CAR_Public/140526.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 26, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 103

                             Headlines


ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Case in Conn. Now Closed
AMERICAN APPAREL: July 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Gains $22.7MM from Antitrust Settlements
AUTOZONE INC: Ninth Circuit Revives Overtime Class Action
BCB BANCORP: Pamrapo Bancorp Seeks to Resolve "Kube" Litigation

BP PLC: Appeals Court Refuses to Reconsider Settlement Ruling
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: 8th Cir. Affirms Fee Class Action Dismissal
BURGER KING: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Clogg" Suit
CARRIAGE SERVICES: June 23 Hearing Set on "Leathermon" Settlement
CITIBANK NA: Sued for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act

CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating FDCPA in E.D. New York
CLIFFS NATURAL: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action
CME GROUP: $550MM Bankruptcy Trustee Guaranty to be Extinguished
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Tenn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Stock Lawsuit

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit v. HMA
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Dismisses Lawsuit by HMA Stockholders
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Franco" Denied
CRANE CO: Appeals Court Affirms Jury Verdict in Asbestos Suit
CROWDFLOWER INC: Bid for Approval of FLSA Suit Settlement Denied

DELTA APPAREL: No Certification Yet for Cal. Wage & Hour Suit
DETOUR GOLD: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
DIAMOND FOODS: Removed "Hall" Suit to Northern District of Cal.
DOCTOR REHAB: Removed "Rodriguez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in O&R Antitrust Suit

DUN & BRADSTREET: Files Motion to Transfer Die-Mension Lawsuit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Response in Suit Over CreditBuilder Due May 27
FIRST SOLAR: Certified Securities Lawsuit Continues in Arizona
FIVE STAR CARTING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORD MOTOR: Causation Theory Doesn't Apply in Asbestos Suit

FOSTER WHEELER: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Texas, New Jersey
FTS USA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages and Damages
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Emerson" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Livingston Woman Files Ignition Switch Class Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Gets $35MM Fine Over Ignition Switch Defect
GOODMAN GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Defective Air Conditioners
GOOGLE INC: Unit Recalls 440,000 Smoke Detectors in U.S.
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Silsby"
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Bristol Park Community Sue Over Flooding

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: July Hearing Set in Bid to Junk Customer Suit
KBR INC: Faces "Kohut" Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
KERR MCGEE: Removed "Whisenant" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal
LADENBURG THALMANN: Inks MoU to Settle Calif. Securities Suit

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Removed "Desantis" Suit to M.D. Florida
METHODIST HOSPITAL: Sued for Failing to Properly Pay Employees
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Curtone" Suit Reversed
NATIONAL SPORTS: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
NBN COMMERCIAL: Has Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims

NEVADA: To Discuss Class Action Over Health Insurance Exchange
OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA: July 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Certified Securities Suit Continues in Texas
PEPCO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Merger with Exelon
PLIMUS INC: Renewed Class Cert. Motion in "Yordy" Suit Denied

POWER BALANCE: Case Mgmt. Conf. in CFC Suit Reset to June 2014
QEP RESOURCES: Appeal Court Reinstates Claims in Gatti v. La.
QEP RESOURCES: "Gagne" Plaintiffs Pursue Class Status
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Class Action in Florida Over TCPA Violations
SEALED AIR: Grace Suit Over Asbestos-Containing Products Junked

SELECTION MANAGEMENT: Removed "Greco" Suit to S.D. California
SPRINT CORP: 3rd Cir. Affirms Ruling in Sales Practices Case
TASTEE KREME: Does Not Pay Delivery Drivers Overtime, Class Says
TELEXFREE INC: Gardy & Notis Files Class Action in Massachusetts
TELLABS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Illinois

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Suit
UDREN LAW: Faces Suit Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Sued by Class of UPMC Workers Over Data Breach
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Uncertain on Effect of Antitrust Suit Accord
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Bank Reaches Settlement in "Hawthorne" Lawsuit

UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Has MoU to Settle Suit Over Sterling Merger
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Sterling Moves to Dismiss Wash. Securities Suit
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Removed "Roberts" Suit to C.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Court Stays "Heinrichs" Class Action

* Automakers More Sensitive to Safety Issues After GM Recalls
* Number of Securities Class Action Rises, Lockton's Report Says


                            *********


ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Case in Conn. Now Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
closed the consolidated class action lawsuit against Achillion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the company's May 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On May 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs in the previously disclosed
consolidated class action lawsuit originally filed in October 2013
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut voluntarily dismissed all of their claims without
prejudice. The Court approved the Notice and closed the case on
May 6, 2014. A dismissal without prejudice does not prevent the
litigation of the same claims in a subsequent action.


AMERICAN APPAREL: July 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP regarding the American Apparel Securities Litigation:

IN RE AMERICAN APPAREL, INC.
SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

Case No. CV-10-6352 MMM (JCG)
(Consolidated)

This Document Relates To: All Actions

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS
ACTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND
SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

TO:   ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF AMERICAN APPAREL, INC. BETWEEN
NOVEMBER 28, 2007 AND AUGUST 17, 2010, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes
of settlement only and that a settlement for Four Million Eight
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,800,000) has been proposed.  A
hearing will be held before the Honorable Margaret M. Morrow in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles,
California  90012, Courtroom 780, at 10:00 a.m., on July 28, 2014
to determine whether:  (1) the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (3) Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved; (4) Lead
Plaintiff's application for reimbursement of reasonable costs and
expenses (including lost wages) in connection with representing
the Class should be approved; and (5) the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated January 17, 2014 should be granted.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses, and Settlement Fairness
Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim
Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the
Claims Administrator: American Apparel, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co, LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA
94912-8040, (877) 263-8642.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form
can also be downloaded from the website,
www.americanapparelshareholdersettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked no later than September 2, 2014.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of
the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments
entered by the Court in this Action.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, the request
by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation
Expenses and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of
costs and expenses.  Any objections must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than July 7, 2014, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you are a Class
Member, you also have the right to exclude yourself from the
Class.  Requests for exclusion must be submitted to the Claims
Administrator such that they are received no later than July 7,
2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the
Class, you will be bound by any judgments entered by the Court in
this Action.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of the
Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA  94104

Jennifer L. Enck, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, Gilardi & Co, LLC, at the
address listed above, or by visiting the website,
www.americanapparelshareholdersettlement.com

Dated April 16, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Gains $22.7MM from Antitrust Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the three and six months ended March 31, 2014,
Amerisourcebergen Corporation recognized gains of $0.8 million and
$21.9 million, respectively, as member of the direct purchasers'
class that settled a suit against pharmaceutical manufacturers,
according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain
brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer,
by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to
delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market.  The
Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class
actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class
(i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these
pharmaceutical manufacturers).  None of the class actions have
gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company
receiving proceeds from the settlement funds.  During the three
and six months ended March 31, 2014, the Company recognized gains
of $0.8 million and $21.9 million, respectively, relating to the
class action lawsuits.  During the three and six months ended
March 31, 2013, the Company recognized gains of $3.5 million and
$15.8 million, respectively, relating to the class action
lawsuits.  These gains, which are net of attorney fees and
estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as
reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's consolidated
statements of operations.


AUTOZONE INC: Ninth Circuit Revives Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report
that the Ninth Circuit on May 12 revived a class action accusing
car parts company AutoZone Inc. of misclassifying store managers
as exempt from overtime pay, finding that the case contained
conflicting evidence about the importance of the employees'
managerial duties.

The three-judge appeals panel found that an Arizona district court
court had improperly granted summary judgment to AutoZone because
the case was still plagued by factual disputes over the
significance of the plaintiffs' management tasks, relative to
their customer service and manual labor duties.

"Given that factual disputes remain as to whether the primary duty
of [store managers] is management . . . we reverse the ruling of
the lower court and remand for further determination of these
issues," the appeals court wrote.

The panel, which included U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn sitting
by designation, also said the suit contained conflicting evidence
about the difference in pay given to store managers and nonexempt
employees, as well as the extent to which store managers are
supervised.

The finding reverses a grant of summary judgment to AutoZone in
2012 by U.S. District Judge Frederick Martone, who ruled that
although the store managers spent significant time on nonexempt
tasks, their primary duty was still management.  The store
managers therefore qualified as "bona fide executives" who are
exempted from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
judge ruled.

"Lack of creativity and overwork may be an undesirable by-product
of working for a national chain in a struggling economy, but this
does not entitle plaintiffs to overtime pay if AutoZone properly
classified the [store manager] position as exempt," Judge Martone
wrote.

The case was brought in Arizona federal court in July 2010 by
AutoZone store manager Michael Taylor, who alleged that managers
regularly worked more than 50 hours a week but weren't deemed
eligible for overtime, despite having duties very similar to
nonexempt employees.

Prior to granting judgment to Autozone, Judge Martone
conditionally certified an opt-in class of all AutoZone store
managers employed outside of California from May 24, 2008, to
May 24, 2011.  Approximately 1,400 current and former AutoZone
store managers opted in to the class, according to the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that the district court had
stumbled by drawing factual inferences in AutoZone's favor, since
the auto parts company was the moving party for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs also argued that store managers could not be
classified as exempt because they were closely monitored by
district managers with more hiring and firing power, were
responsible more for customer service and manual labor than
management and received payments that were the same or less than
nonexempt employees when their salaries were divided by actual
hours worked.

"The district court construed these facts as 'an undesirable by-
product of working for a national chain in a struggling economy,'
but this ignores evidence that AutoZone's treatment of [store
managers] is not incidental at all but rather a 'core business
strategy,'" the plaintiffs argued in their opening brief to the
Ninth Circuit.

At oral arguments in November, an attorney for AutoZone shot back
that store managers are "first and foremost" responsible for a
store's operation, even if they do regularly work with customers.

"They're directing and managing staff. If we didn't have a manager
in those stores, we wouldn't achieve corporate goals," said
Andrew Voss of Littler Mendelson PC, on behalf of AutoZone.
Mr. Voss also emphasized that store managers are eligible for
bonuses that other employees aren't.

But the Ninth Circuit remained unconvinced, finding there was
conflicting evidence as to the frequency with which store managers
make hiring and firing recommendations, and the extent to which
their supervisors rely on those suggestions.

The appeals court's decision comes on the heels of a newly filed
U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission suit against
AutoZone, which accused the auto parts retailer of violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act by firing employees who took too
much time off related to their disabilities.

U.S. Circuit Judges John T. Noonan and Paul J. Watford and U.S.
District Judge Barbara Lynn sat on the panel for the Ninth
Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas David Copley --
dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- Mark Dudley Samson --
msamson@kellerrohrback.com -- and Ryan McDevitt --
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohrback LLP and by
Samuel Solomon Deskin of Deskin Law Offices.

AutoZone Inc. is represented by Laurent R.G. Badoux of Greenberg
Traurig LLP and Andrew James Voss of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Michael Taylor et al. v. AutoZone Inc. et al., case
number 12-15378, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


BCB BANCORP: Pamrapo Bancorp Seeks to Resolve "Kube" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. have
conferenced in an effort to resolve this case, according to BCB
Bancorp, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its
own corporate capacity, is a named defendant in a shareholder
class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery
Division, General Equity. On May 9, 2012, the Company obtained
partial summary judgment, dismissing three of the five Counts of
the Complaint. On May 9, 2012, plaintiff's counsel was awarded
interim legal fees of approximately $350,000. The Company's
obligation to pay that amount has been stayed. By Order, dated
December 10, 2013, the court denied the plaintiff's initial motion
for class certification. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion
seeking certification for a substantially reduced class. That
motion was granted on February 6, 2014.  The Company filed a
motion for summary judgment, seeking the dismissal of the
remaining two Counts of the Complaint. That motion was denied on
February 19, 2014. The parties have conferred in an effort to
resolve this case.  A final resolution is being pursued.  The
Company is vigorously defending its interests in this litigation.


BP PLC: Appeals Court Refuses to Reconsider Settlement Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal appeals court's decision not to reconsider its
previous decisions in appeals involving the Deepwater Horizon oil-
spill settlement means that BP PLC must pin its hopes on the U.S.
Supreme Court.

An en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit on May 19 refused to rehear a pair of appeals involving
administration of the agreement, which BP now pegs at $9.2
billion.  BP alleges that claims administrator Patrick Juneau has
misinterpreted the settlement's terms so that businesses with no
economic damages tied to the 2010 spill are collecting billions of
dollars.

The Fifth Circuit, ruling on both appeals, concluded that both
sides had agreed upon specific criteria in the settlement's terms
-- such as claimants' proximity to the spill and certain
mathematical formulas -- to determine who gets paid.  Mr. Juneau's
policies, the panel found, are in line with those terms.

Those criteria, Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick wrote, were "the
compromise reached by the parties on how an extremely difficult
part of the claims process was to be handled."  Mr. Juneau's
policies interpreting those terms clarified "that the compromise
still controls even when its accuracy as a substitute for direct
evidence of causation as to a particular claim is questionable."
BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a written statement: "BP is
disappointed that the full Fifth Circuit will not be considering
the divided panel decisions relating to the compensation of claims
for losses that have no apparent connection to the spill.  The
company is considering its legal options."

BP, which has three months to petition the U.S. Supreme Court,
found some support in dissents written by Justice Edith Brown
Clement in both appeals.  Of the 13 judges on the en banc court,
she and four others voted to rehear both appeals.

"While our en banc court had the opportunity to address and
clarify this issue for our circuit, confused as it was by two
separate panel opinions on one essential, constitutional issue, it
has declined to do so," she wrote.  "Admittedly, even this
articulation would not have been enough for our sister circuits
considering the deep split on this issue.  Another court surely
must resolve this."

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has been inclined to review cases
dealing with class certification, a potential petition by BP would
be a long shot, said David Logan, dean of Roger Williams
University School of Law in Bristol, R.I., who specializes in
torts.

"It would be an unusual case to end up before the U.S. Supreme
Court, even though clearly there's a robust group of judges on the
Fifth Circuit who think the case was decided incorrectly," he
said.  "In the end, the chances are BP is going to swallow hard
and recognize the contract they entered into was a bad one and
they have to live with it."

If the Supreme Court doesn't take the case, the claims process
moves forward.  In a written statement, plaintiffs lawyers
Stephen Herman of Herman Herman & Katz in New Orleans and James
Roy -- jimmyd@wrightroy.com -- of Domengeaux Wright Roy & Edwards
of Lafayette, La., co-lead counsel for the class members in the
settlement, said: "We are pleased that the court of appeals agreed
that BP must honor its contract."


BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: 8th Cir. Affirms Fee Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that the Eighth Circuit
on May 13 upheld the dismissal of a putative class action alleging
tire company Bridgestone Retail Operations LLC deceived customers
by charging them an additional supply fee, finding that at least a
portion of the fee pays for supplies.

The appeals court panel affirmed the Missouri district court's
summary judgment order in favor of Bridgestone in plaintiff
Patricia Toben's suit alleging the company violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act by charging a supply fee that is
actually for profit and not supplies, according to the order.

"The undisputed evidence shows that the fee covers costs for a
variety of shop supplies," the order said.  "The fee, therefore,
is not an unfair or deceptive practice under the MMPA."

Ms. Toben's complaint alleged that Bridgestone charged her a $1.20
shop supply fee when she brought her vehicle to its store for a
tire replacement.  The fee was explained on placards in the store,
but Ms. Toben alleged the fee is still misleading because the
money is used for profit.

In its motion for summary judgment, Bridgestone argued that
Ms. Toben did not review the shop supply fee disclosures before
Bridgestone serviced her vehicle and the company did not
misrepresent its fees because they were adequately disclosed,
according to the order.  Bridgestone also said charging a shop
supply fee is not illegal, nor is it illegal to make a profit off
the fee if that information is disclosed.

The court granted Bridgestone's motion, but Ms. Toben argued on
appeal that the district court erred in granting the motion before
discovery.

"Because Bridgestone discloses that the fee is intended partly for
profit, the court found additional discovery unnecessary," the
Eight Circuit order said.

According to the appeals court order, Bridgestone identified over
70 examples of shop supplies covered by the fee, and Ms. Toben has
not proven that she'd be able to contradict the company given
additional discovery.  Further discovery would be a waste of
judicial resources, the appeals court said.

The appeals court also shot down Ms. Toben's argument that it
erred in granting Bridgestone's summary judgment motion before
ruling on her motion for class certification.

Ms. Toben is represented by Alicia A. Campbell, John E. Campbell
and Erich Vieth of Campbell Law LLC.

Bridgestone is represented by Simon B. Auerbach --
simon.auerbach@hklaw.com -- Martin G. Durkin Jr. --
martin.durkin@hklaw.com -- and Colin P. Smith --
colin.smith@hklaw.com -- of Holland & Knight LLP and Kurt A.
Schmid -- kschmid@bjpc.com -- and Joseph R. Swift --
jswift@bjpc.com -- of Brown & James PC.

The case is Patricia Toben et al. v. Bridgestone Retail Operations
LLC, case number 13-3329, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eight Circuit.


BURGER KING: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Clogg" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. brought a purported class action
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C.
Section 227, alleging that Defendant Burger King Corp. sent
improper and unsolicited facsimile advertisements to members of
the purported plaintiff class. Defendant moved to dismiss the
complaint or to strike the class allegations, arguing that
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and that, in any event,
claims under the TCPA are not amenable to class relief.

"Because I find that there is nothing in the TCPA that precludes a
class action, the motion to dismiss is denied," District Judge
Paul W. Grimm ruled in his a memorandum opinion dated April 16,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/u1cuf0from
Leagle.com.

Judge Grimm further held that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or
Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations is denied.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied with
leave to refile once Plaintiff obtains adequate factual support
for its motion.

The Defendant must answer the Plaintiff's Complaint within the
time required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, he added.

The case is JAY CLOGG REALTY GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v.
BURGER KING CORP., Defendant, CASE NO. PWG-13-662, (D. Md.).

Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Edward A
Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick Law PC, Matthew P
McCue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net -- The Law Office of Matthew P
McCue & Stephen Howard Ring -- shr@ringlaw.us -- Stephen H Ring
PC.

Burger King Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott
Blynn -- dblynn@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye and Warren LLP.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: June 23 Hearing Set on "Leathermon" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing is scheduled to take place on June 23, 2014 to
reject or approve a settlement reached in Leathermon, et al. v.
Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-137,
pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Indiana, according to Carriage Services, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including the company's subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages and claim that the cemetery owners performed burials
negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also
allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the
company owned the cemetery. On October 15, 2007, the case was
removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the
Southern District of Indiana. On April 24, 2009, shortly before
the Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs in
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new class
representatives and claims, while also seeking to abandon other
claims. The company, as well as several other Defendants, opposed
Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add parties. In
April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel
from further representing Plaintiffs in this action. On June 30,
2010, the Court granted Defendants' motion to disqualify
Plaintiffs' counsel. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition
for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
seeking relief from the trial court's order of disqualification of
counsel. On May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the petition
of mandamus. On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied
Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the
trial court's order, Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8,
2010 in which to retain new counsel to prosecute this action on
their behalf. Plaintiffs retained new counsel and Plaintiffs'
counsel moved for leave to amend both the class representatives
and the allegations stated within the complaint. Defendants filed
oppositions to such amendments. The Court issued an order
permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the class
representatives and a portion of their claims; however, certain of
Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed. The parties have now
reached a proposed class settlement and the Court has granted its
preliminary approval of such settlement by order dated March 19,
2014. As such, notice of the class settlement shall be provided
pursuant to the Preliminary Order Approving Class Action
Settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled to take place
on June 23, 2014. Except for those actions necessary to carry out
the parties' contemplated settlement, the lawsuit has been stayed
pending determination of the final approval of the settlement.


CITIBANK NA: Sued for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Sarabi, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Citibank, N.A., and Best Buy Co., Inc., Case
No. 8:14-cv-00727 (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2014), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Citibank, N.A., is a national banking association based in New
York.  Best Buy is a global retailer and developer of technology
products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Assal Hashemi Assassi, 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
                  assal@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


CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating FDCPA in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Kornfeld, individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02955-WFK-LB
(E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


CLIFFS NATURAL: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Lowenstein Sandler
LLP on May 12 disclosed that they have filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of the Department of the Treasury of the
State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment against Cliffs
Natural Resources Inc. and certain of its senior executives.  The
action, which is captioned The Department of the Treasury of the
State of New Jersey and Its Division of Investment v. Cliffs
Natural Resources Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01031 (N.D. Ohio),
asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf
of investors in Cliffs' common stock during the period of
March 14, 2012 and March 26, 2013, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Cliffs
misrepresented to investors that one of its most important assets,
an iron ore mine known as Bloom Lake, was a premium asset and that
production at the mine could be increased even as production costs
decreased.  Defendants also repeatedly misled investors regarding
the testing and sustainability of the Company's dividend, which
Cliffs dramatically increased by 123% on the first day of the
Class Period.  Once investors learned the complete truth regarding
the massive problems at Bloom Lake and that the Company's dividend
was neither adequately tested nor sustainable, the price of
Cliffs' stock dropped significantly, damaging plaintiff and the
class.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from May 12,
2014.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff is July 11, 2014.  Any member of the
proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
James A. Harrod of BLB&G at 212-554-1502, or via e-mail at
jim.harrod@blbglaw.com or Michael T.G. Long of Lowenstein Sandler
at 973-422-6726, or via e-mail at mlong@lowenstein.com.


CME GROUP: $550MM Bankruptcy Trustee Guaranty to be Extinguished
----------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with settlements between CME Group Inc., the
bankruptcy trustee for MF Global and its customers, CME's $550.0
million financial guarantee to the trustee to cover any shortfall
in MF Global's bankruptcy will be extinguished, according to CME's
May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A number of lawsuits were filed in federal court in New York on
behalf of all commodity account holders or customers of MF Global
who had not received a return of 100% of their funds. These
matters have been consolidated into a single action in federal
court in New York, and a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed on November 5, 2012. On November 6, 2013, CME
announced that it has reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the class action litigation. In an agreement between the trustee
and CME, CME will be allowed to assert a $29.0 million claim
against MF Global based on expenses incurred by CME as a result of
MF Global's bankruptcy. In a separate agreement between CME and
the customer representatives, CME has agreed to deliver $14.5
million, one-half of the distribution that it will receive from
the trustee, to the customer representatives for distribution to
MF Global's former customers. In connection with the settlements
between the company and the trustee and the customers, the
company's $550.0 million financial guarantee to the bankruptcy
trustee to cover any shortfall in the bankruptcy will be
extinguished. The company believes that the likelihood of payment
to the trustee is very remote. As a result, the guarantee
liability is estimated to be immaterial at March 31, 2014.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that Cogent
Communications Inc. unlawfully withheld overtime payments from its
California employees and purposely kept them in the dark on the
state's labor laws, according to a proposed class action lodged
against the Internet service provider in California federal court
on May 12.

The suit, brought by 16 former employees, alleges that they and
other account managers were routinely required to work more than
eight hours per day and 40 hours per week, but received the same
salary regardless of the hours worked.  Cogent knew that none of
these employees could be properly classified as exempt from
overtime under California law, but did nothing to stop the
practice, the complaint says.  The former employees also accuse
Cogent of violating California's unfair competition statute by
lying and by omitting relevant facts as part of the company's
scheme to withhold overtime pay and deceive employees.

"As a result of [Cogent's] unlawful, unfair and fraudulent
conduct, plaintiffs and class members suffered injury in fact and
lost money and property, including, but not limited to loss of
monies and wages earned," the complaint alleges.

The company is also accused of acting in direct contravention of
the unfair competition statute, which protects employers who
comply with the law from those who attempt to gain an advantage at
their employees' expense, according to the complaint.  The
proposed class includes hundreds of Cogent's former employees,
according to the suit, which also accuses the ISP of having a
companywide policy of denying certain wages due to employees once
they quit or were fired.  The plaintiffs are asking the court to
certify a class that will include all account managers who worked
for the company in California during the last four years prior to
the complaint's filing, who were not paid overtime.  They are also
requesting that their claim brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act proceed as a collective action.

The former employees are seeking prejudgment interest of 10
percent on the allegedly unpaid overtime compensation, which the
suit sets at up to twice the former employees' hourly rate for all
the overtime hours worked, as well as attorneys' fees.

Cogent is a multinational Internet and network service provider
that offers Internet access, data transport, and colocation
services to customers ranging from small businesses and
multinational corporations, to carriers and service providers
whose businesses rely on Internet access, according to Cogent's
website.

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas E. Duckworth --
tom@dplolaw.com -- and Monique Olivier -- monique@dplolaw.com --
of Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP; and M. Todd Slobin,
Daryl J. Sinkule, Sidd Rao and Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes of Shellist
Lazarz Slobin LLP.

The case is Ambrosia et al. v. Cogent Communications Inc., case
number 3:14-cv-02182, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Tenn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Community Health Systems, Inc. to dismiss a
consolidated securities case against it has been fully briefed and
is pending before the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, according to the company's May 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. The Company's motion to
dismiss this case has been fully briefed and is pending before the
court. The Company believes this consolidated matter is without
merit and will vigorously defend this case.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit v. HMA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in
In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. was fully
briefed and awaiting the decision of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, according to Community Health
Systems, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against Health Management Associates, Inc. and certain of its then
executive officers, one of whom was at that time also a director,
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under the caption In Re: Health Management
Associates, Inc., et al. and three pension fund plaintiffs were
appointed as lead plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint purportedly on
behalf of stockholders who purchased HMA's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2009, through January 9, 2012. The amended
consolidated complaint (i) alleges that HMA made false and
misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding its
business and financial results and (ii) asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiffs claim
that HMA inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare
billing practices that entailed admitting patients to observation
status when they should not have been admitted at all and to
inpatient status when they should have been admitted to
observation status. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages. On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint. On December 15,
2012, the court entered an order approving the stipulation and
providing a schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed
amended pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint, which asserts substantially
the same claims as the amended consolidated complaint. As of
August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead facts
required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was fully
briefed and awaiting the Court's decision.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Dismisses Lawsuit by HMA Stockholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered a
stipulation and order regarding the dismissal of the action Town
of Davie Police Officers' Pension Plan v. Dauten, et al.,
according to Community Health Systems, Inc.'s May 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 23, 2013, an action entitled Town of Davie Police
Officers' Pension Plan v. Dauten, et al., was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. This action purportedly was
brought as a class action on behalf of all of HMA's stockholders,
as well as derivatively on behalf of HMA, against HMA's then-
directors (the "Former Directors") and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (collectively, "Wells
Fargo"), and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Deutsche Bank"). The
complaint alleged, among other things, that the Former Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by (i) approving a credit
agreement in 2011 that contained a change of control covenant that
plaintiff contended would have coerced shareholders into
supporting their re-election and (ii) not approving the
individuals nominated by Glenview Capital Management LLC
("Glenview") for election to HMA's board of directors (the
"Nominees") for the purpose of avoiding the triggering of similar
but distinct change of control provisions contained in certain of
HMA's indentures. The complaint further alleged that Wells Fargo
and Deutsche Bank aided and abetted such breaches by permitting
the Former Directors to embed the change of control covenant in
the credit agreement. The complaint sought declaratory and
injunctive relief, including (i) a declaration that the Former
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
credit agreement and (ii) an order permanently enjoining the
Former Directors from invoking or enforcing the change of control
covenant in the credit agreement. Plaintiff also sought
unspecified damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
Simultaneously with filing its complaint, plaintiff filed a Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Proceedings.

As disclosed in the preliminary and definitive proxy statements
filed by the Company with the SEC on September 25, 2013, and
November 22, 2013, respectively, before plaintiff filed this
action, HMA already had determined and taken steps both to seek a
waiver of the change in control covenant in its 2011 credit
agreement and to interview Glenview's Nominees for the purpose of
approving them to avoid triggering an acceleration of the debt due
under certain of its indentures if the Nominees were elected to
HMA's board of directors. Specifically, (i) representatives of HMA
contacted representatives of Wells Fargo on July 18, 2013, to
inquire about the necessary steps for obtaining a waiver under the
credit agreement, and obtained such a waiver on July 29, 2013, so
that a merger agreement with the Company could be executed on that
date; and (ii) after interviews of all of the Glenview Nominees,
HMA's Former Directors approved those individuals on August 1,
2013, for the limited purpose of avoiding the acceleration of the
debt due under certain of its indentures. On August 12, 2013,
Glenview delivered to HMA sufficient consents to elect its
Nominees to HMA's board, replacing the Former Directors. On August
16, 2013, HMA announced that the Nominees had replaced the Former
Directors on HMA's Board. Thus, plaintiff's class action claims
were mooted by actions commenced by HMA before plaintiff filed its
complaint on July 23, 2013, and plaintiff withdrew its request for
injunctive relief.

