resulting damages (Timothy A.
Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez, Philip J. Faraci, and Antoinette
McCorvey).  The District Court granted defendants' July 2, 2012
motion to dismiss this case as against all defendants but granted
the plaintiffs' subsequent motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint against only the Chief Executive
Officer and the former Chief Financial Officer (Timothy A.
Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez and Antoinette McCorvey), in which
they sought damages with interest, equitable relief as applicable,
and attorneys' fees and costs.  The District Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on April 25, 2013, and
plaintiffs appealed. On December 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court
dismissing the case, finding that plaintiffs had failed to plead
facts with the particularity required to maintain their alleged
causes of action.  Plaintiffs did not seek a writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court.  Accordingly, this case has
terminated.


ELAVON INC: Removed "Radoff" Suit to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Franklin Radoff v.
Elavon Inc., et al., Case No. 56-2014-0049391-CU-BT-VTA, was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-03527-SVW-JC to the proceeding.

The case alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Marc Schwartz, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ LAW PC
          629 Camino de los Mares, Suite 203
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (888) 730-0529
          Facsimile: (949) 481-8836
          E-mail: jeff@schwartz4law.com

               - and -

          Manuel H. Miller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL H MILLER
          20750 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 440
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 710-9993
          Facsimile: (818) 710-1938
          E-mail: miller4law@msn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brandon P. Reilly, Esq.
          Donna L. Wilson, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: breilly@manatt.com
                  dlwilson@manatt.com


EZ CAPITAL: Has Invaded Privacy of Class Members, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Charkchyan; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EZ Capital, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03564-
ODW-AS (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2014) results from the Defendant's
alleged illegal actions in negligently or intentionally contacting
the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

EZ Capital, Inc., is a New York corporation.  The Defendant offers
speedy loans to small businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Jared Hartman, Esq.
          HARTMAN LAW OFFICE, INC.
          400 South Melrose, Drive, Suite 209
          Vista, CA 92081
          Telephone: (951) 234-0881
          Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
          E-mail: jaredhartman@jmhattorney.com

               - and -

          Babak Semnar, Esq.
          SEMNAR LAW FIRM
          400 South Melrose, Drive, Suite 209
          Vista, CA 92081
          Telephone: (500) 500-4187
          Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
          E-mail: bob@semnarlawfirm.com


FENG SHENG: Fails to Pay Class Members Any Wage at All, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jayquawnn Williams, on her own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Feng Sheng China Buffet Inc., a Georgia For-
Profit Corporation dba 5 Star China Buffet, Jun Ju Chen, aka Jack
Chen, an Individual and Vickie Chen, an Individual, Case No. 1:14-
cv-01371-CAP (N.D. Ga., May 7, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff any wages at all.

Ms. Williams says that the only compensation she received was in
the form of "tips" from customers.  She adds that the Defendants
regularly withheld tips from her to pay for customers, who had
walked out without paying their bills.

Feng Sheng China Buffet Inc. is a Georgia for-profit corporation
doing business as 5 Star China Buffet in Decatur County, Georgia.
The Individual Defendants own and operate the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Kevin Maziar, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          P.O. Box 57007
          191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Telephone: (404) 965-8875
          Facsimile: (404) 965-8812
          E-mail: tmaziar@forthepeople.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Moskowitz and Miriam Moskowitz, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage,
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02951-BMC (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) accuses
the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


FLEETMATICS GROUP: June Hearing Set to Approve Brevard Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida set a hearing on final approval of the settlement in
Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al.
v. FleetMatics USA, LLC, et al. for June 27, 2014, according to
Fleetmatics Group'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 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled
U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. FleetMatics USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20. The company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
September 13, 2012, U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. FleetMatics
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-CV-2079. The company moved to
dismiss the complaint on September 20, 2012. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on October 4, 2012 and changed the case caption
to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Prisoner Transport, et
al. v. FleetMatics USA, LLC, et al. The company moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 18, 2012. The Court denied the
company's motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part on
September 27, 2013, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
October 11, 2013. The second amended complaint alleges essentially
the same claims as previously alleged. On January 21, 2014, the
parties executed an agreement to a settlement with class members
for an aggregate of $525,000, which was subject to Court approval.
On January 23, 2014, the Court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement, conditionally
certifying the settlement class, and approving the form of notice
to the class. In the order, the Court also set a hearing on final
approval of the settlement for June 27, 2014.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Faces Shareholder Litigations in Oregon Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. faces purported securities lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon, 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 addition to the complaints filed in February and March 2014
described in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with
the SEC on March 17, 2014, e U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In March and April 2014 three new purported shareholder derivative
complaints-Klein v. Ahn, No. 3:14-cv-516 (D. Or.), Rathore v.
Hillsberg, No. 3:14-cv-514 (D. Or.), and Zhang v. Hillsberg, No.
140403987 (Or. Cir. Ct.)-were filed against the company's company,
as nominal defendant, and certain of the company's officers and
directors in the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah and in the United States District Court for the District
of Oregon. The complaints allege, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duties and abuse of control by the officers and
directors in connection with various public statements purportedly
issued by the company or on the company's behalf and sales of the
company's common stock by the officers and directors in January
and February of this year.

On February 17, 2014, the company's board of directors formed a
special committee of the board to conduct an internal
investigation of the allegations in the foregoing complaints. The
special committee has retained its own counsel to assist in its
investigation.

Also, in March and April 2014, two new purported securities class
action complaints -- Jang v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-
435 (D. Or.), and Baya v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-558
(D. Or.) -- were filed against the company's company and certain
of the company's officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon. The complaints allege
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements in press releases and
in filings with the SEC arising out of the same circumstances that
are the subject of derivative actions.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Knetzke" Class Suit Over Ignition Switches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob P. Knetzke, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC,
and Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21673-JAL
(S.D. Fla., May 7, 2014) arises from GM's recent string of
recalls, the culmination of GM and Delphi's alleged scheme to
defraud GM consumers through their unconscionable failure to
disclose and active concealment of a defect in certain GM vehicles
that renders them unsafe to drive and has killed at least 13
innocent victims and possibly hundreds more.

The defect involves the vehicles' ignition switch system, which is
dangerously susceptible to failure during normal and foreseeable
driving conditions, according to the complaint.  Delphi
manufactured and supplied the alleged defective ignition switches.

GM is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in
Michigan.  GM acquired substantially all the assets and assumed
certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation through a sale
under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Delphi Automotive PLC is a foreign corporation based in the United
Kingdom.  Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC is a foreign corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of
business in Michigan.  Once a subsidiary of Old GM, Old Delphi
spun-off in 1999 and became an independent publicly held
corporation.  Both Old and New Delphi, through their various
entities, has designed, manufactured, and supplied GM with motor
vehicle components, including the alleged defective ignition
switches.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Robert Neary, Esq.
          KOZYAK, TROPIN, & THROCKMORTON P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
                  hst@kttlaw.com
                  tr@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Chip Merlin, Esq.
          Mary Fortson, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
          Tampa, FL
          Telephone: (813) 229-1000
          E-mail: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com
                  mfortson@merlinlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Phillip Sanov, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Three Riverway, Suite 701
          Houston, TX
          Telephone: (713) 626-8880
          E-mail: PSanov@merlinlawgroup.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Phaneuf" Class Suit Over Ignition Switches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Phaneuf, Adam Smith, Mike Garcia, Javier Delacruz, Steve
Sileo, Steven Bucci, David Padilla, Catherine Cabral and Joseph
Cabral v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03298-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
May 7, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class comprised of all
persons in the United States, who purchased or leased a Chevrolet
Cobalt, ChevroletHHR, Pontiac Solstice, Pontiac G5, Saturn Ion, or
Saturn Sky at any time between July 10, 2009, and February 13,
2014.

