CAR_Public/140602.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 2, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 108

                             Headlines


119 FASHION WHOLESALERS: Sued Over Alleged FLSA Violation
2451 BROADWAY MARKET: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
350-42 FRUIT: "Lima" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AEROFLEX HOLDING: Private Equity Firms Won't Fight Cobham Merger
ALPHA OMEGA: Faces "Hernandez" Over Unpaid Wages & Penalties

AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Unit Faces Five Complaints
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Wilkins" Suit Over ERISA Violation
BANK OF AMERICA: "Johnson" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: "Makin" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
BARRICK GOLD: Three Law Firms File Securities Class Action

BAXTER INT'L: Pending Investor Stock Complaint in Discovery
BIG 5 SPORTING: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Settles Majority of Pradaxa Suits for $650MM
CARING FOR MONTANANS: Removed "Ibsen" Suit to District of Montana
CLA HOLD: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Cal. Suit Claims

COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Says Loss "Possible" in Environmental Suits
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Public Illumination Nullity Suits
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Awaits Judgment on Appeal of Tariff Suit
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defendant in Tariff Adjustment Complaint
DELL INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.

DOLPHIN GOURMET: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
DORAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Blue" Securities Suit in Puerto Rico
ELBIT IMAGING: Noteholder Appeals Israeli Court Ruling
ELBIT IMAGING: Class Actions Could Adversely Affect Cash Flow
ELS EDUCATIONAL: Fails to Pay Regular & Overtime Pay, Class Says

EXELON CORP: Cotter Defendant in Radioactive Materials Complaint
EXELON CORP: ComEd Has Reserve for Probable Loss in TCPA Suit
FORM-TEC INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
G WILLI-FOOD: Class Certification Sought for Mislabeling Suits
GARMIN LTD: Defendant in Illinois Class Action Lawsuit

GARMIN LTD: Court Allows Defective Batteries Complaint to Proceed
GE CAPITAL: Accused of Using Illegal Automated Dialing Systems
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Nava" Suit Over Defective Ignition Switch
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defendant in Securities Litigation

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Menichino" Suit Stayed Pending Riddle Appeal
GOOGLE INC: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in California
GOOGLE INC: Appeals Court Won't Revive Gmail Ads Privacy Suit
GRUMA SAB: No FDA Determination Yet on Tortilla Chips Complaint
GRUMA SAB: Motion to Stay Class Certification Bid Still Pending

GRUMA SAB: U.S. Court Stayed Wage & Hour Complaint
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Medical Record Overcharges
HOSPIRA INC: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Seek Class Status
HUNTSVILLE, AL: Desegregation Suit No Longer Class Action
KEVIN DURANT: Sued in Kentucky for Funding Murderous Sexual Cult

LAKE COUNTY, IN: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LATAM AIRLINES: C$700,000 Settlement to Plaintiffs Approved
LATAM AIRLINES: Says US$400-Mil Enough to Cover TAM Claims
LCA-VISION: Plaintiffs Withdrew Motion for Preliminary Injunction
LIFEWATCH USA: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Alleged Fraud

LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Accused of Securities Laws Violations
MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Denied Certification of Bonus Stock Action
MARRIOTT VACATION: Sued Over Time-Share Trading Programs
MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Bunnelle" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
MOBILESMITH INC: Issued Grasford Settlement Shares on Dec. 31

MSF MECHANICAL: Accused of Discriminatory Termination in New York
NUVASIVE INC: Moved to Dismiss Securities Litigation
PRINCIPAL FIN'L: Subsidiary Named as Defendant in ERISA Suit
PRINCIPAL FIN'L: 8th Cir. Denied Appeal on Certification Denial
RBS HOLDINGS: Court Dismissed Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims

RBS HOLDINGS: AECOM Australia Included RBSGA in Cross Claims
RBS HOLDINGS: Affiliates Named as Defendants in Antitrust Suit
RBS HOLDINGS: Adverse Judgments Could Restrict Operations
SAULT AREA HOSPITAL: Lawyer Mulls Privacy Breach Class Action
SIGNAL INT'L: Five Actions Consolidated as Human Trafficking MDL

STATE FARM: Plaintiffs Dispute Confidentiality in Class Action
TARO SUSHI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 430,500 Cars Over Corrosion, Airbag Issues
U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Class Action Cert. Hearing Completed
US FOODSERVICE: Ahold to Make $297MM Payment Into Settlement Fund