On September 20, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss this
action. After HMA's stockholders approved the HMA merger on
January 8, 2014, plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss its mooted
class action claims, as well as its derivative claim (which
plaintiff recognized it would lose standing to pursue after the
HMA merger closed on January 27, 2014), and requested an award of
attorneys' fees and costs. Had plaintiff not moved to voluntarily
dismiss its claims, defendants would have filed a brief in support
of their motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of the complaint on a
variety of grounds, including, but not limited to, mootness, lack
of standing, laches, and failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

On April 15, 2014, the Court entered a stipulation and order (the
"Order") regarding dismissal of the action. As required by the
Order, the Company is hereby notifying stockholders that the
derivative claim is being discontinued for lack of HMA stockholder
standing, the action is being dismissed as moot, and HMA has
agreed to pay plaintiff's counsel $115,000 in full satisfaction of
plaintiff's pending request for attorneys' fees and costs in the
action. The action will be dismissed as moot without further
action by the parties or the Court unless another stockholder of
HMA submits a written objection to the Court within thirty days of
this notice.


CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Franco" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARLERY FRANCO, Plaintiff, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
CO., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-6039 (SRC), (D. N.J.)
is before the Court upon the renewed motion for class
certification filed on September 9, 2013 by Plaintiffs Darlery
Franco, David Chazen and Camilo Nelson (the "Subscriber
Plaintiffs"). Cigna has opposed the motion. The Court denied
Subscriber Plaintiffs' first motion for class certification by
Order dated January 16, 2013.

District Judge Stanley R. Chesler denied the Subscriber
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in its entirety
in an opinion dated April 14, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/sVsB81from Leagle.com.

"This motion fails to satisfy the requirements for certification
of a Rule 23(b)(3) class as to either the proposed ERISA Class or
the proposed RICO Class," ruled Judge Chesler.  "Subscriber
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they could litigate their
claims through evidence that is common to the class. Moreover,
issue certification, as permitted by Rule 23(c)(4), would not
advance the resolution of the claims, and thus this action does
not warrant exercise of the Court's discretion to certify certain
issues," he further ruled.

Barry M. Epstein, Esq. -- bepstein@eqlawoffice.com -- Barbara G.
Quackenbos, Esq. -- bquackenbos@eqlawoffice.com -- EPSTEIN &
QUACKENBOS, P.C., Roseland, New Jersey, Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. --
bnagel@nagelrice.com -- Randee M. Matloff, Esq. --
rmatloff@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP, Roseland, New Jersey,
James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE BAIN
GILFILLAN CECCHI STEWART & OLSTEIN, PC, Roseland, New Jersey,
Stephen A. Weiss -- sweiss@seegerweiss.com -- Christopher A.
Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS, Newark, New
Jersey, Christopher Burke, Esq. -- cburke@scott-scott.com --
Joseph Guglielmo, Esq. -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Amanda
Lawrence, Esq. -- alawrence@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT, New
York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs DARLERY FRANCO, DAVID
CHAZEN AND CAMILO NELSON.

Brian J. McMahon, Esq. -- bmcmahon@gibbonslaw.com -- E. Evans
Wohlforth, Jr., Esq. -- ewohlforth@gibbonslaw.com -- William P.
Deni, Jr., Esq. -- wdeni@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS P.C., Newark,
New Jersey, William H. Pratt, Esq., Frank M. Holozubiec, Esq.,
Joshua B. Simon, Esq., Katherine L. McDaniel, Esq., Warren Haskel,
Esq., KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Defendants.


CRANE CO: Appeals Court Affirms Jury Verdict in Asbestos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that a California appeals court has affirmed a jury's verdict in
favor of a former boiler worker's asbestos claims, finding that
the claimant presented sufficient evidence showing design defect.

Justice Jim Humes delivered the unpublished opinion on April 16.
Justices Ignazio Ruvolo and Timothy Reardon concurred.

Defendant Crane Co. appealed to California's First District Court
of Appeals after a jury found it liable for plaintiff James
Hellam's mesothelioma injury.

Mr. Hellam sued several defendants, but only Crane Co. remained at
the time of trial.

The jury was instructed to consider four claims, including strict
liability for design defect, strict liability for failure to warn,
negligence and punitive damages.

Ultimately, it entered a special verdict in favor of Mr. Hellam on
the design defect claim and in favor of Crane Co. on remaining
claims, awarding Mr. Hellam $937,882.56 in economic damages and
$4.5 million in noneconomic damages.

The jury also allocated seven percent of the fault to Crane, 75
percent to MBS and the remaining 18 percent to three other named
parties and "all others."

The trial court entered judgment against Crane in December 2012,
requiring the defendant to pay the entire economic damages award,
although the court noted that the figure "may be adjusted
following the court's determination of a motion for allocation of
settlement credits," Justice Humes wrote.

The court also reduced the noneconomic damages to $315,000 to
reflect Crane's proportionate liability and reserved issuing a
ruling on costs.

Crane moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and moved
to vacate the judgment because it was "premature and incomplete"
by failing to account for settlement credits.  Both motions were
denied in January 2013.

In regards to court costs, Mr. Hellam sought roughly $101,000 in
costs but Crane moved to tax several items.  In May 2013, the
court taxed $16,000 of the costs and awarded Mr. Hellam about
$85,000.

Crane appealed the orders, which were consolidated by the
appellate court.

In its appeal, Crane contended Mr. Hellam presented insufficient
evidence that its products had both a design defect and were a
"substantial factor" in causing the claimant's mesothelioma.
Crane also argued the judgment improperly failed to apply
settlement credits and was not final, in addition to Mr. Hellam's
allegedly improperly awarded costs in a post-judgment order.

However, the appeals court affirmed the judgment and concluded
that the issues involving settlement credits are moot.  The court
also affirmed the order awarding certain costs, but remanded to
the trial court the limited issue whether costs for pretrial
transcripts should be taxed.

Justice Humes explained that Mr. Hellam alleged he developed
mesothelioma at age 64 after working with Crane Co.'s asbestos-
containing products off-and-on from 1962 to 1966.

In the summer months during high school and college, Mr. Hellam
claims he worked full-time for his grandfather, Harvey Waugh, at
Mr. Waugh's boiler business, Monterey Boiler Service, or MBS.

MBS primarily specialized in refurbishing boilers, which involved
applying an insulating material that Messrs. Hellam and Waugh
referred to as 'asbestos,' the opinion states.  Mr. Hellam
recalled during testimony that the insulating material came
packaged in bags labeled with "asbestos."

Mr. Hellam further alleges that about half of the insulating
cement Waugh purchased came from Crane Supply, saying the two
would visit the supply house to restock when MBS ran out of the
material.

As part of his job, Mr. Hellam would open a bag and empty it into
a trough, releasing "quite a bit" of dust into to the air, Justice
Humes wrote.  After mixing the dusty cement with water, he and
Waugh applied the resulting "mud" to the boiler.  Justice Humes
added that refurbishing a boiler typically required one to two
bags of insulating cement.

Mr. Hellam was also responsible for cleaning up the boilers by
chipping away excess mud that had hardened onto the trough, as
well as disposing of the empty cement bags, which would release
more visible dust.

Mr. Hellam estimated that the process of mixing and applying the
cement to each boiler took 15 to 20 minutes and that MBS
refurbished 12 to 15 boilers per summer.

Mr. Hellam also fabricated gaskets for the boilers, which were
used to create a seal between pipes and flanges.

He added that Waugh purchased sheet gasket material called Cranite
at Crane Supply.

Cranite, which was trademarked by the defendant, is believed to
contain between 75 and 85 percent asbestos, a Crane corporate
representative testified.

The gasket-making process involved tapping an outline of each
gasket with a hammer and cutting it out, which resulted in
material fibers being released into the air, Mr. Hellam testified.

Mr. Hellam added that each gasket took between 10 and 20 minutes
to make.

"Hellam indicated that during the time he worked at MBS he never
believed that the cement or gasketing 'were in any way hazardous
to his health' or 'were anything more than a nuisance dust,'"
Justice Humes wrote.

Mr. Hellam added that because he didn't suspect any risks
associated with the asbestos-containing products, he did not take
any safety precautions when handling the insulation cement and
gasket materials.

Appellate decision

Addressing the design defect claim that the products were not as
safe as ordinary customers expected, Justice Humes wrote that the
court found substantial evidence was presented to support the
jury's decision.

"A manufacturer, distributor or retailer is liable in tort if a
defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury
while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way,"
Justice Humes wrote.

Crane argued there was insufficient evidence proving design defect
or the elements of liability under the consumer expectations test.
It added that the jury imposed "absolute liability" for "the mere
presence of asbestos in the products at issue."

Crane contended that the verdict on the design defect claim was
only supported by evidence that its products lacked warnings.
According to Crane, this evidence cannot sustain the design defect
claim because the jury specifically rejected the failure-to-warn
claim.

However the appellate court disagreed, saying evidence was also
presented that the products had "propensity to emit toxic asbestos
fibers during ordinary use."  Justice Humes explained that Mr.
Hellam's testimony that visible dust was released while working
with the products coupled with expert testimony from industrial
hygienist Philip John Templin that Mr. Hellam inhaled asbestos
fibers each time he worked with the materials constituted evidence
of a design defect.

Crane claims that "characterizing the defect as the products'
propensity to emit asbestos fibers, rather than the products'
asbestos content, is a 'distinction . . . without a difference.'"

However, Justice Humes wrote that Mr. Hellam presented evidence
that asbestos fibers were routinely emitted while mixing
insulating cement and cutting gaskets, successfully providing
sufficient evidence of design defect.

Crane also argued that Mr. Hellam failed to satisfy the consumer
expectations test required for proving a design defect claim.

Justice Humes explained that the consumer expectations test asks
whether the product performed as safely as an ordinary consumer
would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable
manner.

"Crane argued the test was inapplicable here because Hellam's
testimony alone was insufficient to establish the expectations of
'plumbing and heating contractors working in the boiler repair
industry,' since he was a self-described 'gofer' who 'didn't know
. . . much about the business,'" Justice Humes wrote.

However, the appeals court rejected the argument, referring to
Justice Hellam's testimony that he did not believe the products or
the resulting dust posed any health risk.  Justice Humes added
that because Mr. Hellam routinely used the products for work, his
statements were sufficient to establish safety expectations of
ordinary consumers.

Even if Crane were correct that the claimant must present evidence
showing a boiler professional's expectations, Justice Humes
continued, Mr. Hellam testified that Waugh required safety
precautions during other activities but did not instruct him to
take precautions with any other asbestos products.

"The jury could have relied on this evidence to conclude that the
products did not perform as safely as ordinary consumers
expected," the opinion states.

Crane contended that Mr. Hellam also failed to present enough
evidence that its products were a substantial factor in causing
his mesothelioma.

However, Justice Humes wrote that Mr. Hellam only had to prove
that the defendant's product was a substantial factor contributing
to the illness in reasonable medical probability, which the court
found he successfully proved through expert testimony.

Templin testified that Mr. Hellam's exposure levels greatly
exceeded ambient, or background, levels of asbestos.

Dr. Barry Horn and Dr. Allan Smith both testified that each
exposure increased Mr. Hellam's risk of developing mesothelioma.

Horn added that "'there is unequivocally a dose-dependent
relationship' between asbestos and mesothelioma, which means that
the more asbestos one is exposed to, the higher one's risk of
developing the disease."

"As Templin's testimony established, those exposures were at
levels significantly greater than ambient levels.  Moreover,
Hellam's testimony established that he was exposed to the products
dozens of times over his employment at MBS," Justice Humes wrote.
"As a result, the jury could reasonably conclude based on
Dr. Horn's testimony that the products were a substantial factor
in increasing Hellam's risk of developing mesothelioma."

Addressing Crane's appeal based on awarded costs and requested
taxes, the appeals found that the awarded costs were proper, but
remand is necessary for the trial court to consider in the first
instance whether Mr. Hellam is entitled to recover his costs for
transcripts of pretrial proceedings.

Mr. Hellam sought $101,092.40 in costs.  The trial court granted
in part Crane's motion to tax costs, subtracted $16,000 to account
for "daily transcript fees" that the court determined were not
recoverable and awarded Mr. Hellam the remaining $85,092.40.

Crane argued the trial court erred when it failed to tax costs
Mr. Hellam incurred during litigation against other defendants,
claiming the costs were "not integrally associated with
Mr. Hellam's claims against Crane Co." and were therefore not
"reasonably necessary to pursuit of those claims," the opinion
states.

However, the appellate court disagreed, saying Mr. Hellam's
mesothelioma was caused by his cumulative exposure to asbestos,
making it difficult to separate issues according to defendant.

"Here, the trial court recognized that costs must be both
reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount, but it declined to
prorate the costs awarded to account for other defendants,"
Justice Humes wrote.  "In doing so, it observed that Crane was the
only defendant remaining at trial and indicated its concern that
apportionment could deny Mr. Hellam costs to which he was
entitled."

Lastly, Crane argued that the trial court erred by not taxing all
of the costs attributable to transcripts.

Justice Humes wrote that the record is unclear and remanded the
question back to the trial court to consider whether costs for
pretrial transcripts are recoverable.


CROWDFLOWER INC: Bid for Approval of FLSA Suit Settlement Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER OTEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CROWDFLOWER, INC., et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-05524-JST, (N.D. Cal.), is a
conditionally certified collective action for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiffs moved for approval of their
stipulated settlement agreement, pursuant to which the parties
seek the release of Plaintiffs' collective action claims, as well
as their Rule 23 class action claims for violations of Oregon
labor laws.

In an order dated April 15, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/TUGq0ffrom Leagle.com, District Judge Jon S. Tigar
denied the motion for approval of settlement, without prejudice.
Judge Tigar said the Court cannot conclude that the requested
awards are reasonable because Plaintiffs do not provide any
information as to how much money each class member is expected to
receive, or what the average recovery for each class member will
be.

Plaintiffs may file a new motion that addresses the deficiencies
identified within 90 days of the date the order, the Court held.

To provide for the further management of the case in the event
that a new motion is not forthcoming, the Court set a case
management conference on August 20, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. A Joint Case
Management Statement must be filed at least ten court days
beforehand. If Plaintiffs file a new motion for settlement
approval by July 14, 2014, they may also request the Court to
vacate the August case management conference.