According to the complaint, GM admits that it knew for years about
the defective ignition switches used in the Affected Vehicles
before it issued a recall notice.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.  New GM is a successor-in-interest to General
Motors Corporation.  Following Old GM's bankruptcy, New GM has
continued to design, manufacture, market, distribute, and sell the
Affected Vehicles throughout the United States and in countries
across the world.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Todd S. Garb, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914)824-1561
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com


               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617)398-5600
          Facsimile: (617)507-6020
          E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                  Jason@blockesq.com
                  Joel@blockesq.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Accused of Fraud for Concealing Ignition Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. General Motors Company, Case No. 9:14-cv-
80618-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2014) arises from GM's alleged scheme
to defraud GM consumers through its failure to disclose and active
concealment of a defect in certain GM cars that renders them
unsafe to drive.

The defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is
susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions, the
Plaintiff contends.

GM is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
GM acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain
liabilities of General Motors Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Eidson, Esq.
          Curtis B. Miner, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: mike@colson.com
                  curt@colson.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2.4 Million Cars & Trucks
-------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that General Motors issued four
recalls covering 2.4 million cars and trucks on May 20.  That
brings GM to a total of 29 recalls of 13.6 million vehicles in the
U.S. so far this year.  Here are the 10 largest U.S. recalls the
company has announced this year.

   -- 2.4 million midsize cars because the brake light wires can
corrode, causing the lights to fail. Includes 2004-2012 Chevrolet
Malibu, Pontiac G6 and Saturn Aura.

   -- 2.2 million small cars for defective ignition switches. The
recall (which totals 2.6 million worldwide), includes the 2005-
2007 Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5; 2003-2007 Saturn Ion; and
2006-2007 Chevrolet HHR, Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky, and any
newer models from 2008-2011 that got the switches as replacement
parts.

   -- 2.2 million small cars to replace ignition lock cylinders so
drivers can't remove their keys while the engine is running.
Affects the same vehicles involved in the ignition switch recall.

   -- 1.3 million small and midsize cars because the electronic
power assist can stop working. Includes the 2004-2005 Chevrolet
Malibu, 2009-2010 Chevrolet HHR and 2008-2009 Saturn Aura.

   -- 1.3 million crossovers because the front safety lap belt
cables can wear down and separate over time. Includes the 2009-
2014 Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia and Saturn
Outlook.

   -- 1.2 million crossovers because their side air bags, front
center air bags and seat belt pretensioners might not deploy if
drivers ignore an air bag warning light on their dashboard.
Includes the 2008-2013 Buick Enclave and GMC Acadia; 2009-2013
Chevrolet Traverse; and 2008-2010 Saturn Outlook.

   -- 1.1 million midsize cars because a shift cable can wear out
over time, making it impossible to change gears or remove the key
from the ignition. Includes 2004-2008 Chevrolet Malibu and 2005-
2008 Pontiac G6.

   -- 490,000 pickups and SUVs because transmission oil can leak
from a fitting and hit hot surfaces, causing fires. Includes the
2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500 pickups and 2015
Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe and GMC Yukon and Yukon XL.

   -- 303,000 pickups because the exhaust components can overheat
and start a fire. Includes the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC
Sierra.

   -- 303,000 vans because the material on the instrument panel
might not adequately protect unbelted passengers' heads in a
crash. Includes 2009-2014 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana.


GENERAL MOTORS: Legal Department Under Probe Over Recalls
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that General Motors Co. is looking into how its legal department
handled a wrongful death case that helped lead to disclosure of
the ignition switch defect at the center of the company's recent
recalls.

As part of its internal investigation, the automaker is assessing
whether its top executives, including general counsel Michael
Millikin, might have attempted to contain public knowledge of the
defect, The New York Times reported on May 18.

GM spokesman Greg Martin emailed a statement to The NLJ:
"Mr. Valukas has free rein to go wherever the facts may lead,"
referring to former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas, chairman of
Jenner & Block, who is conducting GM's internal investigation.
GM has recalled 2.6 million vehicles and acknowledged that 13
people have died due to the defects. U.S. Transportation Secretary
Anthony Foxx on May 16 announced that GM would be fined the
maximum $35 million for its failure to promptly report the defects
to the public.

Much of the probe of GM's lawyers, according to the Times, focuses
on the months just before and after the company settled a lawsuit
brought by the parents of Brooke Melton, 29, who died in 2011
after she lost control of her 2006 Cobalt.  The ignition had
slipped into the "accessory" position, shutting off the engine.
Plaintiffs attorney Lance Cooper has maintained all along that

GM's sudden settlement in the case in September, one month before
trial, came soon after its engineers had said in depositions that
they were unaware of the problems with the ignition.  King &
Spalding represented GM in the Melton case.

"What happened was our expert . . . discovered there were
differences in the switches and the switch in Brooke Melton's
car," Mr. Cooper told the NLJ.  "I presented that information to
the lead design engineer, and he said he wasn't aware of any
changes and didn't approve the changes and GM knew nothing."

Mr. Cooper told The NLJ that the case settled "when senior level
management figured this out, and I was asking before we settled
the case, when are you going to recall this product?"
He continued: "Within a month or so of the case settling, they
presented it to a high-level committee, who realized they couldn't
keep doing this." Mr. Cooper, founding partner of The Cooper Firm
in Marietta, Ga., has moved to refile the case.

Documents provided to Congress indicated that Ray DeGiorgio, lead
engineer for the Cobalt ignition switches, approved the changes.
In congressional hearings, GM chief executive officer Mary Barra
was at a loss to explain why Mr. DeGiorgio appeared to have lied
under oath.

In his new complaint, filed on May 12, Melton's parents are
seeking sanctions against GM, claiming that Mr. DeGiorgio perjured
himself.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Propose Timetable for Bankruptcy Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, The National Law Journal, reports that lawyers
have proposed a timetable for deciding whether General Motors
Co.'s 2009 bankruptcy bars most of the lawsuits filed over its
ignition-switch recalls.

GM, which recalled 2.6 million vehicles earlier this year over
ignition-switch defects, moved last month to prevent class actions
from going forward on behalf of consumers seeking economic
damages, such as the lost value of their cars.  Plaintiffs lawyers
objected to the motion.

During a May 2 hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber of the
Southern District of New York ordered both sides to agree to a
schedule to address "threshold" issues, such as whether GM knew
about the ignition-switch defects at the time of its bankruptcy.
Under a proposed order submitted on May 15, GM's lawyers would
meet with plaintiffs attorneys next month to narrow down the facts
they agree on.  They would return to court by July 2, when
Judge Gerber is expected to determine what threshold disagreements
remain or whether limited discovery is needed.  Plaintiffs lawyers
also have agreed, under the proposed order, to stay discovery
until Sept. 1 at the latest.