WELLPOINT INC: Defends Action Due to AICI Demutualization
WELLPOINT INC: Facing Consolidated OON Reimbursement Actions
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Cohen & Malad Files Class Action in Indiana

* Food Safety Group's Suit v. USDA Seeks Salmonella Ban


                            *********


119 FASHION WHOLESALERS: Sued Over Alleged FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Desh R. Shrestha, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 119 Fashion Wholesalers, Ltd., et al, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03294 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for the alleged violation of the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
sections 201, et seq., and for violation of the minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours provision of the New York State
Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. L. sections 650, et seq.

119 Fashion Wholesalers, Ltd., is New York Corporation, doing
business as Step Up Boutique, located at 119 Mulberry Street, New
York, New York 10013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. P. Howley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN HOWLEY
      350 5th Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 601-2728
      Facsimile; (347) 603-1328
      E-mail: jhowley@johnhowleyesq.com


2451 BROADWAY MARKET: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oton Cortez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. 2451 Broadway Market Inc., (d/b/a Barzini's) et al,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03300 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the New York
Labor Law Sections 190 and 650 et seq., and the minimum wage,
overtime, and spread-of-hours law and the associated regulations
of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y.C.R.R Tit.
12 Sections 142, including applicable liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

2451 Broadway Market, Inc., is a convenience store located at 2451
Broadway, New York, New York 10024 under the name Barzini's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


350-42 FRUIT: "Lima" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Lima, et al, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. 350-42 Fruit & Vegetable Corp. d/b/a Merci Market, et
al, Case No. 1:14-cv-03301 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2014), seeks to
recover minimum and overtime wages and liquidated damages,
interest, cost, and attorney's fees for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and associated rules
and regulations.

350-42 Fruit & Vegetable Corp., is a New York Corporation located
at 350 W. 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AEROFLEX HOLDING: Private Equity Firms Won't Fight Cobham Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizz Hoffman, writing for The Wall Street Journal's MoneyBeat
blog, reports that Aeroflex Holding Corp., which announced a deal
on May 20 to sell itself for $920 million to Cobham PLC, has a
message for plaintiffs' lawyers: Back off.

In a statement, Aeroflex said private-equity firms that own 77% of
its stock have committed not to participate in any lawsuit
challenging it.  Affiliates of Golden Gate Capital, Veritas
Capital and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have also agreed to vote in
favor of the deal.

Such voting agreements aren't uncommon in deals where insiders
have large stakes.  The three private-equity firms took Aeroflex
private in 2007, then public again in 2010, and still own most of
its shares.

But the public statement that they won't participate in any class
action appears to be a shot across the bow at lawyers who
routinely challenge M&A deals.  It effectively cuts any potential
reward for the class by 77%.  Lawyer fees are typically based on
perceived benefit to the class.

The companies hoped to deter filings by including the statement,
according to a person close to the deal.

M&A lawsuits have risen sharply in recent years.  Shareholders
challenged 94% of all mergers last year, up from 44% in 2007, and
the average deal now draws five lawsuits, according to Cornerstone
Research.  Typically these lawsuits, which accuse the board of
selling too cheaply, settle with no additional money for
shareholders.  Instead, companies agree to disclose more
information about the sales process and pay fees to shareholders'
lawyers.

Cobham, a British aerospace and defense contractor, is paying
$10.50 for Aeroflex, which makes wireless-communications
components used in airplanes.


ALPHA OMEGA: Faces "Hernandez" Over Unpaid Wages & Penalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Alph Omega Property Management, LLC., Case No. 4:14-
cv-00107 (N.D. Ga., May 7, 2014), arises to recover unpaid back
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Alpha Omega Property Management, LLC, is located in Whitefield
County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Unit Faces Five Complaints
------------------------------------------------
America Movil SAB de CV disclosed that five class actions have
been initiated against one of its principal businesses, Telcel,
relating to, among other things, quality of service and network
technical malfunction, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed
on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Federal Consumer Bureau (Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor,
or "Profeco"), filed an action similar to a class action in
Mexican courts on behalf of customers who filed complaints before
it, alleging deficiencies in the quality of Telcel's network in
2010 and breach of customer agreements. If the action is resolved
in favor of Profeco, Telcel's customers would be entitled to
compensation for damages.