Christopher Otey, Plaintiff, represented by William Thomas Payne
-- wpayne@stemberfeinstein.com -- Stember Feinstein Doyle
Payne & Kravec, LLC, Edward J. Feinstein --
efeinstein@stemberfeinstein.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec,
LLC, Ellen Mary M. Doyle -- edoyle@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle
Payne & Kravec, LLC, Jennifer Lynn Connor --
jennifer@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro Law Corp., Justin F. Marquez,
Spiro Law Corp., Mark Alan Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com --
Weinhaus & Potashnick & Robert Ira Spiro -- ira@spiromoore.com --
Spiro Law Corp..

Mary Greth, Plaintiff, represented by William Thomas Payne,
Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Edward J. Feinstein,
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Ellen Mary M. Doyle,
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Jennifer Lynn Connor, Spiro
Law Corp., Justin F. Marquez, Spiro Law Corp., Mark Alan
Potashnick, Weinhaus & Potashnick & Robert Ira Spiro, Spiro Law
Corp.

Crowdflower, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Thompson --
tt@millerlawgroup.com -- Miller Law Group, Brian Maschler --
bmaschler@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP & M. Michael Cole
-- mmc@millerlawgroup.com -- Miller Law Group.

Lukas Biewald, Defendant, represented by Tracy Thompson, Miller
Law Group, Brian Maschler, Gordon & Rees, LLP & M. Michael Cole,
Miller Law Group.

Chris Van Pelt, Defendant, represented by Tracy Thompson, Miller
Law Group, Brian Maschler, Gordon & Rees, LLP & M. Michael Cole,
Miller Law Group.


DELTA APPAREL: No Certification Yet for Cal. Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery process in a suit by a former employee of Delta
Apparel, Inc.'s Delta Activewear business unit at the company's
Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility is ongoing and
the issue of class certification remains pending, according to the
company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

The company was served with a complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March
13, 2013, by a former employee of the company's Delta Activewear
business unit at the company's Santa Fe Springs, California
distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and
hour laws and unfair business practices with respect to meal and
rest periods, compensation and wage statements, and related claims
(the "Complaint"). The Complaint is brought as a class action and
seeks to include all of the company's Delta Activewear business
unit's current and certain former employees within California who
are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The
Complaint also names as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent
contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and seeks to include
all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and
the Soffe independent contractor within California who are or were
non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and
compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment interest. The discovery process in this matter is ongoing
and the issue of class certification remains pending.

While the company will continue to vigorously defend this action
and believe it has a number of meritorious defenses to the claims
alleged, it believes a risk of loss is probable. Based upon
current information, it believes there is a range of likely
outcomes between approximately $15,000 and $975,000. During the
quarter ended September 28, 2013, the company recorded a liability
for the most likely outcome within this range. However, depending
upon the scope and size of any certified class and whether any of
the claims alleged ultimately prevail at trial, the company could
be required to pay amounts exceeding $975,000.


DETOUR GOLD: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Detour Gold Corporation disclosed that on May 13, 2014, a proposed
securities class action claiming, among other things, special and
general damages in the amount of $80 million, was commenced
against the Company and its former CEO, Gerald Panneton, in
relation to the Company's public disclosure concerning its Detour
Lake Mine operations.  The Company is investigating the
allegations, and intends to vigorously defend the claims.

                        About Detour Gold

Detour Gold is an emerging mid-tier gold producer in Canada.  In
2014, the Company is completing the ramp-up its 100% owned Detour
Lake mine to a long life, large scale open pit operation.

Detour Gold Corporation, Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, 200 Bay
Street, Suite 2200, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2J1


DIAMOND FOODS: Removed "Hall" Suit to Northern District of Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Richard Hall v. Diamond
Foods, Inc., Case No. CGC-14-538387, was removed from the Superior
Court of San Francisco County to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02148-JCS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to certify two classes: (1) "all consumers in
the United States within four years of the filing of this lawsuit
who have purchased Defendants' Kettle Brand Chips and/or Tias!
Tortilla chips," which the Complaint refers to as the [allegedly]
"Misbranded Products"; (2) "a class of all persons in the United
States or, alternatively, California who purchased the [allegedly]
Misbranded All-Natural Products from four years prior to the
filing of the Complaint and continuing to the present"; and (3) "a
class of all persons in the United States or, alternatively,
California who purchased the [allegedly] Misbranded Reduced Fat
Products from four years prior to the filing of the Complaint and
continuing to the present."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277-9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
          E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


DOCTOR REHAB: Removed "Rodriguez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rodriguez v. Doctor Rehab Center,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-008456 CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-21722-MGC to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff Barbara Rodriguez seeks to recover unpaid wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and seeks damages for alleged
unlawful, retaliatory discharge pursuant to Florida's private
sector Whistleblower's Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Wayne Wadsworth, Esq.
          WADSWORTH KING & HUOTT LLP
          200 SE 1st Street, Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 777-1000
          Facsimile: (305) 777-1001
          E-mail: cw@wadsworth-law.com

               - and -

          Ronnie Guillen, Esq.
          WADSWORTH KING & HUOTT LLP
          14 N.E. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 777-1000
          Facsimile: (305) 777-1001
          E-mail: rg@wadsworth-law.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in O&R Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the suit O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184
(W.D. Wash.), according to The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation's May
7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against D&B and an unaffiliated
entity. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants
violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to
sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly
misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The
plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and
equitable relief. On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended
complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained the class
action and deceptive practices allegations. The Company filed a
new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On
August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motion and granted it.
Specifically, the Court dismissed a contract claim with prejudice,
and dismissed all the remaining claims without prejudice. On
September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.
The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014,
the Court heard argument on the Company's motion and dismissed
with prejudice the claims based on a joint venture or agency
liability theory brought against the Company. The Court denied the
motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair
practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the Company answered the
SAC. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a Notice Regarding Scope of
Class Definition, noting its intention to revise its class
definition to exclude small businesses from the states of Ohio and
California from its motion for class certification. The parties
exchanged initial disclosures and completed the initial case
management process in March 2013. Discovery in the case is
ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate the
allegations. In accordance with ASC 450, the company does not have
sufficient information upon which to determine that a loss in
connection with this matter is probable, reasonably possible or
estimable, and thus no reserve has been established nor has a
range of loss been disclosed.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Files Motion to Transfer Die-Mension Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation filed a Joint Motion to Transfer
the litigation Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation et al., No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.) to the
Western District of Washington, according to the company's May 7,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity, Die-Mension purporting
to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a
CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such state(s) as
the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used
deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint alleged
a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation,
and negligence. The complaint alleged deceptive trade practices,
negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On March
4, 2014, in response to a direction from the court, Die-Mension
withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint contains the same substantive allegations as
the original complaint, but limits the purported class to small
businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder product. On
March 13 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the amended
complaint. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of
Washington. The parties also filed a stipulated motion extending
the Company and DBCC's time to file a motion to dismiss or
otherwise answer the amended complaint until 20 days after the
Court decides the Joint Motion to Transfer. In accordance with ASC
450, the company therefore does not have sufficient information
upon which to determine that a loss in connection with this matter
is probable, reasonably possible or estimable, and thus no reserve
has been established nor has a range of loss been disclosed.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Response in Suit Over CreditBuilder Due May 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
The response of The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation to a lawsuit
alleging it used deceptive marketing practices to sell
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products is due May 27, 2014,
according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2014.

The suit is Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint, Inc. v.
Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 8:14-cv-
00451 (C.D. Cal).

On March 24 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint, Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC, an
unaffiliated entity. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf
of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of
California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive
marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring
products, in violation of Section 17200 and Section 17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also
alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.
As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company
entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in
violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation
claims. On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of
the complaint. The Company's response is due May 27, 2014. The
Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations.


FIRST SOLAR: Certified Securities Lawsuit Continues in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. continues to face a certified securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2014.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of the company's current and former
directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities between April 30, 2008, and
February 28, 2012. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, and an award of costs and
expenses to the putative class, including attorneys' fees. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously
defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On February 26, 2013, the court directed the parties to begin
class certification discovery, and ordered a further scheduling
conference to set the merit discovery schedule after the issue of
class certification has been decided. On June 21, 2013, the
Pension Schemes filed a motion for class certification. On October
8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension Schemes'
motion for class certification.


FIVE STAR CARTING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Antonio Flores, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Five Star Carting, LLC, Five Star Carting,
Inc., Workforce Cleaning Services, LLC, Anthony Tristani and Nino
Tristani, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 2:14-cv-02970 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 9, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime premium wages
owed to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a former demolition and labor employee for the
Defendants' demolition and waste removal business.

Five Star Carting LLC and Five Star Carting, Inc. are New York
corporations headquartered in Maspeth, New York.  Workforce
Cleaning Services, LLC is a New York corporation headquartered in
Brooklyn, New York.  The Corporate Defendants operated together as
a single integrated business enterprise.  The Individual
Defendants are officers, directors or managing agents of Five Star
Carting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          Alison G. Lobban, Esq.
          PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
                  graham@peltonlaw.com
                  lobban@peltonlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Causation Theory Doesn't Apply in Asbestos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annuznio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
despite a plaintiffs expert's testimony that minimal exposure to
asbestos can cause mesothelioma, the state Superior Court has
ruled that prohibition of "any exposure" causation theories did
not apply in an asbestos case against Ford Motor Co.

In Rost v. Ford Motor on May 19, a three-judge panel denied Ford's
request for a new trial, reasoning that the state Supreme Court's
decision in Betz v. Pneumo Abex was not applicable in Rost.  In
denying a new trial, the court upheld a $994,800 jury award out of
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to plaintiff Richard Rost
and his wife.

Judge Jack A. Panella wrote in the court's opinion that Mr. Rost's
experts gave sufficient evidence showing that Rost's exposure to
Ford's asbestos-containing brakes was a substantial factor in the
development of his mesothelioma, contrary to Ford's assertions.
"While it is true that the 'every exposure' theory does not, by
itself, meet the standard for establishing substantial causation
in a legal sense, this record is more than sufficient to establish
its general scientific legitimacy," Judge Panella said.  "As we
have already determined that the rest of the certified record is
sufficient to establish a triable issue on whether Richard Rost's
exposure at the garage was a substantial cause of his
mesothelioma, this defect in the 'every exposure' theory is not
sufficient to warrant reversal in this case."

Mr. Rost filed suit in 2009 alleging that his exposure to various
products from Ingersoll-Rand, General Electric, Westinghouse (all
of which settled with the plaintiff) and Ford contributed to his
development of mesothelioma, according to Jugdge Panella.

Mr. Rost testified that he worked at a Ford dealership in 1950 for
several months.  According to Judge Panella, Mr. Rost said the
Ford brakes the dealership serviced in its garage contained 40 to
60 percent asbestos by weight.

Mr. Rost's duties included cleaning the garage and removing brake
linings -- activities that generated dust that Rost inhaled.
Judge Panella added that the exhaust system in the garage was also
very limited.

One of Mr. Rost's experts, Dr. Arthur Frank, testified that there
were case studies that showed individuals who were exposed to
asbestos for only a day developed mesothelioma, Judge Panella
said. Frank also said certain animal studies showed that any
exposure from one day to one month doubles the risk of developing
mesothelioma.

Ford argued on appeal that Mr. Rost did not offer "competent
expert opinion in demonstrating that the exposure to asbestos
attributable to Ford was sufficient to qualify as a substantial
factor" in causing Rost's mesothelioma, Judge Panella said.  Ford
pointed to Betz and the Supreme Court's opinion in Gregg v. V-J
Auto Parts as similar cases.

However, Judge Panella said, "Clearly, neither of these opinions
required the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action merely
due to the problems with the plaintiff's expert's opinion on
causation."

Additionally, Judge Panella said Ford misinterpreted the Supreme
Court's ruling in Betz, explaining that the Betz decision does not
require judges to reject the opinion of any expert who testifies
as to the amount of asbestos to which a person can be safely
exposed.

"Rather, the Betz court held that, based upon the record before
it, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that the expert in that case had not established the legitimacy of
his legal conclusion that any exposure was a substantial cause of
the plaintiff's disease," Judge Panella said.

Judge Panella said despite Frank's every-exposure theory, when
taken in context with the other evidence and testimony on
regularity of exposure given by Mr. Rost's other expert witnesses,
"the record is more than sufficient to support the verdict reached
by the jury."

Ford also argued that Mr. Rost should have been made to prove that
the asbestos brakes he came into contact with were defective under
products liability law, Judge Panella said.

Citing the Superior Court's 2010 decision in the asbestos case of
Moore v. Ericsson, Judge Panella noted, "With respect to asbestos
cases, what renders the product unsafe for its intended use is the
presence of asbestos in the product, or the dangers from
inhalation of asbestos fibers."

As in Ericsson, Judge Panella said, the issue in Rost was not
whether a product was defective because it contained asbestos, but
whether the defendant's product contained asbestos, whether the
plaintiff was exposed to it and whether that exposure caused the
plaintiff's mesothelioma.

Duane Morris attorney Robert Byer --
rlbyer@duanemorris.com -- represented Ford and declined to
comment.  Mr. Rost's lawyer, Robert Paul of Paul, Reich & Myers,
did not return a call seeking comment.


FOSTER WHEELER: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Texas, New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG faces shareholder lawsuits in Texas state court
and in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2014.

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
Foster Wheeler AG shareholders against Foster Wheeler AG, or the
Company, and the Board of Directors of Foster Wheeler AG, or the
Board, seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the Company
by AMEC from proceeding. The first of such lawsuits was filed on
March 4, 2014. Two of the lawsuits are pending in Texas state
court and the other two lawsuits are pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. AMEC is named as a
co-defendant in the two Texas state court lawsuits. The complaints
contain similar, standardized allegations. Plaintiffs allege that
the directors breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the
Company's other shareholders in pursuing the plan to sell the
Company, and that the Company aided and abetted the defendant
directors in committing such breach. In particular, plaintiffs
allege that AMEC's per share exchange offer to acquire all of the
Company's shares does not adequately compensate the Company's
shareholders for their investment and significantly undervalues
the Company's prospects as a standalone entity, that the
consideration fails to take into account the value expected to be
realized by AMEC as a result of the proposed acquisition, that the
Board permitted Company management to lead the negotiations with
AMEC when management was improperly incentivized to pursue the
proposed acquisition, and that the Implementation Agreement
improperly contains a number of deal protection devices designed
to preclude any competing bids from emerging during the period
following the announcement of the proposed acquisition in the
Company's Form 8-K filing. Plaintiffs are in the process of
serving summonses and complaints upon the Company and its Board.
No class has been constituted yet. The Company believes that the
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously oppose the
lawsuits on behalf of itself and on behalf of its Board.