"This is a process that really expedites the cases, rather than
slows them down," said plaintiffs attorney Alexander Schmidt --
schmidt@whafh.com -- a partner at New York's Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, who sued GM in bankruptcy court to oppose
its motion.  "The threshold bankruptcy issues are common to every
one of the 60 class actions that have been filed.  And these
threshold issues must be resolved before realistically any of
those product liability and consumer fraud class actions can be
litigated."

Some firms objected to the proposed order.  Michael Etkin --
metkin@lowenstein.com -- a partner at Lowenstein Sandler in
Roseland, N.J. -- co-counsel with plaintiffs firms including
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check in Radnor, Pa., and San Diego's
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd -- said he was concerned about
"adequate communication" between attorneys in the bankruptcy case
claiming to represent all plaintiffs and other lawyers with cases
against GM.  He also wants more information about the proposal to
stay the litigation.

The proposed order would not affect proceedings before the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which will hear
arguments on May 29 in Chicago about where the ignition-switch
lawsuits against GM should be coordinated.

It also does not affect lawsuits over injuries, deaths or property
damages.  GM has acknowledged that the defects, which could shut
off engines, preventing air bags from deploying in accidents, have
been linked to 13 deaths.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbi L. Abramowitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-02947-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


GOLDEN PHOENIX: Class Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guo Hui Du and Hei Ming Lam, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs v. Ying Wong and Golden Phoenix, Inc., d/b/a
The Seasons, Case No. 2:14-cv-02938-FSH-MAH (D.N.J., May 8, 2014)
alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act the
Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum
wages, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Golden Phoenix, Inc., doing business as The Seasons restaurant, is
a New Jersey domestic business corporation with a principal place
of business located in Clifton, New Jersey.  Ying Wong is the
chairman or chief executive officer of the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com

               - and -

          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1124
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


GREENSPOON MARDER: Faces "Desir" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Desir, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Greenspoon Marder, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Case
No. 0:14-cv-61102-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yechezkel Rodal, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS, LLC
          377 N. State Rd. 7, Suite 202
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 523-4357
          E-mail: chezky@floridaloanlawyers.com


HERSHEY CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Chocolate Price-Fixing Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
nearly 20 supermarkets, pharmacies and wholesalers -- including
Safeway, CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens -- have appealed a Middle
District of Pennsylvania judge's ruling tossing 91 chocolate
price-fixing cases filed against Hershey, Mars and Nestle, the
makers of three-quarters of America's chocolate.

Meanwhile, the defendant chocolatiers are seeking to recover from
the plaintiffs the costs of electronic discovery, depositions and
other expenses incurred thus far in the litigation, arguing
they're entitled to reimbursement because the case against them
was dismissed on summary judgment.

On May 16, "individual purchaser" class plaintiffs The Kroger Co.,
Safeway Inc., Walgreen Co., Hy-Vee Inc., Albertsons, the Great
Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., HEB Grocery Co., Giant Eagle Inc.,
United Supermarkets, Meijer Inc., Meijer Distribution Inc., Publix
Super Markets Inc., SuperValu Inc., Affiliated Foods Inc., CVS
Pharmacy, Longs Drug Stores California Inc., Rite Aid Corp., Rite
Aid Headquarters Corp. and the Golub Corp. filed notices of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

That same day, the Hershey, Mars and Nestle defendants filed bills
of costs, seeking reimbursement of their e-discovery costs and
other litigation expenses from all of the individual purchaser and
direct purchaser class plaintiffs "jointly and severally."

The defendants argued in a joint memorandum in support of their
bills of costs that, because those plaintiffs -- referred to
collectively as the "direct plaintiff groups" -- relied on the
same evidence and the same legal theory, they all used the same
discovery.

"The direct plaintiff groups also cannot deny that they were
substantially involved in discovery," the defendants said in the
memorandum May 16.  "The direct plaintiff groups issued more than
70 document requests that called for the production of millions of
pages of documents, served deposition notices for more than 35
witnesses, and frequently sought to move the case forward over
objections from defendants."

In February, U.S. District Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner of
the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment, tossing 91 cases claiming that the
confectioners fixed prices between 2002 and 2007.

Judge Conner issued an order in April dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice and entering judgment in favor of the
defendants.

The allegations, brought by dozens of grocery stores, pharmacies
and direct purchasers that bought chocolate during that time
period, were based largely on a parallel investigation in Canada,
which led to a guilty plea by Hershey Canada last year and has
charges pending against the Canadian affiliates of Mars and
Nestle.

"Initially, plaintiffs' claims of a domestic price-fixing
conspiracy were quite plausible," Judge Conner said in his
February decision granting summary judgment in In re Chocolate
Confectionary Antitrust Litigation.  "The Canadian trade spend
conspiracy raised the specter of Sherman Act violations in our
contiguous marketplace. Litigation and merits discovery properly
ensued.  But, at the end of the day, the probata could not match
the allegata."

Judge Conner held oral arguments on the six motions to dismiss in
the multidistrict litigation in October 2013 and was told by the
parties the following month that the final court-ordered mediation
session hadn't resulted in an agreement.  He granted all six
motions for summary judgment Feb. 26.

"Specifically, plaintiffs contend that defendants were in
possession of one another's pricing information prior to formal
price increase announcements and, spurred by the success of a
price-fixing conspiracy among their affiliates in Canada, tacitly
agreed to follow in lockstep any list price increases initiated by
competitors," Judge Conner said.

Noting that years of litigation and extensive discovery had fully
developed the record, Judge Conner said the "plaintiffs cannot
establish that defendants' actions were more likely than not the
result of concerted and collusive action."

The plaintiffs identified price increases in 2002, 2004 and 2007
as incidents that demonstrate price-fixing among America's biggest
chocolate producers.  Hershey holds 42 percent of the domestic
market, Mars has 28 percent and Nestle has 8 percent, according to
the opinion.  Although it's third in the United States, Nestle is
the market leader in Canada, Conner said in a footnote.

But the manufacturers pointed to historic patterns of price
increases where one company raises its prices and competitors
quickly follow, according to Judge Conner.

"As an explanation for these pricing actions," Judge Conner said,
"defendants cite to rising production and ingredient costs and
posit that the increases were determined independently of one
another, in a manner consistent with each company's best
interests."

However, "plaintiffs alleged broadly that the overlap of economic,
operational, and managerial factors between the two markets is 'so
extensive' as to effectively eviscerate the border between the
countries, merging the domestic and Canadian chocolate markets
into a 'single market.'  This theory quickly withered on the vine
in the absence of any factual support," Judge Conner said.

The judge repeatedly noted the extent of discovery in the case and
the absence of any concrete evidence of a price-fixing scheme.

"Despite diligent efforts on the part of plaintiffs counsel and
nearly unfettered access to defendants' records, plaintiffs are
before the court with nothing more than speculation as to the who,
what, when, where, and how of the communications that allegedly
facilitated the parallel price increases," Judge Conner said.
"Nothing scandalous or improper has been discovered within our
borders, and no evidence permits a reasonable inference of a
price-fixing agreement."