Beginning in 2012, Mexican Law provides for class actions seeking
compensation. These class actions may arise from antitrust,
consumer, data and privacy protection issues, as well as
administrative, criminal and environmental violations, and may be
filed by the competent authorities or the affected groups.

Five class actions have been initiated against Telcel (i) three
are related to quality of service and were filed by consumers;
(ii) one also filed by consumers is related to quality of service,
but in addition compares wireless voice, data and broadband
international rates claiming that rates offered by Telcel are
higher than international comparable rates; and (iii) one was
filed by Profeco and relates to a network technical malfunction
that occurred in January 2013.

The Company currently does not have enough information to
determine whether these class actions could have an adverse effect
on our business and results of operations if they are resolved
against us. Consequently, Telcel has not established a provision
in the accompanying financial statements for loss arising from
these contingencies.

America Movil SAB de CV is a Mexico-based company, which is
primarily engaged in the provision of wireless communications
services in Latin America. The Company's activities include mobile
and landline telephony services, broadband access, as well as
cable and satellite television. It distributes its services under
the Telcel, Telmex, Claro, Embratel, Simple Mobile, Net and
TracFone brands. The Company operates through numerous
subsidiaries located in the United States, Central and South
Americas and the Caribbean countries. On April 30, 2013, the
Company acquired a 100% stake in Corporacion de Medios Integrales
SA de CV.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Wilkins" Suit Over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Monte Wilkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Bank of America Group Benefits Program, et al, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03327 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2014), alleges violation of
ERISA, 28 USC section 1132 et seq., in connection with a
compensation continuation plan.

Bank of America Group Benefits Program is a legal entity subject
to ERISA which provides the short term and long term disability
benefits for Bank of America employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Johnson" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Johnson v. Bank of America
Corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-03040, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-02177-PSG to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua 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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Felicia Yu, Esq.
          Raymond Y. Kim, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: fyu@reedsmith.com
                  rkim@reedsmith.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Makin" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Makin v. Bank of America, NA,
Case No. 3:12-cv-01662, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).  The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:14-cv-02176-PSG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEITH J. KEOGH, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe, Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: aburke@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
          SAEED & LITTLE LLP
          1512 N. Delaware St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 614-5741
          Facsimile: (888) 422-3151
          E-mail: ali@sllawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Felicia Yu, Esq.
          Raymond Y. Kim, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: fyu@reedsmith.com
                  rkim@reedsmith.com


BARRICK GOLD: Three Law Firms File Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2014, Koskie Minsky LLP, Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Groia
& Company Professional Corporation, counsel in the Barrick Gold
Corporation securities class action, have filed a statement of
claim in a $6 billion action against Barrick Gold Corporation and
others.  The claim alleges wrongdoing against Barrick Gold
Corporation and its senior officers Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky,
Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver.

The detailed claim alleges there were misrepresentations in
Barrick's public disclosure relating to Barrick's development of
the Pascua-Lama mine located on the border between Chile and
Argentina.  In particular, Barrick publicly referred to this being
a feasible and highly economic project due to the low cost to
construct and produce gold and silver from the Pascua-Lama mine.
The claim alleges that Barrick knew or ought to have known that
the significant costs to construct and produce gold and silver
from this project would render it, at best, a speculative venture.

In addition, the defendants represented compliance with mandatory
environmental conditions imposed on the Pascua-Lama mine and made
statements that Barrick was safeguarding or protecting the
environment and water surrounding the mine.  The claim alleges
that these representations were inaccurate, misleading or omitted
key facts regarding Barrick's failure to comply with environmental
conditions, regulation and permits, and regarding Barrick's
failure to safeguard or protect the environment.

The action was commenced on behalf of Barrick Gold investors who
acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to
November 1, 2013.

"The action raises serious questions about how Barrick Gold
conducted its business and affairs and the manner in which it
raised capital from public markets" explains Kirk Baert of Koskie
Minsky LLP.

If you acquired Barrick Gold Corporation securities during the
period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013, please contact Koskie
Minsky LLP at 1-888-723-4305 or email at
barrickclassaction@kmlaw.ca

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, labor, employment and litigation firms.  Its class
actions group has been a national leader in class actions and has
prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP is one of the preeminent class action law
firms in Canada.  It has been involved in many of the most
important class action decisions in the country and has recovered
more than $1.5 billion for its clients.