FTS USA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Viera, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
FTS USA, LLC, a Foreign For Profit Limited Liability Company, Case
No. 6:14-cv-00734-JA-GJK (M.D. Fla., May 9, 2014) is brought for
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or interest, and
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

FTS USA, LLC, is a Foreign For Profit Limited Liability Company
located in Pennsylvania but operates and conducts business in
Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Emerson" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Emerson, Melinda Barbiaux, Carter Brown Davis, Dawn
Garrett, Thomas Hicks, Barb Lawson, Carlton Moore, and Janet
Perkins, 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-21713-UU (S.D. Fla., May
9, 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, the Plaintiffs contend.  Delphi manufactured
and supplied the alleged defective ignition switches.

GM is a limited liability company formed and 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 in 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.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Adam M. Moskowitz, 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: hst@kttlaw.com
                  amm@kttlaw.com
                  tr@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
          Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          E-mail: gwiggins@wcqp.com
                  kjent@wcqp.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Perez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. General Motors Financial Company, Inc., Case No. 8:14-
cv-00735-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2014) is brought for damages
and injunctive, resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal
actions in negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy. Plaintiff

General Motors Financial Company, Inc., is a business corporation
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.  The Company conducted
business in the state of California and in the County of Orange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, 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
                  jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Jessica R. K. Dorman, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  Jessica@westcoastlitigation.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Livingston Woman Files Ignition Switch Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Knox, writing for Clickondetroit.com, reports that a
Livingston county woman has requested a class action lawsuit
against General Motors in regard to the ignition switch recall.

The woman drives a 2004 Saturn Ion and claims she has experienced
problems related to the recall such as the vehicle stalling while
driving.  She is upset because the car is unsafe and now greatly
devalued because of the recall.

The class action lawsuit is seeking more than $5 million in
damages.


GENERAL MOTORS: Gets $35MM Fine Over Ignition Switch Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Klayman, Bernie Woodall, Richard Cowan, Eric Beech and Jessica
Dye, writing for Reuters, report that General Motors Co. was
slapped on May 16 with a $35 million U.S. fine for its delayed
response to an ignition switch defect in millions of vehicles, as
federal regulators accused a long line of company officials of
concealing a problem that is linked to at least 13 deaths.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced the fine,
which is the maximum the agency can impose.  Other investigations
into the automaker's handling of the recall are being conducted by
the federal government and could come with more severe
punishments.

It was unclear how those additional probes might be influenced by
the May 16 actions by the Obama administration, especially after
Foxx declared: "What GM did was break the law . . . They failed to
meet their public safety obligations."

The ignition-switch defect was originally noticed by the largest
U.S. automaker more than a decade ago.  But the first recalls
began only in February of this year, despite years of consumer
complaints.

Furthermore, the acting chief of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), David Friedman, told reporters that
GM employees ranging from engineers "all the way up through
executives" were aware of the information years before the recall
of 2.6 million vehicles.

He did not name the executives, and said there was no information
that Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra had earlier knowledge
about the problems.  Ms. Barra took over as CEO in mid-January,
becoming the first female to head a major automaker.

Mr. Friedman also slammed GM's "corporate philosophy" and pointed
to internal training documents that discouraged engineers from
using the words "safety" and "defect" when identifying product
risks.

CLOSER SCRUTINY

Besides announcing the $35 million fine, officials said that GM
will come under closer scrutiny by federal regulators.

The automaker will be required to hold regular meetings with NHTSA
to report on efforts to catch safety problems and it also must
give the agency monthly reports on any emerging defect issues.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut criticized
NHTSA for failing to spot the defect earlier.  "There is no
question NHTSA bears part of the blame, a large part," he said.

The faulty ignition switches on Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and
other GM vehicles can cause their engines to stall, which in turn
prevents air bags from deploying during crashes.  Also, power
steering and power brakes do not operate when the ignition switch
unexpectedly moves from the "on" position to the "accessory"
position.

The fine is far from the end of GM's problems.

Congress, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and several states are conducting their own
investigations, and GM's internal probe is expected to be
completed within the next two weeks.  The company is also weighing
whether and how to broadly compensate victims.

Carl Tobias, who teaches tort and product liability law at the
University of Richmond School of Law, said that while the NHTSA
probe is separate from the ongoing criminal investigation, "I
think it plays back on the DOJ investigation and I'm sure they
will take it into account."

He added that GM's admission that it failed to make a timely
report of the ignition defect could increase the company's
exposure to civil lawsuits "principally because people could have
gotten hurt in the interim when GM wasn't making sufficient and
timely reports to NHTSA."

The consumer group Center for Auto Safety called the $35 million
fine a "slap on the wrist to a hundred billion dollar
corporation."  It called on the Justice Department to impose a
fine of at least $1 billion on GM.

SHAKEUP

GM in recent months has been trying to demonstrate that it is
taking quality issues seriously, shaking up its internal safety
team and taking other steps that it says will help protect
consumers.  But consumer advocates have accused GM of resisting
moves such as urging owners of the recalled cars to park them
immediately until they are repaired.

Under the steps announced by the government on May 16, GM also
agreed to take part in "unprecedented oversight requirements,"
including providing full access to its internal investigation and
notifying the government of any changes to GM's effort to make
repair parts, the government said.

Transportation Secretary Foxx and NHTSA also used the May 16
announcement to push Congress to reset the maximum financial
penalty to $300 million from $35 million.  Prospects for passage
of such legislation this year are uncertain.

In a statement, GM confirmed it would pay the fine.

"We are working hard to improve our ability to identify and
respond to safety issues," said Jeff Boyer, vice president of
Global Vehicle Safety, who is assigned to integrate safety
policies across the company.

The May 16 announcement on GM came a day after the automaker
announced five separate recalls covering nearly 3 million vehicles
worldwide because of tail lamp malfunctions and potential faulty
brakes.


GOODMAN GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Defective Air Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq., at Tycko & Zavareei LLP reports that a
class action lawsuit filed against Goodman Global, Inc., and
certain affiliated companies, alleges that central air
conditioning units and heat pumps sold under the Goodman(R) and
Amana(R) brands since 2007 are defective.  In particular, the
plaintiff contends in his lawsuit that these units have defective
evaporator coils.

Evaporator coils are generally located inside a consumer's home
and they are essential to the proper functioning of any central
air conditioning system or heat pump.  According to the lawsuit,
Goodman and Amana central air conditioning and heat pump systems
contain defective evaporator coils that improperly and prematurely
leak refrigerant (a.k.a. Freon(R)).  The defect allegedly renders
the systems inoperable because the cooling cycle will not work
without refrigerant.

Although Goodman sells these units with a warranty, that warranty
is limited in a way that provides insignificant protection to
owners of the units.  In particular, the Goodman warranty, by its
terms, covers replacement parts, but not the labor costs
associated with the replacement.  According to the lawsuit, the
result is that, when a defective evaporator coil fails, Goodman
provides the owner with a replacement coil, but does not pay to
have the old coil removed or the replacement coil installed.  As
alleged in the lawsuit, those labor costs typically run in the
hundreds of dollars, and in some cases, thousands of dollars.
Thus, in at least some instances, the owner is forced to spend as
much or more to replace the defective evaporator coil as the cost
to purchase a new Goodman unit.

The complaint also alleges that Goodman has known that its units
sold since 2007 contained defective evaporator coils, but the
company failed to inform consumers about the problem or issue a
recall.  Indeed, according to the lawsuit, Goodman continued to
tout the quality of its air conditioning systems -- claiming they
were durable, dependable, and long lasting -- even though it was
aware that the defective evaporator coils would cause the units to
fail prematurely and at rates far above the industry average.

The lead plaintiff in the case acquired his Goodman unit when he
purchased his new house in September 2011.  According to the
lawsuit, in or about July 2013, after only one summer of use, the
unit stopped cooling the plaintiff's home.  A service technician
allegedly found that the unit was low on refrigerant and added
four pounds of refrigerant, which immediately leaked out of the
system.  After observing this, the technician determined that the
evaporator coil was leaking and needed to be replaced.  According
to the complaint, the service technician returned the old
defective evaporator and replaced it with a new one, charging
plaintiff approximately $650 for this service.

The civil action was filed in North Carolina state court on behalf
of all consumers in North Carolina that purchased a central air
conditioning unit or heat pump bearing the trade names Goodman(R)
and Amana(R) from 2007 to the present.


GOOGLE INC: Unit Recalls 440,000 Smoke Detectors in U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------
Alexei Oreskovic, writing for Reuters, reports that Google Inc.'s
Nest Labs is recalling 440,000 smoke detectors, according to a
U.S. government notice on May 21 that provides the first public
revelation of how many of the smart home appliances have shipped
since sales started in November.

Nest, which Google acquired earlier this year for $3.2 billion,
shipped 440,000 of its smoke alarms in the United States between
Nov. 15 and April, according to figures contained in a notice by
the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Nest halted sales of the
smoke alarms in April after it discovered a defect that could
cause users to turn it off unintentionally.

The notice said the recall affected roughly 440,000 units of the
$130 Nest Protect sold in the United States at retailers and on
the Nest website between Nov. 15 and April 3.

Nest spokesperson Ha Thai said the company does not disclose sales
figures and said that the Protect product will be available again
"in a few weeks."

Nest has provided few details about sales of its Protect smoke and
carbon monoxide alarm or its 2-year-old smart thermostat, which
has earned positive reviews for its sleek look and its ability to
help consumers reduce their energy bills.

Tony Fadell, the company's founder, was quoted in media reports in
December saying that "tens of thousands" of the Protect devices
had been activated in the first nine days of its availability in
the United States, Canada and Britain.

Carl Purvis, a spokesman with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, said the number of units cited in the recall referred
to the full production run, including products sold to consumers
as well as products shipped to retailers.

Nest said in April that a special feature in its Protect alarm,
which allows a user to switch off the device with a wave of the
hand, could be inadvertently activated under certain
circumstances.  The company said it would immediately deactivate
the feature on all smoke alarms that are WiFi-connected while it
worked on a software update to fix the defect.  The company also
halted all sales of the smoke alarms to prevent customers from
buying a device that would need an immediate patch.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission notice said Nest has
received no reports of incidents, injuries or property damage.

Google's January acquisition of Nest represented the second-
largest deal in the Internet search company's history.  The deal
positioned Google to play a bigger role in the market for smart
home appliances at a time when an increasing array of electronic
devices are being designed to connect to the Internet.

According to The Associated Press, government regulators on May 21
said that they have approved Nest Labs' plans to fix a feature in
its smoke alarms that could prevent them from sounding
immediately.

Nest says the device must be connected to the Internet and linked
to an account for an automatic update.

Consumers whose devices are already connected should confirm
receipt of the update by going to "Nest Sense" on their account
and ensuring the button for "Nest Wave" is set to off and grayed
out.  Those who have not connected their devices to a wireless
network and a Nest account should do so.  The devices will then be
automatically updated and consumers should take the aforementioned
steps to ensure the update is complete.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Silsby"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case Silsby v. Icahn et
al., according to Icahn Enterprises L.P.'s's May 7, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Silsby v.
Icahn et al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of
Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") and certain of its directors. As initially
filed, the action purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between
September 2011 and March 2012.  The complaint alleges violations
of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making
false and misleading statements in securities filings which
statements artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The
individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons
of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount.
Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for
bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of
Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has
filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities
between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012.  the company believe that
it has meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion to
dismiss on July 19, 2013. On April 30, 2014, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and the case was dismissed with
prejudice.  Plaintiff has 30 days in which to file an appeal.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Bristol Park Community Sue Over Flooding
-------------------------------------------------------------
NorthEscambia.com reports that several homeowners in the Bristol
Park neighborhood have filed suit against International Paper over
the severe flooding in their neighborhood.  The class action
lawsuit, filed on May 13, claims that a breach in an International
Paper levee on Eleven Mile Creek sent a rush of water down the
creek, making the flooding far worse.

"We've heard stories from people of a large rush of water.  When
you talk to more and more people there was a sudden increase of
water that came into their neighborhoods people were not expecting
this and it was rushing through their houses and rushing over
their cars," attorney J.J. Talbott said.

The lawsuit claims that between 10:30 and 11:30 p.m., a large
"swell" or "wave" of water breached and overflowed into Eleven
Mile Creek, including the Bristol Park and Ashbury Hills
subdivisions, Devine Farms Road and other surrounding areas, as a
result of International Paper's dam or levee.  Both residential
areas are located in "Flood Zone X" on flood insurance maps,
meaning they are not in special flood hazard areas and require no
mandatory flood insurance.

The failure, the lawsuit asserts, was the result of IP's
negligence in maintaining the Eleven Mile Creek Dam and levee,
failure to counteract continued development, failed to control
debris buildup in and around the dam, and of a failure to notify
those downstream of the potential or ultimate failure of the levee
system.  The lawsuit seeks damages for loss and damage to personal
and real property, diminished property values, loss of enjoyment,
mental anguish, loss of income and additional expenses due to the
flooding in the neighborhoods.

International Paper responded to the lawsuit in a written
statement released on May 13 to NorthEscambia.com:
"On April 29, 2014, the Pensacola Mill experienced the storm/flood
event that the rest of the county experienced.  There was
significant erosion and wash-out of an inactive erosion control
structure near Kingsfield Road.  The structure was previously used
to control erosion at this now abandoned outfall point, but it has
been out of service since the mill completed transition to the
pipeline in October of 2012.

"Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have
been directly affected by the area floods.  Many of our team
members were impacted by this event.  On April 29, record storm
water flows from across the entire 48-square mile watershed of
Elevenmile creek rapidly exceeded the capacity of the creek.
During and after the storm, the Pensacola mill continued to
discharge to our pipeline, which bypasses the Elevenmile creek
watershed.  No part of the mill's waste treatment facility failed
or collapsed during or after the storm event. We have fully
communicated with both state and local agencies regarding the
impacts of the storm on the Pensacola mill."


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: July Hearing Set in Bid to Junk Customer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046 are to be fully briefed by June 27,
2014 and heard by the District Court on July 29, 2014, according
to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29,
2014.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046. On August 24, 2009, the court
appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial
institutions.