Counsel for the Nestle defendants, Peter E. Moll --
peter.moll@cwt.com -- of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in
Washington, D.C., said that, as the prevailing parties, the
defendants are entitled to recover litigation costs.

As for the appeals, Moll declined to comment except to say, "The
determination whether to appeal was one for the plaintiffs to
make."

Counsel for the Mars defendants, David Marx Jr. of McDermott Will
& Emery in Chicago, and counsel for the Hershey defendants,
William F. Cavanaugh Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com -- of Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler in New York, could not be reached for comment
on the notices of appeal and bills of costs at press time.

Counsel for plaintiffs Kroger, Safeway, Walgreens, Hy-Vee,
Albertsons, Great Atlantic and HEB, Scott E. Perwin of Kenny
Nachwalter in Miami, could not be reached for comment.

Counsel for Giant Eagle, Bernard D. Marcus --
marcus@marcus-shapira.com -- of Marcus & Shapira in Pittsburgh,
and counsel for United Supermarkets, Lawrence A. Gaydos --
larry.gaydos@haynesboone.com -- of Haynes and Boone in Dallas,
also could not be reached.

Counsel for Meijer, Meijer Distribution, Publix, SuperValu and
Affiliated Foods, Joseph M. Vanek of Vanek, Vickers & Masini in
Chicago, and counsel for CVS, Longs, Rite Aid and Golub, Eric L.
Bloom -- ebloom@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin &
Schiller in Harrisburg, also could not be reached.


JRK RESIDENTIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Milbourne" Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK A. MILBOURNE, on his own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JRK RESIDENTIAL AMERICA, LLC,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV861, (E.D. Va.) is before the
Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.

The basis of the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction rests squarely on JRK's contention that there is no
case or controversy. That contention, in turn, is predicated on
JRK's position that it made a complete offer of judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 which Mr. Milbourne rejected. Therefore, said
JRK, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, the class
allegations notwithstanding.  The motion raises two issues: (1)
whether the Rule 68 offer of judgment is a complete offer of
relief; and (2) if so, whether that offer and its rejection moot
Milbourne's interest in the case when no motion for class
certification has been filed.

In a Memorandum Opinion dated April 7, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/TBtvXa from Leagle.com, Senior District
Judge Robert E. Payne denied the defendant's motion to dismiss
saying the Rule 68 offer was incomplete.

"Because the offers are incomplete, they cannot moot Milbourne's
case. It is thus not necessary to analyze the argument that
because Milbourne's case is moot the class action cannot proceed,"
he said.

Derrick A. Milbourne, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
   Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates
   763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd. 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Telephone: (757) 930-3660

          - and -

   Thomas Ray Breeden, Esq.
   Thomas R. Breeden, P.C.
   10326 Lomond Drive
   Manassas, VA 20109
   Telephone: (703) 659-0188
   Facsimile: (703) 257-2259

JRK Residential America, LLC, Defendant, represented by David
Glenn Barger -- bargerd@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP &
Michael Richard Sklaire -- sklairem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig
LLP.


KENLEE GROUP: Refused to Pay Class Members' Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Angon-Ochoa, Jose Manuel Nicolas Camacho and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. KenLee Group, L.L.C.
and Lee W. Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-01721-N (N.D. Tex., May 8,
2014) accuses the Defendants of willfully and intentionally
refusing to pay the Plaintiffs' overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

KenLee Group, L.L.C., is a company that regularly transacts
business within Dallas County.  Lee W. Johnson is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


KEY ENERGY: Removed "Zaragoza" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Manuel Zaragoza v. Key Energy
Services California, Inc., et al., Case No. BC512050, was removed
from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03554-JFW-E to the
proceeding.

The case arises from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan T. Lowery, Esq.
          Raul Perez, Esq.
          Shooka Moallem, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: nathan.lowery@capstonelawyers.com
                  raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com
                  shooka.moallem@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason S. Mills, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jmills@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Maria D. O'Leary, Esq.
          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 399-7001
          E-mail: moleary@morganlewis.com
                  barbara.miller@morganlewis.com


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 1.2 Million Cases of Cottage Cheese Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Woolum, writing for KFOR-TV, reports that Kraft Foods Group
is voluntarily recalling 1.2 million cases of several brands of
cottage cheese products because they have been stored improperly
and might cause illness.

Affected products were made at the firm's Tulare, Calif., plant
and include certain Knudsen Cottage Cheese, Breakstone's Cottage
Cheese, Simply Kraft Cottage Cheese and Daily Chef Cottage Cheese
products, the firm said in a statement Saturday.

Some of the ingredients in the products weren't stored according
to Kraft temperature standards, the firm said in a statement.  The
products in question all have code dates from May 9, 2014 through
July 23, 2014.  They were distributed throughout the United
States.

Consumers can find the code date on the bottom of the cup or the
top of the package.  Simply Kraft products with a plant code of
36-2158 on the cups or a "W" in the case code (e.g., "W 21 JUL
2014") are not affected.  Simply Kraft products subject to the
recall are only those with a plant code of 06-245 on the bottom of
the cup and case code date without any "W" (e.g., "21 JUL 2014").

No other Knudsen, Breakstone's, Simply Kraft or Daily Chef
products are included in the recall.

Consumers who purchased any of these products should not eat them.

They should return them to the store where purchased for an
exchange or full refund.  Consumers also can contact Kraft Foods
Consumer Relations at 1-800-396-6307.


LFI FORT PIERCE: Faces Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig James Sherman, Sr., and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LFI Fort Pierce, Inc., dba Labor Finders, and John and
Jane Does A; B; C; and D, Case No. 1:14-cv-00200-LG-JMR (S.D.
Miss., May 8, 2014) asserts personal injury claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Corban Gunn, Esq.
          CORBAN, GUNN & VAN CLEAVE
          P. O. Drawer 1916
          146 Porter Avenue
          Biloxi, MS 39533-1916
          Telephone: (228) 432-7826
          Facsimile: (228) 456-0998
          E-mail: corban@cgvclaw.com


LIBERTY GLOBAL: OneLink Faces New "Anticompetitive" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The claimant in a December 2013 claim against OneLink
Communications filed a separate class action claim in Puerto Rico,
according to Liberty Global plc's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

Liberty Puerto Rico, as the surviving entity in a series of
transactions completed in November 2012 pursuant to which Liberty
Cablevision of Puerto Rico LLC was combined with OneLink
Communications (OneLink), with OneLink as the surviving entity, is
a party to certain claims asserted by the incumbent telephone
operator against OneLink based on alleged conduct of OneLink that
occurred prior to the OneLink acquisition (the PRTC Claim),
including a claim that OneLink acted in an anticompetitive manner
in connection with a series of legal and regulatory proceedings it
initiated against the incumbent telephone operator in Puerto Rico
beginning in 2009. In December 2013, an additional claim was
asserted against OneLink alleging harm to consumers based on the
purported conduct of OneLink that formed the basis for the PRTC
Claim.  The claimant in the December 2013 action sought to join
the PRTC Claim as a representative of the entire class of
consumers who are alleged to have suffered harm as a result of the
purported OneLink conduct. In February 2014, the court ruled that
the December 2013 action could not be joined with the PRTC Claim.
The court ruling did not preclude the claimant from pursuing a
class action claim in a separate action. In March 2014, the
claimant in the December 2013 claim filed a separate class action
claim in Puerto Rico (the "Class Action Claim") substantially
similar to the claims asserted in the December 2013 claim. The
former owners of OneLink have partially indemnified the company
for any losses the company may incur in connection with the PRTC
Claim up to a specified maximum amount. However, the indemnity
does not cover any potential losses resulting from the Class
Action Claim.


LIFE PARTNERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that Life Partners
Holdings Inc. lost a bid to shake consolidated shareholder
litigation on May 13, with a Texas federal court ruling the
plaintiffs adequately detailed claims that the company anchored
its multimillion-dollar life insurance investment business on the
predictions of one unqualified doctor.  The company, which brokers
third-party investments in already existing life insurance
policies, had asked the court in March 2012 to dismiss the suit.


LONE PINE: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Augenbaum" Litigation Over IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York dismissed the suit Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Resources Inc. et
al., according to Forest Oil 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 March 26, 2014, the judge overseeing the lawsuit, styled
Augenbaum v. Lone Pine Resources Inc. et al., granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. The original claim was brought
on May 25, 2012, as a purported class action in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County against Forest, Lone
Pine, certain of Lone Pine's current and former directors and
officers (the "Individual Defendants"), and certain underwriters
(the "Underwriter Defendants") of Lone Pine's initial public
offering (the "IPO"), which was completed on June 1, 2011. The
class action was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleged that Lone Pine's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the IPO contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
relating to forest fires that occurred in Northern Alberta in May
2011, the rupture of a third-party oil sales pipeline in Northern
Alberta in April 2011, and the impact of those events on Lone
Pine, that the alleged misstatements or omissions violated Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and that
Lone Pine, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter
Defendants are liable for such violations. (The complaint was
subsequently amended to drop the allegation regarding the forest
fires.) The complaint further alleged that the Underwriter
Defendants offered and sold Lone Pine's securities in violation of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the putative class
members seek rescission of the securities purchased in the IPO
that they continue to own and rescissionary damages for securities
that they have sold. Finally, the complaint asserted a claim
against Forest under Section 15 of the Securities Act, alleging
that Forest was a "control person" of Lone Pine at the time of the
IPO. The complaint alleged that the putative class, which
purchased shares of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Lone Pine's registration statement and prospectus,
was damaged when the value of the stock declined in August 2011.
Plaintiff has filed notice of intent to appeal.


MILLENNIA COLLECTIONS: Faces "Teitelbaum" Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zissey Teitelbaum, on behalf of himself individually and all
others similarly situated v. Millennia Collections, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-02948-JBW-MDG (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NORTH AMERICAN TITLE: July 18 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you used North American Title Agency, Inc. or Independence
Abstract and Title Agency, Inc. as the closing agent for a real
estate sale, purchase, or mortgage refinancing for real property
located in New Jersey between January 1, 2003 and April 17, 2014,
you may benefit from a proposed class action settlement.

A settlement has been preliminarily approved by a Federal Court in
a class action lawsuit filed against North American Title Agency,
Inc., Independence Abstract and Title Agency, Inc., and North
American Title Group, Inc. in the case Arthur R. and Jane M. Tubbs
v. North American Title Agency et al, Civil No. 1:08-cv-3178
(D.N.J.).  The Court authorized this publication to assist those
affected in understanding their rights.

If you had a closing with North American or Independence between
January 1, 2003 and April 17, 2014 for a property located in
New Jersey, and at the closing you paid off in full a mortgage or
home equity loan, you likely are a member of the settlement class,
and if you submit a valid and timely claim, are entitled to
receive money from the settlement.

The lawsuit involves "Satisfaction Fees" that were charged for
work done to close out mortgages and home equity loans for
properties located in New Jersey.  Between January 1, 2003 and
May 31, 2004, North American and/or Independence charged a
Satisfaction Fee of $50.00 per mortgage or home equity loan closed
out. Starting June 1, 2004, they charged a Satisfaction Fee of
$75.00 per mortgage or home equity loan closed out.

You are entitled to receive in the settlement between $75 and $50
for each Satisfaction Fee you paid after June 1, 2004, and between
$50 and $33 for each Satisfaction Fee you paid between January 1,
2003 and May 31, 2004. (The exact amount cannot be calculated
until all claims are received.) You may submit a claim form for
more than one Satisfaction Fee (for example, if you paid off a
first mortgage and home equity loan at a refinancing of your
property, you can submit a claim for two Satisfaction Fees).

In a relatively small percentage of cases, Independence and North
American paid the county clerk to record the satisfaction of your
loan, and in those cases you are not eligible to receive a
settlement payment.  However, you can and should submit a claim if
you had a loan paid off in full at closing, and if you are not
eligible for a settlement payment because North American or
Independence paid the county clerk, you will be notified by
Plaintiffs' Class Counsel.

If you believe you are a settlement class member and do not
receive in the mail a printed class notice and claim form, you can
receive those documents by contacting Plaintiffs' counsel, Robert
J. LaRocca, at 215-238-1700 or by e-mail at rlarocca@kohnswift.com
You can also download these documents, the settlement agreement,
and other documents relating to the settlement, from his firm's
website, www.kohnswift.com , under "Consumer." These documents
provide additional information about the settlement.  You will
need to submit a timely and completed claim form by July 18, 2014
in order to receive any money from the settlement.  All claims are
subject to validation.

You also have the right to exclude yourself from the settlement,
which means you cannot receive money from the settlement, but the
settlement will not affect any right you have to file your own
lawsuit.  If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by all
of the Court's orders regarding the settlement and will not be
able to file your own lawsuit over the Satisfaction Fee.  You can
also remain in the settlement class but object to the terms of the
settlement.  You must take either of these steps by July 18, 2014.
The class notice explains these rights in more detail.  The
Federal Court in Camden, New Jersey, will hold a hearing on
October 16, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 at 4th & Cooper
Streets, Camden, NJ 08101, to decide whether to give final
approval to this settlement.  No settlement payments will be made
unless the settlement is finally approved.


PDC ENERGY: Jury Trial in Suit Over Partnership Purchases Reset
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury trial initially scheduled for May 20, 2014 in Schulein v.
Petroleum Development Corp. has been rescheduled to begin July 1,
2014, according to PDC 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.

In December 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger
subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of
certain former partnership unit holders, related to its
partnership repurchases completed by mergers in 2010 and 2011. The
action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum Development
Corp. The complaint primarily alleges that the disclosures in the
proxy statements issued in connection with the mergers were
inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty. In June
2012, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. In January
2014, the plaintiffs were certified as a class by the court,
subject to reconsideration in pre-trial motions which the company
have requested. A jury trial initially scheduled for May 20, 2014
has been rescheduled to begin July 1, 2014. The company held three
mediation meetings with plaintiffs in the last few months; there
can be no assurance, however, that these discussions will
continue. The company recorded an estimated liability of $3.3
million during the quarter ended March 31, 2014 for this
litigation.