On September 23, 2009, the financial institution plaintiffs filed
a Master Complaint in the MDL proceedings, which the company moved
to dismiss on October 23, 2009. On December 1, 2011, the Court
entered an order granting in part the company's motion to dismiss
the financial institution plaintiffs' master complaint against us,
but allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend to re-plead certain
claims. Plaintiffs elected not to file an amended complaint. The
parties then jointly moved for the entry of final judgment on
those claims in the master complaint that the Court had dismissed.
On August 16, 2012, the Court entered final judgment on the
dismissed claims and, on September 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal from that final judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On September 12, 2012,
Plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of the remaining
claims pending before the District Court. Briefing on Plaintiffs'
appeal was complete on February 8, 2013. On September 3, 2013, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the
District Court, holding that the economic loss doctrine under New
Jersey law does not preclude the financial institution plaintiffs'
negligence claim at the motion to dismiss stage, but declined to
address in the first instance Heartland's other arguments for
affirming the District Court. The Fifth Circuit remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings. On March 14, 2014, the
District Court set a schedule for further proceedings. Limited
discovery on choice-of-law issues is to be completed by May 16,
2014. Motions to dismiss or for summary judgment are to be fully
briefed by June 27, 2014 and heard by the District Court on July
29, 2014.


KBR INC: Faces "Kohut" Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kohut, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. KBR, Inc., William P. Utt, Brian Ferraioli, and Susan
K. Carter, Case No. 4:14-cv-01287 (S.D. Tex., May 9, 2014) is
brought on behalf of purchasers of KBR securities between
April 25, 2013, and May 5, 2014, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

KBR is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas.
KBR is a global engineering, construction and services company
supporting the energy, hydrocarbons, power, minerals, civil
infrastructure, government services, industrial and commercial
market segments.  KBR offers services through its Gas
Monetization, Hydrocarbons, Infrastructure, Government and Power,
Services and other business segments.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
          800 Commerce Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-7211
          Facsimile: (713) 225-0827
          E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Elaine Chang, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  echang@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


KERR MCGEE: Removed "Whisenant" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Whisenant v. Kerr McGee Oil & Gas
Onshore LP, et al., Case No. CJ-2014-13, was removed from the
District Court of Beaver County to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City).  The Oklahoma
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00475-W to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          GUNDERSON SHARP & WALKE LLP
          5301 W 75th St.
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0500
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick M. Ryan, Esq.
          Phillip G. Whaley, Esq.
          RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON SHANDY PC
          119 N Robinson St., Suite 900
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239-6040
          Facsimile: (405) 239-6766
          E-mail: pryan@ryanwhaley.com
                  pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com


LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit against Ladenburg Thalmann
Financial Services Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida filed a notice of appeal against the
dismissal of the case, according to the company's May 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

In December 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
("District Court") against FriendFinder Networks, Inc.
("FriendFinder"), various individuals, Ladenburg and another
broker-dealer as underwriters for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinder
initial public offering. On June 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed its
second amended complaint, alleging that the defendants, including
Ladenburg, are liable for violations of federal securities laws.
The amended complaint did not specify the amount of damages
sought. In September 2013, FriendFinder filed a voluntary petition
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in federal bankruptcy
court in Delaware, and in December 2013, the bankruptcy court
confirmed the FriendFinder plan of reorganization. As a result,
the plaintiff is precluded from pursuing claims against
FriendFinder. On March 18, 2014, the District Court granted the
remaining defendants,' including Ladenburg's motions to dismiss
and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On April 15, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Inks MoU to Settle Calif. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle a securities suit filed in
the Superior Court of California for San Mateo County, according
to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29,
2014.

In December 2012, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certain
individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offering
of WEMU securities. The complaint alleges that the defendants,
including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of state securities
laws, and does not specify the amount of damages sought. On
January 27, 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding that, once memorialized in a settlement agreement
would be subject to court approval, resolve all claims in the
complaint. The amount expected to be paid by Ladenburg in
settlement was accrued at December 31, 2013.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Removed "Desantis" Suit to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Desantis v. Marriott
Vacations Worldwide Corp., et al., Case No. 2014-CA-003283-O, was
removed from the Orange County Circuit Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-00733-GAP-KRS to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks damages and relief from Marriott for using
alleged unfair, deceptive and unconscionable means to impair the
value and rights of Marriott Vacation Club members' timeshare
interests to extract more money for an "upgraded plan."

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. is a publicly traded
corporation headquartered in Orlando, Florida.  Marriott Vacations
owns and runs Marriott Vacation Club, Grand Residences by Marriott
and the Ritz-Carlton Destination Club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
          Raymond Barto, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
                  caitlin@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff Korek, Esq.
          GERSOWITZ LIBO & KOREK, P.C.
          111 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 285-4410
          Facsimile: (212) 385-4417
          E-mail: jkorek@lawyertime.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          Dawn Ivy Giebler-Millner, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          450 S Orange Ave., Suite 650
          PO Box 4923
          Orlando, FL 32802-4923
          Telephone: (407) 420-1000
          Facsimile: (407) 420-5909
          E-mail: gieblerd@gtlaw.com


METHODIST HOSPITAL: Sued for Failing to Properly Pay Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Corcione, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Methodist Hospital d/b/a Houston Methodist, Houston
Methodist Hospital, Houston Methodist-Texas Medical Center,
Methodist Hospital-Houston, Methodist Hospital-Texas Medical
Center, and Methodist Hospital System, Case No. 3:14-cv-00160
(S.D. Tex., May 9, 2014) implicates the alleged longstanding
policy of Methodist Hospital, which fails to properly compensate
non-exempt employees for work performed.

Methodist Hospital is a domestic, non-profit corporation.  The
Defendants operate a chain of hospitals that provides healthcare
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 West Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dhodges@kennedyhodges.com
                  gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Curtone" Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CUTRONE AND JESSICA CERVONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, NO.
14-455-CV is an appeal from an order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, holding the defendant-
appellant's notice of removal untimely and remanding this putative
class action to state court.  The district court concluded that
the plaintiffs' complaint contained sufficient information to put
MERS on notice of the size of the putative class and amount in
controversy to establish subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), and that MERS's notice of removal,
filed more than 30 days after receipt of the complaint, was
therefore untimely under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1).

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, on April 17,
2014, reversed and held that, in Class Action Fairness Act cases,
the 30-day removal periods of 28 U.S.C. Sections 1446(b)(1) and
(b)(3) are not triggered until the plaintiff serves the defendant
with an initial pleading or other paper that explicitly specifies
the amount of monetary damages sought or sets forth facts from
which an amount in controversy in excess of $5,000,000 can be
ascertained.  The Second Circuit, therefore, vacated the district
court's order remanding the case to state court and remanded the
case for proceedings consistent with its opinion, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/uHldwifrom Leagle.com.

CHARLES C. MARTORANA -- cmartorana@hblaw.com -- Hiscock & Barclay,
LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

ANDREW S. LOVE -- alove@rgrdlaw.com -- (Samuel H. Rudman, Mark S.
Reich, William J. Geddish, Susan K. Alexander, on the brief),
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, CA, and Melville,
NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


NATIONAL SPORTS: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond S. Tolson IV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Sports Services, Inc., and
Concordia Media Services, Case No. 1:14-cv-00442-LY (W.D. Tex.,
May 9, 2014) is brought to secure redress relating to the
Defendants' alleged willful violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by causing to be made unsolicited text message
calls to cellular telephones.

According to the complaint, the Defendants harvest cellular
telephone numbers for the purpose of transmitting SMS
advertisements to large groups of cellular subscribers.

National Sports Services, Inc., and Concordia Media Services are
Nevada corporations headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Brian B. Kilpatrick, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@crafthugheslaw.com
                  jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com
                  brian@hughesellzey.com


NBN COMMERCIAL: Has Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Gonzalez Perez and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. NBN Commercial Group, LLC, Jagjit S Hilvi
a/k/a Jagjit Nilvi, Case No. 3:14-cv-01726-P (N.D. Tex., May 9,
2014) alleges that the Defendants willfully and intentionally
refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

NBN Commercial Group, LLC, is a company that regularly transacts
business within Dallas County.  Jagjit S Hilvi, also known as
Jagjit Nilvi, is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is 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


NEVADA: To Discuss Class Action Over Health Insurance Exchange
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a state board overseeing
Nevada's bungled health insurance exchange was set to discuss
options to minimize the state's exposure in a class-action
lawsuit, including invoking a contract provision that could put
the legal onus on Xerox.

The board was on May 20 scheduled to discuss the lawsuit filed in
Clark County on behalf of hundreds of consumers who claim they
paid for health insurance but didn't receive coverage and were
left with big medical bills.

Discussion comes as the Las Vegas lawyer who filed the lawsuit
said on May 14 he'll seek a court order requiring the state or
Xerox to provide immediate coverage for several people struggling
with serious illness.

"These patients are suffering life-and-death consequences now,"
attorney Matthew Callister said.  Mr. Callister, a former Las
Vegas councilman and Democratic lawmaker who served in both the
state Assembly and Senate, said about 200 people have joined the
lawsuit so far.

Xerox was awarded a $75 million contract to build and operate
Nevada's online exchange, Nevada Health Link, which has been
plagued by billing and computer errors since it went live Oct. 1.
Xerox is paid as it meets performance benchmarks and to date has
received about $12 million, most of it related to a Henderson call
center.

A provision in the contract states that to the fullest extent
permitted by law, Xerox "shall indemnify, hold harmless and
defend" the state from liability.

"The board is going to request that Xerox provide defense and
indemnify the state of any consequences stemming from the class
action lawsuit filed in Clark County," exchange spokesman
CJ Bawden said on May 14.

Xerox, when asked for comment, issued a statement staying it will
"await the appropriate legal venue to respond to any of the
matters raised by Mr. Callister."

"We will let the facts of these matters come out at the
appropriate time and place.  In the meantime, we continue focusing
our energies and resources on getting all aspects of the Nevada
Health Link system right and helping as many Nevadans as possible
get health insurance," the statement said.

Because of myriad website problems, the state authorized a special
enrollment period for anyone who attempted but failed to
successfully complete their application by the March 31 deadline.

That grace period ends May 30.  As of May 10, the exchange said
47,245 Nevadans have selected plans and about 35,034 have paid
premiums.  Those enrollment numbers are far fewer than the 118,000
initially projected.

The board could also decide at the meeting whether to keep Xerox
as the operator and fix the system in time for the next open
enrollment period this fall; go with a successful system used in
another state; solicit a new bid; or join the federal health
exchange.  But that last option would require action by the state
Legislature, which doesn't convene until February -- after the
next enrollment period closes.

Steve Fisher, interim director of the exchange, and others were
meeting with federal officials in Washington, D.C., to discuss
Nevada's alternatives.


OPPENHEIMER CALIFORNIA: July 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued on May 13 by The Shuman Law Firm:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Master Docket No. 09-md-02063-JLK-KMT

IN RE: OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER FUNDS GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:
All Actions Except Those Involving: The Oppenheimer California
Municipal Fund

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS
OF CLASS ACTIONS AND SUMMARY NOTICE OF MOTION FOR AWARDS
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

TO:
All Persons Who Purchased or Acquired Shares of One or More of the
Following Oppenheimer or Rochester Mutual Funds (collectively, the
"Funds"):

1. Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals Fund (the "AMT-Free Fund")
between May 13, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive;

2. Oppenheimer AMT-Free New York Municipal Fund (the "AMT-Free New
York Fund") between May 21, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive;

3. Oppenheimer Rochester National Municipal Fund (the "National
Fund") between March 13, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive;

4. Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund (the "New Jersey Fund")
between April 24, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive;

5. Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund (the "Pennsylvania
Fund") between September 27, 2006 and November 26, 2008,
inclusive; and

6. Rochester Fund Municipals (the "Rochester Fund") between
February 26, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive.

You Could Receive a Payment from One or More of the Six Class
Action Settlements Relating to These Funds (Collectively, the
"Settlements").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, that a hearing will
be held on July 31, 2014 at 10 a.m. before the Honorable John L.
Kane at the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th
Street, Denver, Colorado, for the purpose of determining, among
other things: (1) whether the proposed Settlements of the claims
in the six separate actions involving the Oppenheimer Rochester
Funds listed above (the "Actions") for the total sum of
$89,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate (see the table below for the settlement
amounts for each Fund); (2) whether the Actions should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Settlements; (3) whether the Distribution Plan for
distributing the proceeds of the Settlements should be approved;
and (4) whether the applications of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in
connection with the Actions, including awards to the
representative class plaintiffs in the Actions, should be
approved.

Your rights may be affected by the Settlements of these Actions if
you purchased or acquired any of the following classes of shares
from the Funds listed below during the applicable time periods:

Fund & Settlement Amount

AMT-Free Fund
$17,109,000

AMT-Free New York Fund
$4,241,000

National Fund
$26,850,000

New Jersey Fund
$3,374,000

Pennsylvania Fund
$4,341,000

Rochester Fund
$33,585,000


Share Classes & Ticker
Symbols

A, B, or C shares (OPTAX,
OTFBX or OMFCX)

A, B, or C shares (OPNYX,
ONYBX or ONYCX)

A, B, or C shares (ORNAX,
ORNBX, or ORNCX)

A, B, or C shares (ONJAX,
ONJBX or ONJCX)

A, B, or C shares (OPATX,
OPABX or OPACX)

A, B, C, or Y shares
(RMUNX, RMUBX,
RMUCX, or RMUYX)

Time Period

May 13, 2006 through
October 21, 2008, inclusive

May 21, 2006 through
October 21, 2008, inclusive

March 13, 2006 through
October 21, 2008, inclusive

April 24, 2006 through
October 21, 2008, inclusive

September 27, 2006 through
November 26, 2008, inclusive

February 26, 2006 through
October 21, 2008, inclusive

If you have not already received a copy of the Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlements of Class Actions and Notice of Motion for
Awards of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses (the
"Notice"), go to www.oppenheimersettlement.com or write to:
Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 3518, Portland, OR 97208-3518. The Notice
contains additional important information.

To qualify for a payment, you must be an eligible Class Member.
NOTE: Class Members who held shares in the Funds directly through
Oppenheimer do not need to submit a Proof of Claim form ("Proof of
Claim").  Class Members who invested in the Funds through a
broker-dealer or other intermediary must submit a Proof of Claim,
postmarked no later than August 28, 2014, to the address contained
in the Proof of Claim.  If you are a member of one of the classes
and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim, where required, then you
may not receive a payment from the Settlements, but nevertheless,
you will be bound by the final judgment(s) entered by the Court in
connection with the Settlements, and claims that you might have
will be dismissed or released, unless you take the steps necessary
to exclude yourself from the Classes.

Any objection to the Settlements or the motion for the award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, including awards to
the representative class plaintiffs, must be postmarked no later
than July 2, 2014 and mailed to the following persons:

1.

Clerk of the Court
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse
Room A105
901 19th Street
Denver, Colorado 80294-3589

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel:

2.