PERCHERON FIELD: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Boyington, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Percheron Field Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00090-
KRG (W.D. Pa., May 7, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act to
recover damages for non-payment of overtime wages for the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

Percheron Field Services, LLC is headquartered in Houston, Texas,
and maintains an office in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where the
Plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          First & Market Building, Suite 1010
          100 First Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          Facsimile: (412) 281-8481
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106-4107
          Telephone: (412) 278-1280
          Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
          E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


PHILADELPHIA: June 3 Autism Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notice to Parents of Students with Autism in the School District
of Philadelphia

Notice of Hearing to Settle Class Action Litigation:

This Notice describes a proposed Settlement Agreement between
parents of students with autism who attend school in the School
District of Philadelphia and the School District of Philadelphia.
This Notice tells you what the Parties have agreed to, how to get
more information regarding the Settlement, and how to object to
the proposed Settlement Agreement if you think it is not fair as
it relates to the provision of special education services in the
School District.

On January 20, 2011, Plaintiffs, students with autism and their
parents sued the School District of Philadelphia and challenged
the School District's policy and practice of automatically
transferring, or "upper-leveling," K-8 students with autism to
different schools, without prior notice or input from parents or
other Individualized Education Program team members.  This case is
called P.V. v. The School District of Philadelphia, No. 2:11-cv-
4027 (E.D. Pa.).

By Orders and Memorandum Opinions entered on February 19, 2013,
the Court granted in part and denied in part cross motions for
summary judgment (Docs. 74 and 75) and granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(2) with respect to the claims on which summary
judgment was entered for Plaintiffs (Docs. 72 and 73).  The Court
granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs'
claims that the decision-making process leading up to the transfer
of a student with autism is conducted with little to no parental
notice or involvement, and without the required consideration of
the child's individualized circumstances.  Accordingly, the Court
ordered the School District to "alter its upper-leveling process
for children with autism to provide prior written notice and a
level of parental participation that complies with the procedural
requirements under the IDEA." (Doc. 74).

To avoid further litigation, the Parties have reached a Settlement
Agreement and have filed a motion requesting the Court to approve
it.

On June 3, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6A of the U.S.
Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Judge Davis
will hold a fairness hearing to receive testimony on whether to
approve the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement does not affect the rights of any
individual students or their parent(s)/ guardian(s) to claim the
student was denied special education programs or services which he
or she was entitled to receive under state or federal law and seek
appropriate relief.

The Settlement Agreement simply mandates that the School District
must provide notice and an opportunity for parental participation
before upper-leveling class members.  Once the Settlement
Agreement is effective, the School District must:

(1) publish a list of all the schools within the School District
that have Autistic Support classrooms, and the grade range of
those classrooms, by October 15 of each year;

(2) provide two letter notices -- one in January and one in
June -- to class members prior to transferring them; and

(3) inform parents that they can discuss the proposed transfer and
their child's needs at an IEP meeting and retain their rights to
challenge their child's individual transfer.

The Parties agreed to end the lawsuit in exchange for this
Settlement Agreement. (Again, however, no individual student is
waiving his or her right to file a due process complaint regarding
his/her education.) Class counsel will receive a payment toward
its fees, expenses and costs from the School District of $325,000.
Class counsel will receive no additional fee for monitoring the
Settlement Agreement.

Copies of the Settlement Agreement and Complaint in the case can
be found on the website of the School District,
http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/or class counsel, www.pilcop.org

For further information about the Settlement or fairness hearing
you can contact class counsel, The Public Interest Law Center at
PVAutismsettlement@pilcop.org or at 215-627-7100 ext. 258.

HOW TO OBJECT TO THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IF YOU THINK IT IS
UNFAIR

If you do not want to object to this proposed Settlement
Agreement, it is not necessary for you to do anything.  If,
however, you want to comment on the proposed Settlement Agreement
or object to it as not being fair, you or someone on your behalf
may file written comments or objections on or before May 22, 2014.
Written comments and objections should be submitted to this
address: Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19106. Attn: Hon. Legrome D. Davis.

You should also send a copy of your comments to the attorneys for
each party at the addresses below:

Attorneys for Plaintiff Class:
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA
c/o Sonja Kerr
1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Or via email to: skerr@pilcop.org

Attorneys for the School District:
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
c/o David Smith
1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motions of Retail Properties Of America, Inc. to dismiss
shareholder complaints against it remain pending before the U.S.
District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, 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.

Certain shareholders of the Company filed putative class action
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, which are currently pending in the U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the Company's directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties to the shareholders and, as a result,
unjustly enriched the Company and the individual defendants. The
lawsuits further allege that the breaches of fiduciary duty led
certain shareholders to acquire additional stock and caused the
shareholders to suffer a loss in share value, all measured in some
manner by reference to the Company's 2012 offering price when it
listed its shares on the New York Stock Exchange. The lawsuits
seek unspecified damages and other relief. Based on its review of
the complaints, the Company believes the lawsuits to be without
merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously. While the
resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty,
management believes, based on currently available information,
that the final outcomes of these matters will not have a material
effect on the financial statements of the Company. On April 19,
2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the shareholder
complaints, which remain pending before the court.


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Schneck, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Rubin & Rothman LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02949-
SJ-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


RUI CREDIT: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Spira, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. RUI Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
02946-JBW-MDG (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SRA INTERNATIONAL: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey W. Stone, George William Burt, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SRA International, Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-00209-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va., May 7, 2014) is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages, overtime wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and other relief.

SRA International, Inc., owns and operates a company providing IT
solutions and problem solving, which does work in Virginia.  The
Company's central office is located in Fairfax, Virginia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.
          BURKE HARVEY, LLC
          2151 Highland Avenue, Suite 150
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-8144

               - and -

          Todd Michael Gaynor, Esq.
          TAYLOR & WALKER PC
          555 E Main St., Suite 1300
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 625-7300
          E-mail: tgaynor@taylorwalkerlaw.com


ST JUDE MEDICAL: Faces 47 Riata Liability Lawsuits as of May 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. is aware of 47 lawsuits from plaintiffs
alleging injuries caused by, and asserting product liability
claims concerning, Riata and Riata ST Silicone Defibrillation
Leads as of May 2, 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 April 2013, a lawsuit seeking a class action was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington by plaintiffs alleging they suffered injuries caused by
Riata and Riata ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. This matter has
been resolved and the case has been dismissed.

As of May 2, 2014, the Company is aware of 47 lawsuits from
plaintiffs alleging injuries caused by, and asserting product
liability claims concerning, Riata and Riata ST Silicone
Defibrillation Leads. Of the 47 lawsuits, twenty cases are pending
in federal courts, including three in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, eleven in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, one in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina, one in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York, one in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York, one in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, one in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and one in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
The remaining 27 lawsuits are pending in state courts across the
country, including seven in Minnesota, seventeen in California,
one in Indiana, one in Georgia and one in Kentucky.

Most of the lawsuits have been brought by single plaintiffs, but
some of them name multiple individuals as plaintiffs. Six separate
multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been initiated against the Company
that involve more than one unrelated plaintiff: a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining 29 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior
Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on
April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining two unrelated
claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
city and county of Los Angeles on April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining two claimants was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 4,
2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining three unrelated claimants
was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and
county of Los Angeles on April 29, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit
joining 21 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior Court of
California for the city and county of Los Angeles on July 15,
2013; and a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining 30 unrelated claimants
was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and
county of Los Angeles on April 2, 2014.

In November 2013, an amended claim was filed in a Canadian
proposed class proceeding alleging that Riata leads were prone to
insulation abrasion and breach, failure to warn and conspiracy.
The plaintiffs took no action between their 2008 filing and the
amended claim they filed in November 2013. The Company has filed
its statement of intent to defend in response to the amended
claims, and the plaintiffs have not taken any further action.

Although some of the claimants in the aforementioned suits allege
no specific injuries, the majority of the claimants allege bodily
injuries as a result of surgical revision or removal and
replacement of Riata leads, or other complications, which they
attribute to the leads. The majority of the claimants who seek
recovery for implantation and/or surgical removal of Riata leads
are seeking compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and
declaratory judgments that the Company is liable to the claimants
for any past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and
corrective medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses.
Several claimants also seek punitive damages. The Company is
responsible for legal costs incurred in defense of the Riata
product liability claims including any potential settlements,
judgments and other legal defense costs.


ST JUDE MEDICAL: One Silzone Litigation Remains in Ontario Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s outstanding Silzone cases consist of one
class action in Ontario and one individual case in Ontario,
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.

The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone coating, which the Company stopped selling in January
2000. The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of one class
action in Ontario and one individual case in Ontario. In June
2012, the Ontario Court ruled in the Company's favor on all nine
common class issues in a class action involving Silzone patients,
and the case was dismissed. In September 2012, counsel for the
class filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for the Province of
Ontario. The oral argument concerning the appeal was expected to
be heard in November 2013, but that hearing date was adjourned and
no new hearing date has been scheduled. The individual case in
Ontario requests damages in excess of $1 million (claiming
unspecified special damages, health care costs and interest).
Based on the Company's historical experience, the amount
ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to
the amount claimed. To the extent that the Company's future
Silzone costs (inclusive of settlements, judgments, legal fees and
other related defense costs) exceed its remaining historical
insurance coverage of approximately $10 million, the Company would
be responsible for such costs.


ST JUDE MEDICAL: Awaits Ruling on Request for Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the request for summary judgment by defendants in the
March 2010 Securities Class Action Litigation against St. Jude
Medical, Inc. took place in January 2014 and a ruling is expected
later in 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 March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on
behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between
April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the
Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated
October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages
and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown
in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated
orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members allege
that the defendant's failure to disclose the above information
resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an
artificially inflated price. In December 2011, the Court issued a
decision denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in
October 2010. In October 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify the case as a class action and the discovery
phase of the case closed in September 2013. On October 15, 2013,
the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing
concerning that motion took place with the Court in January 2014
and a ruling is expected later in 2014. Subject to the outcome of
this hearing, the trial of this class action matter is presently
scheduled for October 2014.


ST JUDE MEDICAL: December 2012 Securities Suit Partly Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled on a
motion to dismiss a December 2012 Securities Litigation against
St. Jude Medical Inc., denying the motion in part and granting the
motion in part, 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.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period. On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in
Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012. The second
complaint alleged similar claims and sought similar relief. In
March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a
lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint
was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or misleading
representations made during the class period extending from
February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012. In September 2013, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled on the motion to
dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting the motion in
part.


TARGET CORP: Removed "Betties" Class Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Betties v. Target Corporation,
et al., Case No. CIVDS1403382, was removed from the Superior Court
of California in and for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Riverside).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00926 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint asserts seven causes of action as class claims: (1)
failure to pay hourly wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages;
(3) failure to provide meal periods or compensation for missed
meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods or compensation
for missed rest periods; (5) failure to pay wages timely upon
termination or resignation; (6) failure to issue accurate,
itemized wage statements; and (7) violation of California Business
and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
          555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90913
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Glenn C. Nunes, Esq.
          THE NUNES LAW GROUP
          1 Sansome Street, Suite 3590
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 946-8894
          Facsimile: (415) 946-8801
          E-mail: glenn@nuneslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hess, Esq.
          Jullie Z. Lal, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  ryanhess@paulhastings.com
                  jullielal@paulhastings.com


TICKETMASTER: Settlement of Calif. Consumer Lawsuit Wins Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The court handling the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action
Litigation against Ticketmaster preliminarily approved a revised
settlement reached in the case, according to Live Nation
Entertainment, 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 October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and
the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs'
Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to
vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to
certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form.

Litigation continued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in
part and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary
Judgment. The parties reached a new settlement in September 2011,
which was approved preliminarily, but in September 2012 the Court
declined to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties
reached a revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by
the Court in April 2014. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation,
have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in
connection with the matter.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company has accrued $35.4 million, its
best estimate of the probable costs associated with the settlement
referred to. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


TOWERS WATSON: Former Towers Perrin Shareholder Suits Now Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing
with prejudice, the Former Towers Perrin shareholder litigations
(Dugan, Allen and Pao Actions), was entered on February 18, 2014,
according to Towers Watson & Co.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

A putative class action lawsuit filed by certain former
shareholders of Towers Perrin (the "Dugan Action") previously was
reported in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form
S-4/A (File No. 333-161705) filed on November 9, 2009 by the
Jupiter Saturn Holding Company (the "Registration Statement"). As
reported in the Registration Statement, the complaint was filed on
November 5, 2009 against Towers Perrin, members of its board of
directors, and certain members of senior management in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The named Plaintiffs in this action were former members of Towers
Perrin's senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various
times between 1995 and 2000. The Dugan plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of former Towers Perrin shareholders who
separated from service on or after January 1, 1971, but prior to
certain changes in Towers Perrin's capital structure that occurred
in January 2005, and who also meet certain other specified
criteria. The complaint does not contain a quantification of the
damages sought.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of
a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action.
Although the complaint in the Dugan Action did not contain a
quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement
demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on December
8, 2009 and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a payment of
$800 million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class.
Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement
demand to Watson Wyatt.