Kip B. Shuman
The Shuman Law Firm
885 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80302


Defendants' Counsel:

3.

Matthew L. Larrabee
Dechert LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Defendants' Counsel:

4.

Arthur H. Aufses III
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlements, you
must exclude yourself by July 2, 2014, or you will not be able to
sue, or continue to sue, Defendants about the legal claims in the
Actions.  If you exclude yourself, you cannot get money from the
Settlements.  The detailed Notice explains how to exclude yourself
or to object.  Any request for exclusion from the Classes must be
postmarked no later than July 2, 2014 and mailed to:

Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation
EXCLUSIONS
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 3518
Portland, OR 97208-3518

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlements, you
may contact Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs at the addresses listed in
the Notice or the Claims Administrator at the toll free number
(877) 273-9532 or via email at info@oppenheimersettlement.com or
visit www.oppenheimersettlement.com for more information.

By Order of the Court United States District Court District of
Colorado


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Certified Securities Suit Continues in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The certified securities suit KB Partners I, L.P., Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pain
Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and Peter S.
Roddy continues in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On December 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed against
the company and the company's executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of
allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made
by the company regarding REMOXY's development and regulatory
status during the purported class period, February 3, 2011 through
June 23, 2011. The complaint states that monetary damages are
being sought, but no amounts are specified. On June 3, 2013, the
Court certified a class consisting of all purchasers of the
company's common stock and a class period of December 27, 2010
through June 26, 2011.


PEPCO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Proposed Merger with Exelon
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed on behalf of public
stockholders challenging its proposed merger with Exelon
Corporation, according to the company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 29, 2014.

Pending or potential future litigation against PHI and its
directors challenging the proposed Merger may prevent the Merger
from being completed within the anticipated timeframe.

PHI and its directors have been named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuit filed by a plaintiff on behalf of herself and
other public stockholders challenging the proposed Merger and
seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms. If a plaintiff
in this or any other litigation that may be filed in the future is
successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties from
completing the Merger on the terms contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, the injunction may prevent the completion of the Merger
in the expected timeframe or altogether. While PHI believes that
this lawsuit is without merit and will not succeed, and intends to
vigorously defend itself in this matter, the pending litigation
creates additional uncertainty relating to the consummation of the
Merger.


PLIMUS INC: Renewed Class Cert. Motion in "Yordy" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson denied a renewed motion for
class certification in the case captioned KIMBERLY YORDY,
Plaintiff, v. PLIMUS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-00229-THE,
(N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the April 15, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/RJzrALfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Henderson found that Ms. Yordy failed to establish that
there is a common contention that "is central to the validity of
each of the claims" and that can be resolved across the class. She
has failed to establish Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, he
added.

Kimberly Yordy, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Stephen Eisen --
meisen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Christopher Dore, Edelson PC,
Christopher Lillard Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- Edelson PC &
Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

Plimus, Inc, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by
Nickolas Alexander Kacprowski -- nickolas.kacprowski@kirkland.com
-- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jeffrey L. William, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Jordan Mitchell Heinz -- jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP & Sylvia Nichole Winston -- sylvia.winston@kirkland.com
-- Kirkland & Ellis LLP.


POWER BALANCE: Case Mgmt. Conf. in CFC Suit Reset to June 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen ruled on a request to vacate a case
management conference in the lawsuit captioned C.F.C., minor, by
and through CHRISTINE F., his parent and guardian, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. POWER
BALANCE LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company. Defendants,
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-00487-EMC, (N.D. Cal.) in light of ongoing
automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.

Power Balance, LLC has filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition for
relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central
District of California. It also filed a Notice of Pending Chapter
11 Bankruptcy and Notice of Automatic Stay in this court.  In
light of the ongoing automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code Section
362(a) and the Plaintiff's intent to dismiss the case, the
Plaintiff requested that the Court vacate the Case Management
Conference that was scheduled for April 24, 2014, and reset it to
a date in June 2014.

"It is so ordered," ruled Judge Chen in his April 21, 2014 order,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/gmSgdUfrom
Leagle.com.

LEXINGTON LAW GROUP, Mark N. Todzo -- mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com --
Howard Hirsch, San Francisco, CA.

Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT
LLP, San Diego, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, C.F.C., a minor, by
and through Christine F., his parent and guardian.


QEP RESOURCES: Appeal Court Reinstates Claims in Gatti v. La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and
reinstated plaintiffs' claims in the suit Gatti et al v. State of
Louisiana et al, 589,350, according to QEP Resources, Inc.'s May
7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

Gatti et al v. State of Louisiana et al, 589,350, 19th JDC, Parish
of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In this putative class action
arising out of the unitization practices and orders of the
Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation (Commissioner), plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of all Haynesville Shale mineral owners
(alleged to be over 50,000 in number) against the Commissioner and
all Haynesville Shale unit operators. Plaintiffs filed their
complaint on April 8, 2010, and claim that the Commissioner
exceeded his statutory authority in creating and perpetuating
units larger than the area that can be efficiently and
economically drained by a single well. They seek declaratory
relief that would nullify all such improper orders, along with an
unspecified amount of monetary damages from the unit operators
sufficient to compensate the putative class members for the
alleged dilution of their true interest in unit production as a
result of "oversized" units and the "cloud on title" caused by
having excessive and improperly sized units purport to hold their
mineral leases via unit operations. All defendants filed
exceptions to the plaintiffs' petition on the primary ground that
plaintiffs had failed to comply with the exclusive statutory
judicial review procedure (Louisiana Revised Statutes 30:12),
which the trial court granted, dismissing the action in its
entirety. On January 15, 2014, the Louisiana First Circuit Court
of Appeal reversed and reinstated plaintiffs' claims. Defendants
intend to seek review of the Louisiana Supreme Court, which review
is discretionary.


QEP RESOURCES: "Gagne" Plaintiffs Pursue Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------
The fourth amended motion to bring as a class action, the suit
Yannick Gagne and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources,
Inc., No. 480-06-1-132 pending in the Superior Court, Province of
Quebec, Canada, was filed on February 19, 2014, according to the
company's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained
damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and
property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a
class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous
defendants. The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer
defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in
North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it on the
derailed train. The allegations are that QEP and the producer
defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the oil was
adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors,
knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors
or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate
well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of
the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for
the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was
properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the
train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to
adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to
the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but
specific monetary damages are not asserted.


QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Class Action in Florida Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida man on
May 11 brought a class action against home mortgage lender Quicken
Loans Inc. in Florida federal court, saying the company repeatedly
called his cellphone using contact information purchased from a
credit reporting bureau in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Christopher Legg claims that Quicken acquired "trigger leads" --
contact information for people who recently had their credit
history investigated by rival mortgage lenders -- and then
violated the TCPA by calling them using an autodialer, which can
randomly and sequentially generate telephone numbers and dial them
by itself.

Mr. Legg says Quicken called him several times in January and
February 2013 without his prior consent using an autodialer,
playing a prerecorded message or both.  The company made cold
calls to more than 100 people who were not customers of the
company in January 2013, using an autodialer after obtaining phone
numbers from sources other than the recipients, such as Experian
PLC and other credit reporting agencies that advertise the sale of
trigger leads, the complaint alleges.

"Many of these individuals were called more than once, and
Defendant lacks a sufficiently adequate system for limiting the
number of autodialed or prerecorded calls to cellular phones for
which it does not have prior express permission to call," the
complaint states.

The caller ID numbers for the calls usually showed up differently,
with various area codes, but each of them linked to Quicken, the
complaint says.  The calls, which numbered in the thousands, would
sometimes involve Quicken employees attempting to sell the
company's products, according to the complaint.

Mr. Legg is seeking treble damages per knowing or willful
violation of the TCPA for each member of the putative class or
$1,500 per violation.  The class would comprise all U.S. residents
who received a cellphone call, without having given out their
numbers, within the past four years from Quicken that was made
with an autodialer or played an artificial or prerecorded voice
message.

A Quicken spokesman slammed the lawsuit, saying the claims are
meritless.

"Quicken Loans has always followed all applicable laws related to
contacting our clients.  We believe this claim is completely
baseless," the spokesman said.  "This is simply another case of
'gotcha' that greedy class action attorneys spring on job-
producing companies in hopes of extorting a settlement. . . . We
plan to vigorously defend this case and expect it to be quickly
dismissed."

The plaintiff is represented by Scott David Owens and Patrick
Christopher Crotty of The Law Office of Scott D. Owens and
Alexander H. Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC.

The case is Christopher Legg v. Quicken Loans Inc., case number
0:14-cv-61116, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.


SEALED AIR: Grace Suit Over Asbestos-Containing Products Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed putative class
proceedings filed as a result of W. R. Grace & Co.'s marketing,
selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering
asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada, according to
Sealed Air Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2014.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the
case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File
No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. were also named as
defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class
proceeding and sought recovery for alleged injuries suffered by
any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as
a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff
filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as
defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right
of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et
al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), sought the recovery of the cost of
insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of
Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the
Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its
subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as
well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R.
Grace & Co. - Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. -
Conn. agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company
and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense,
including legal fees and costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the "Canadian
Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States
of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation
and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In
November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions. The parties finalized a
global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims
against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has
subsequently been amended (the "Canadian Settlement"), will be
entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on
December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. The company
does not have any positive obligations under the Canadian
Settlement, but it is a beneficiary of the release of claims. The
release in favor of the Grace parties (including us) became
operative upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in
Grace's United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As filed,
the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims released under
the Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. As indicated, the
Bankruptcy Court entered the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order
on January 31, 2011 and the Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011
and the District Court entered the Original District Court
Confirmation Order on January 30, 2012 and the Amended District
Court Confirmation Order on June 11, 2012. The Canadian Court
issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full
effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all
provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms.

The PI Settlement Plan became effective on February 3, 2014. In
accordance with the December 31, 2009 order of the Canadian court,
on the Effective Date the actions became permanently stayed until
they are amended to remove the Grace parties as named defendants.
The actions in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench were dismissed
by the Manitoba court as against the Grace parties on February 19,
2014 and it is anticipated that the remaining actions will now
also be dismissed.


SELECTION MANAGEMENT: Removed "Greco" Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Greco v. Selection Management
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00085074-CU-BT-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01174-JM-NLS to the proceeding.

The case asserts personal injury claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tim Jude Vanden Heuvel, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-1006
          Facsimile: (619) 233-8627
          E-mail: tim.vandenheuvel@lewisbrisbois.com


SPRINT CORP: 3rd Cir. Affirms Ruling in Sales Practices Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: SPRINT PREMIUM DATA PLAN MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION Michael Peggins; James Hanks; David Salvatierra,
Appellants, NO. 12-4628, Michael Peggins, James Hanks, and David
Salvatierra appealed a district court's order enjoining them from
continuing an action filed in California state court, captioned
Michael Peggins and James Hanks v. Sprint Solutions, et al., Case
No. 37-2012-00097719-CU-MC-CTL, Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego. The order was entered pursuant to
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, and the Anti-Injunction
Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2283.

The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, on April 16,
2014, affirmed the district court's ruling and found that the
district court, in its thorough and thoughtful December 5, 2012,
Opinion in support of its Order granting the injunction, fully and
completely explained why the injunction it issued pursuant to the
All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act was necessary in aid of
its jurisdiction.  A copy of the Third Circuit's decision is
available at http://is.gd/JVpvJBfrom Leagle.com.


TASTEE KREME: Does Not Pay Delivery Drivers Overtime, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Daniel Esparza and Salomon Cortez, Individually and on
behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Tastee Kreme #2,
Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01293 (S.D. Tex., May 9, 2014) alleges that
Tastee Kreme does not pay its ice cream delivery drivers overtime.

Tastee Kreme's delivery drivers, including the Plaintiffs, deliver
pre-ordered ice cream shipments to retail vendors and collect the
payment for same.

Tastee Kreme #2, Inc. is a Texas corporation doing business in the
state of Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          Andrew H. Iwata, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1720
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com
                  ahi@tranlawllp.com

               - and -

          Steven E. Petrou, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN PETROU
          11107 McCracken Lane, Suite A
          Cypress, TX 77429
          Telephone: (281) 970-8555
          Facsimile: (281) 970-8559
          E-mail: petrou101@aol.com


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

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

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

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

If you purchased a TelexFree membership and you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
May 14, 2014 (no later than July 14, 2014).  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed class.

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

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


TELLABS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on May 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, case no. 1:13-cv-07945, on behalf
of stockholders of Tellabs, Inc. who held (and continue to hold)
Tellabs securities acquired on or before October 21, 2013, the day
the Company agreed to be acquired, via a tender offer, by Marlin
Equity Partners, and its affiliates Blackhawk Holding Vehicle, LLC
and Blackhawk Merger Sub Inc. (collectively, "Marlin").

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/tellabs

The complaint charges Tellabs, its board of directors, and Marlin
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and breaches of fiduciary duties under state law.

On October 21, 2013, Tellabs announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement whereby Marlin would acquire all of Tellabs's
outstanding stock, pursuant to a tender offer, for $2.45 per share
in cash (the "Tender Offer").  The Tender Offer closed at 11:59
p.m., New York City time on December 2, 2013 and was followed by a
short-form merger, which paid the shareholders who had not
previously tendered the $2.45 per share.

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and/or aided and abetted such breaches in connection with
the Tender Offer by conducting a flawed sales process designed to
deliver the Company to Marlin and provide material benefits to
Company insiders.

Further, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the
Tender Offer, on November 1, 2013, Tellabs filed a materially
false and misleading recommendation statement (the "Recommendation
Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Recommendation Statement, which recommended that Tellabs'
stockholders tender their shares, omitted and/or misrepresented
material information in contravention of Sections 14(e) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The omitted information was material to the
impending decision of Tellabs shareholders on whether or not to
tender their shares and/or whether to seek appraisal for their
shares.

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 14, 2014.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                     (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Harlan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, has sued North Shore Agency, Inc., for alleged violation
of the provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692-1692p, that requires debt collectors to
provide a notice of validation rights -- i.e., notice of the
consumer's right to challenge the claimed debt, and how -- in
certain debt collection communications. North Shore filed a Motion
to Dismiss.

In an amended memorandum dated April 14, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/UR80tFfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Gene E.K. Pratter denied North Shore's Motion to Dismiss saying
Ms. Harlan has moved for no relief.  Given, additionally, the
class action components of her Complaint, the Court can take no
further action at this time, he said.  North Shore shall answer
the Complaint within the time required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Judge Pratter added.