On December 17, 2009 , four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May or
June 2005 and all of whom were excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the
"Allen Action") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in
substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.
A fifth plaintiff joined this action on August 29, 2011. These
plaintiffs were proceeding in their individual capacities and did
not seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 when
Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the
creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO ("eHRO"),
commenced a separate legal proceeding (the "Pao Action") in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially the same
form as those alleged in the Dugan Action. Towers Perrin
contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions ("TPAS")
business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15)% of
eHRO. Pao sought to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service in connection with Towers
Perrin's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who were
excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action. Towers
Watson was also named as a defendant in the Pao Action. On January
20, 2010, the court consolidated the three actions for all
purposes under the Dugan Action file number.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by all plaintiffs
were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value when these
individuals separated from employment. The complaints alleged
variously that there was a promise that Towers Perrin would remain
privately owned in perpetuity and an implied or actual promise
that in the event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would
receive compensation. Plaintiffs alleged that by agreeing to sell
their shares back to Towers Perrin at book value upon separation,
they and other members of the putative classes relied upon these
alleged promises, which they claim were breached as a result of
the consummation of the Merger between Watson Wyatt and Towers
Perrin. The complaints all asserted claims for breach of contract,
breach of express trust, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory
estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and constructive
trust, and seek equitable relief including an accounting,
disgorgement, rescission and/or restitution, and the imposition of
a constructive trust.
On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties. By order dated September 30, 2010,
the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for a
constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to all other
claims alleged. Pursuant to the court's September 30, 2010 order,
defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints on October
22, 2010. Discovery in the case was bifurcated, with fact
discovery to proceed before expert witness and damages discovery.
Neither the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action nor the plaintiff in
Pao Action moved for class certification.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims in
all actions on December 23, 2011. The court heard argument on June
19, 2012, and on December 11, 2012 granted defendants' motion, and
entered judgment in favor of defendants on all claims. On January
10, 2013, plaintiffs filed a joint notice of their intent to
appeal the court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. On February 13, 2013, the parties were notified
that the appeal had been assigned for mediation pursuant to the
Third Circuit's mediation program. During the mediation session
held on May 7, 2013, the parties reached agreement on settlement
terms that include payment of an aggregate $10 million to an
agreed settlement class (including all persons in the classes as
defined in the respective complaints in the Dugan Action and the
Pao Action, plus additional former Towers Perrin shareholders who
separated from Towers Perrin between January 1971 and June 2005)
estimated to potentially include more than 1,000 former Towers
Perrin shareholders, which payment would also cover legal fees of
plaintiffs' attorneys, as determined by the court, and expenses
incurred to administer the settlement.

The cases were then returned to the district court for
consideration of the proposed settlement. On September 24, 2013,
the court preliminarily certified the settlement class and
preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement.

At a hearing on February 12, 2014, the court gave its final
approval to the settlement. The final order and judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the Dugan, Allen and Pao Actions
with prejudice was entered on February 18, 2014. No appeal was
taken from that final order and judgment during the applicable
appeal period, and the resolution and dismissal of the cases as
against all defendants is now final.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Lawsuits Over Hepatitis C Outbreak Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Company health plans are party to
41 additional individual lawsuits and two class actions, at
various procedural stages, relating to the outbreak of hepatitis C
from an endoscopy center, 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 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in
compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against
a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory
that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of
an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent
physicians who were subsequently linked by regulators to an
outbreak of hepatitis C. The trial court reduced the overall award
to $366 million. The Company is appealing the case. Company plans
are party to 41 additional individual lawsuits and two class
actions, at various procedural stages, relating to the outbreak.
The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any,
that may result from these matters given the likelihood of
reversal on appeal, the availability of statutory and other limits
on damages, the novel legal theories being advanced by the
plaintiffs, the various postures of the remaining cases, the
availability in many cases of federal defenses under Medicare law
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the pendency
of certain relevant legal questions before the Nevada Supreme
Court. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits.


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Removed "Gutierrez" Suit to District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Gutierrez v. University
of Miami, Case No. 2014-8563-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-21695-JLK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff, who performed work for the Defendant, alleges that
it failed to pay wages and terminated his employment in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act after he purportedly complained
about unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert T. Kofman, Esq.
          Jorge Freddy Perera, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF
          & SITTERSON, P.A.
          Museum Tower, Suite 2200
          150 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-3200
          Facsimile: (305) 789-3395
          E-mail: rkofman@stearnsweaver.com
                  fperera@stearnsweaver.com


XTO ENERGY: Accused of Breaching Contract in Eastern Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mobley Lumber Company Limited Partnership, Greg Smith and
Elizabeth Ann Coon, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of all
Others Similarly Situated v. XTO Energy Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00047-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 8, 2014) asserts breach of contract
claims against the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Lance Gould, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: lance.gould@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          John Paul Byrd, Esq.
          PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          415 North McKinley Street, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72205
          Telephone: (501) 420-3050
          Facsimile: (501) 420-3128
          E-mail: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          M. Blair Arnold, Esq.
          William Allen Arnold, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          Post Office Box 2595
          Batesville, AR 72503-2595
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821
          E-mail: mbarnold@swbell.net


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Accessibility Barrier at Various Locations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Amelio, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo, National Association, Case No.
5:14-cv-02652-LS (E.D. Pa., May 8, 2014) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with accessibility
barriers at various properties owned and managed by the Defendant.

Mr. Amelio has a mobility disability and is limited in the major
life activity of walking.  Specifically, he has damage to his
spinal cord, which has caused him to rely on a wheelchair for
mobility.

Wells Fargo, National Association, is headquartered in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota.  The Defendant owns, operates, controls or
leases a place of public accommodation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
          Carlos R. Diaz, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com


* Judge Intends to Resolve Hurricane Sandy Claims v. Insurers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that with federal courts in New Jersey and the Eastern
District of New York facing almost 2,000 cases in which insurers
are being sued over Hurricane Sandy claims, one judge said that
his court is focused on resolving cases.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. of the Eastern District
of New York said he and other judges have asked plaintiffs'
lawyers and defense counsel to get cases ready in order to winnow
them down to the most problematic.

What the next phase of litigation will look like after that
process is still to be determined, Judge Reyes said.

"I'm the type of judge that acknowledges that I don't know it all
. . . you folks are the experts.  You have to educate me on the
best way to handle these things," Judge Reyes said at a conference
about Sandy insurance litigation.

Earlier on, the Eastern District tried to "bucket cases involving
the same legal issue, the same policy exclusions," but lawyers
advised that the cases were not ready to be organized that way,
Judge Reyes said.

On the one hand, some district judges were ready to start trials
without discovery, but, on the other hand, "we were told point
blank to forget about arbitration, that no carrier will go to
arbitration," Judge Reyes said.

Now each side has 60 days to respond to an automated discovery
process, Judge Reyes said.  And the court has a mediation training
scheduled for the end of May.

Jared T. Greisman, the defense liaison counsel for Superstorm
Sandy cases in the Eastern District and with White Fleischner &
Fino in New York, said the Eastern District hopes to get
mediations rolling in June.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman of the District of New
Jersey said her court's priority also is to get cases moving.
The New Jersey federal judges are aware that people were displaced
from their homes and have a right to know if they are entitled to
insurance recovery, Judge Goodman said.

Mandatory discovery disclosure was set up for 30 days, Judge
Goodman said.  "It was giving the attorneys heebie jeebies that we
were going to make them go forward without the discovery," she
added.

The federal courts are viewing the process of mediating and
settling cases as a way to winnow out cases and then get cases
divided into "legal issue buckets," said Tracey Rannals Bryan --
tracey@ghwlegal.com -- the plaintiffs liaison counsel in the
Eastern District and of Gauthier, Houghtaling & Williams, LLP, in
Metairie, La.

Judge Reyes said it will be important, once cases are categorized
by legal issue, to have the same judges handle cases involving
similar legal issues.

Otherwise, cases with conflicting results just wind "up in the
circuit [court] and it just creates more work," Judge Reyes said.
Some of the Sandy litigation has involved class actions, including
a lawsuit filed in 2012 accusing several insurance companies of
wrongfully denying claims and misinterpreting the term "basement,"
a lawsuit over the loss of power in Long Island, and an
unsuccessful effort to certify a class about the loss of power in
New York City.


                             *********

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  * * *