The case is DENISE HARLAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC.,
d/b/a, NORTH SHORE AGENCY, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-
5882, (E.D. Penn.).

DENISE HARLAN, Plaintiff, represented by:

   ANDREW M. MILZ, Esq.
   CARY L. FLITTER, Esq.
   FLITTER LORENZ, P.C.
   450 N Narberth Ave.
   Narberth, PA 19072
   Telephone: (610) 266-7863

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, represented by AARON R.
EASLEY -- aeasley@sessions-law.biz -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN &
ISRAEL LLC.


UDREN LAW: Faces Suit Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudette Pollock, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Udren Law Offices, P.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-21711-PAS
(S.D. Fla., May 9, 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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Darla Lynn Grondin, Esq.
          UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          2101 West Commercial Blvd., Suite 5000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 378-1768
          E-mail: dgrondin@udren.com


ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Sued by Class of UPMC Workers Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Patrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., and UPMC d/b/a The
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC McKeesport, Case No.
2:14-cv-00602-MBC (W.D. Pa., May 9, 2014) is brought on behalf of
all UPMC workers, whose personal and financial information was
allegedly stolen from the computer systems of UPMC or Ultimate,
the vendor to which UPMC outsourced its human resources operations
during the Class Period.

Headquartered in Weston, Florida, The Ultimate Software Group,
Inc. is a provider of cloud-based human capital management
solutions.  Ultimate Software's "UltiPro" solution is a cloud-
based platform that delivers human capital management to
organizations across all industries.  UltiPro provides Ultimate's
customers with a system of record for human resources, payroll,
and talent management.

UPMC, doing business as the University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center, is an integrated global health enterprise, and one of the
leading nonprofit health systems in the United States.  UPMC is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  UPMC is the parent
corporation of approximately 35 subsidiaries, including UPMC
McKeesport and various other subsidiary hospital entities.  UPMC
outsources its payroll and human resources operations to Ultimate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Kraemer, Esq.
          David M. Manes, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          KRAEMER, MANES & ASSOCIATES LLC
          US Steel Tower
          600 Grant Street, Suite 660
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 626-5626
          Facsimile: (412) 637-0232
          E-mail: m@lawkm.com
                  david@lawkm.com
                  elizabeth@lawkm.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. , Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Sunshine R. Fellows, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
                  sfellows@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Uncertain on Effect of Antitrust Suit Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
The effect of a proposed settlement to resolve In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation on the
value of Umpqua Bank's Class B common stock is unknown at this
time, according to Umpqua Holdings Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Umpqua Bank owns 468,659 shares of Class B common stock of Visa
Inc. which are convertible into Class A common stock at a
conversion ratio of 0.4206 per Class A share. As of March 31,
2014, the value of the Class A shares was $215.86 per share.
Utilizing the conversion ratio, the value of unredeemed Class A
equivalent shares owned by the Bank was $42.5 million as of March
31, 2014, and has not been reflected in the accompanying financial
statements. The shares of Visa Inc. Class B common stock are
restricted and may not be transferred. Visa member banks are
required to fund an escrow account to cover settlements,
resolution of pending litigation and related claims. If the funds
in the escrow account are insufficient to settle all the covered
litigation, Visa Inc. may sell additional Class A shares and use
the proceeds to settle litigation, thereby reducing the conversion
ratio.  If funds remain in the escrow account after all litigation
is settled, the Class B conversion ratio will be increased to
reflect that surplus.

On July 13, 2012, Visa Inc. announced that it had entered into a
memorandum of understanding obligating it to enter into a
settlement agreement to resolve the multi-district interchange
litigation brought by the class plaintiffs in the matter styled In
re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 5-MD-1720 (JG) (JO) pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The claims
originally were brought by a class of U.S. retailers in 2005. The
settlement was approved by the Court on December 13, 2013.
However, the decision of the Court which granted approval to
settlement is currently being appealed. Visa's share of the
settlement to be paid is estimated to be approximately $4.4
billion. However, certain trade associations and merchants are
actively opposing the proposed settlement and it is unknown when
or if the proposed settlement will be approved.  A fairness
hearing was held on September 12, 2013 to determine if the
settlement will be finally approved. It is not known when the
Court will issue an order related to the motion for final approval
of the settlement. The effect of this proposed settlement on the
value of the Bank's Class B common stock is unknown at this time.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Bank Reaches Settlement in "Hawthorne" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Bank reached a settlement in a suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Amber
Hawthorne, according to Umpqua Holdings Corporation's May 7, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In its Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011, the
company initially reported on a class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Umpqua Bank by Amber Hawthorne relating to overdraft fees
and the posting order of point of sale and ACH items.  In March
2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
case on a class basis, subject to execution of a comprehensive
written settlement agreement. Once executed, the settlement
agreement will be presented to the court for preliminary approval.
Settlement of this matter on the agreed terms will have no
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Has MoU to Settle Suit Over Sterling Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation executed a Memorandum of Understanding
that contains the essential terms of a settlement and dismissal of
the consolidated cases over the Sterling Financial Corporation
merger, according to Umpqua's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In the company's Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2013, the company initially reported on two separate class action
lawsuits filed in Spokane County, Washington, Superior Court
against the Company and other defendants arising from the proposed
Sterling merger. The court consolidated the cases before a single
judge for further administration. The consolidated litigation
generally alleges that directors of Sterling breached their duties
to the Sterling shareholders by approving the Merger, failing to
take steps to maximize shareholder value, engaging in a flawed
sales process, and agreeing to deal protection provisions in the
Merger agreement that are alleged to unduly favor the Company. The
Company is alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of duty. The consolidated litigation also alleges that the
disclosures approved by the Sterling board in connection with the
Merger and the vote thereon are false and misleading in various
respects. As relief, the complaints sought to enjoin the Merger
and seek, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount and
payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants
believe that the lawsuits are without merit.

On January 16, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") that contains the essential terms of a
settlement and dismissal of the consolidated cases. The MOU does
not call for the payment of any money damages, but required the
defendants to make certain additional disclosures relating to the
Merger and to pay the attorney fees, costs, and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel incurred in connection with the action. The
agreed additional disclosures were made and included in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus filed January 22, 2014. The MOU further
provides that if the parties cannot agree on the amount of fees,
costs, and expenses to be paid by the defendants to plaintiffs'
counsel, such amount shall be decided by the court. There has been
no significant activity in the cases since the MOU was executed.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Sterling Moves to Dismiss Wash. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation moved to dismiss an amended
consolidated securities complaint pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, according
to Umpqua Holdings Corporation's May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action
complaint, captioned City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al., No. CV 09-00368-EFS,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling and certain of its current
and former officers. The Court appointed City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff on March 9, 2010.
On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning the company's business
and financial results. The consolidated complaint purported to be
brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Sterling's stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to
October 15, 2009. The consolidated complaint alleged that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose the extent of
Sterling's delinquent commercial real estate, construction and
land development loans, properly record losses for impaired loans,
and properly reserve for loan losses, thereby causing Sterling's
stock price to be artificially inflated during the purported class
period. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees
and costs. On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the
Complaint. On March 2, 2011, after complete briefing, the court
held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On August 5, 2013, the
court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October
11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint. The amended consolidated complaint names the same
defendants, specifies the same class period, alleges the same
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and seeks the same relief. The amended consolidated
complaint contains similar allegations of improper disclosure
regarding Sterling's lending practices, status of loans and
reserving and accounting for loans. On January 24, 2014, Sterling
moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Removed "Roberts" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edward J. Roberts v. United
Healthcare Services Inc., et al., Case No. BC540910, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the 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-03606-GW-MAN to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Drew R. Ferrandini, Esq.
          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  df@kbklawyers.com
                  jhh@kbklawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
          Poopak Nourafchan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-4727
          Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
          E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com
                  Poopak.nourafchan@hoganlovells.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Stays "Heinrichs" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup has stayed the case captioned MARK
HEINRICHS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, NO. C
13-05434 WHA, (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class action was brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  Wells Fargo moved to stay the action pending
resolution of two dispositive petitions to the Federal
Communications Commission. Both petitions -- one seeking
declaratory ruling and the other formal rulemaking -- essentially
ask the FCC to shield robocallers from liability if they intend to
call persons who gave prior express consent to receive automated
calls.

In an order dated April 15, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/temm0xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Alsup granted Wells
Fargo's stay motion saying, "this action will be stayed until the
sooner of six months or such closer time as the FCC decides to act
or rule in such a way as to eviscerate the pending action."

Judge Alsup further directed counsel to file a joint statement
advising the Court of the status of the FCC petitions by noon on
October 15, 2014.

Mark Heinrichs, Plaintiff, represented by Seyed Abbas Kazerounian
-- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Daniel M. Hutchinson
-- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Jeremy Mathew Glapion, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein LLP,
Jonathan David Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Joshua B. Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Matthew Michael
Loker, Kazerouri Law Group, APC, Matthew Ryan Wilson --
mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, Michael J. Boyle
-- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson, LPA & Nicole Diane
Sugnet -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Defendant, represented by Eric John
Troutman -- ejt@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, John B.
Sullivan -- jbs@severson.com -- Severson & Werson & Mark Douglas
Lonergan -- mdl@severson.com -- Severson & Werson.


* Automakers More Sensitive to Safety Issues After GM Recalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Beech, writing for Reuters, reports that Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne said on May 21 that
the fallout from General Motors' delay in recalling millions of
cars for faulty ignition switches has prompted automakers to be
more sensitive to safety issues.

"Given the nature of the events that we've seen in the last three
or four months, I think it is more than likely automotive houses
will now shift their attitude and be even more prudent than they
would have been under normal circumstances.  And probably beyond
what is required," Mr. Marchionne told reporters.

GM is under investigation by the Justice Department, Congress, the
Securities and Exchange Commission and several states for waiting
10 years after first learning of the defective ignition switches
to issue the recall.

At least 13 deaths have been linked to the faulty part in 2.6
million Chevrolet Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other cars, which were
recalled beginning in February.

GM has issued a total of 29 recalls this year involving a record
11.8 million vehicles in the United States.

"I just find the number of recalls that have come out to just be
an astounding number, just in sheer size," Mr. Marchionne said of
the industry after an event at Brookings Institution.

"It can't be all of a sudden we woke up to these issues.  There
must be a change in attitude inside the (companies)," he said.

Mr. Marchionne said if the frequency of recalls conducted by GM
becomes the norm in the industry, the costs will be shifted to
consumers in the form of higher-priced cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has fined GM a
record $35 million for its delayed response to the ignition-switch
recall.

Mr. Marchionne said the NHTSA fine would not act as a deterrent to
future safety problems.

"The issue is a reputational issue associated with the brand," he
said.  "It has to do with what we do as professionals."

Chrysler has recalled 1.7 million vehicles in the first three
months of this year. It recalled 4.1 million in 2013.

The automaker has hired outside consultants who have begun a
review of the company's recall process, Mr. Marchionne said.

"We going to look to see whether we're doing all the right things.
To the best of my knowledge, I think the vehicle recall committee
that is in place and all the work that's done by the technical
staff is world class.  If we can improve it, we will," he said.


* Number of Securities Class Action Rises, Lockton's Report Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the world's
largest privately owned independent insurance brokerage firm has
released a report that assesses the current state of securities
litigation and looks toward the future of lawsuit trends.

Lockton's report, titled "The Next Big Thing: Predicting the
Changing Securities Litigation Landscape," points to sources of
future litigation and advises companies on how to protect
themselves.  The report was written by Vice President Mark
Weintraub and Senior Vice President Rodger Laurite.

As the number of public companies has decreased since 1997, the
number of securities class actions has risen, according to the
report.

In 1997, there were approximately 8,900 public companies.  In
2013, there were approximately 5,000, according to the report.

The number of securities class actions remained robust "due to the
emergence of certain novel litigation trends created by the credit
crisis, Chinesee mergers and merger objection lawsuits," according
to the report.

"Today, however, credit crisis-related lawsuits are precluded by
statute of limitations, Chinese reverse merger suits have largely
run their course and merger objection suits . . . are depended on
M&A activity, which was down in 2013," the report states.

In short, securities plaintiffs firms that relied on litigation
trends to supplement their caseloads over the last seven years
will be facing unprecedented competition for cases at a time when
there are fewer public companies to target, according to the
report.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc. this summer, which
could alter the course of future securities class actions.

In Halliburton, the court will revisit a ruling from 1988 known as
Basic Inc. v. Levinson, in which the court established the "fraud
on the market" presumption.

Because of the fraud on the market presumption, reliance on
alleged misleading disclosures is presumed, and a class may be
certified without having to prove that each and every stockholder
relied on a specific disclosure.

If Halliburton overturns Basic, each individual shareholder-
plaintiff must show he or she relied on the allegedly misleading
disclosure.

As data increasingly becomes a company's most valuable asset,
Messrs. Weintraub and Laurite note opportunities surrounding cyber
risk.

They point to the infamous Target breach as an example, as
shareholders have filed two suits against the company's directors
and officers, claiming breach of fiduciary duty and waste of
corporate assets.

"The lawsuit dynamics surrounding the Target cyber breach can
easily develop into a new litigation trend as the foregoing
pattern can be replicated whenever a company suffers a significant
cyber event," Mr. Weintraub said.

The specter of cyber risk is relatively new, but it is
nevertheless casting a growing shadow over board rooms and could
be the mother lode for future securities litigation, the report
states.

In the Target data breach lawsuits that have already been filed by
shareholders, the plaintiffs allege that "company leaders knew the
cyber risks but failed to protect customer data, and seek to hold
the board accountable for cyber breach costs and any damages
awarded in the related consumer class action lawsuits that have
been filed."

"The lawsuit dynamics surrounding the Target cyber breach can
easily develop into a new litigation trend as the foregoing
pattern can be replicated whenever a company suffers a significant
cyber event," the report states.  "Moreover, data is rapidly
becoming a company's most valuable asset and, with the increase of
mobile apps, digital processes are replacing more and more manual
transactions."

The report encourages companies to consistently review their
policies and procedures surrounding data management and storage
and follow the SEC guidelines for cyber-related disclosures.

While most directors and officers liability policies cover claims
against individuals, they only cover an entity for limited
securities-related claims.  To be fully protected, a company
should ensure their policy includes a broad definition of
"securities claim" and does not limit coverage for follow-on civil
litigation, Lockton says.

Lockton encouraged companies to pay attention to relevant,
upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case outcomes; stay aware of emerging
litigation trends based on SEC regulatory changes; and be sure
directors and officers policy wording is broad.


                             *********

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  * * *