Groia & Company Professional Corporation is one of Canada's
leading securities litigation boutiques, having worked on almost
every major Canadian securities case: Asbestos, Bre-X, Cinar,
Hollinger Inc., Philip Services, Proprietary Industries Inc., TD
Waterhouse, Thomson Kernaghan, UBS, YBM, and Yorkton Securities.


BAXTER INT'L: Pending Investor Stock Complaint in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated alleged class action is pending against Baxter
International Inc., seeking to recover the lost value of
investors' stock, and the parties are currently proceeding with
discovery, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

In addition, in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois
against the company and certain of its current executive officers.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain
of the company's current and former executive officers and its
board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of
the company and issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the
company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin
product, and other quality issues. Plaintiffs allege these actions
damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline
in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess
compensation to the board of directors and certain of the
company's current and former executive officers, and other damage
to the company. In January 2014, an independent special litigation
committee was established by the company's board of directors to
determine whether it is in the best interests of the company and
its shareholders to pursue or otherwise resolve the claims raised
in and arising from this matter. The company and the plaintiffs in
the consolidated derivative suit filed in the USDC for the
Northern District of Illinois have entered into a memorandum of
understanding outlining the terms of a settlement of that suit,
including the establishment of a Corporate Quality Office, $12
million to be spent on quality and regulatory compliance
initiatives over the next three years, and the payment of legal
fees (which have been reserved), all subject to the approval of
the special litigation committee of the board of directors and the
court. Two other derivative actions were previously filed in state
courts, one in Lake County, Illinois and one in the Delaware
Chancery Court, and both matters have been stayed pending the
resolution of the federal action. In addition, a consolidated
alleged class action is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern
District of Illinois against the company and certain of its
current executive officers seeking to recover the lost value of
investors' stock and the parties are currently proceeding with
discovery. In April 2013, the company filed its opposition to the
plaintiff's motion to certify a class action.

The company was a defendant, along with others, in a number of
lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain
of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially
increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003. Some of
the complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief
and some cases demand treble damages. In January 2012, the court
granted the company's motion to dismiss certain federal claims
brought by indirect purchasers and returned the remaining indirect
purchaser claims to the court of original jurisdiction (U.S.D.C.
for the Northern District of California) in August 2012. The
indirect purchaser complaint was amended to remove class action
allegations in May 2013. The company settled with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs for $64 million, which was paid during the
first quarter of 2014, and final court approval of the settlement
was obtained in April 2014.

Baxter International Inc. (Baxter,) is a global, diversified
healthcare company. Baxter, through its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives
of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases,
kidney disease, trauma, and other chronic and acute medical
conditions. The Company operated in two segments: BioScience and
Medication Delivery. It is engaged in the medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance
patient care worldwide. These products are used by hospitals,
kidney dialysis centers, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers,
doctors' offices, clinical and medical research laboratories, and
by patients at home under physician supervision. Baxter
manufactures products in 27 countries and sells the products in
more than 100 countries. In September 2013, Baxter International
Inc completed the acquisition of Gambro AB.


BIG 5 SPORTING: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court granted preliminary approval and set hearing for
final approval on October 1, 2014, of a settlement between Big 5
Sporting Goods Corporation and the plaintiffs in a nine
complaints, which was consolidated into one complaint alleging
violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of
privacy and unlawful intrusion, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2014.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following
nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction:

     (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Maria
Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
al., Case No. BC455049;

     (2) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott
Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC455477;

     (3) on February 28, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena
Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC455459;

     (4) on March 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T.
Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC456300;

     (5) on March 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Donna
Motta v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-
11-509228;

     (6) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v.
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123;

     (7) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Robin
Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-
11-508829;

     (8) on April 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B.
Smith v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-
2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK; and

     (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena
Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC462213.

On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an
Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the
California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having
jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as
Case No. JCCP4667.

On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs collectively filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging violations of the
California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of privacy and
unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that customers making purchases with credit cards at the Company's
stores in California were improperly requested to provide their
zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiffs seek, on
behalf of the class members, the following: statutory penalties;
attorneys' fees; expenses; restitution of property; disgorgement
of profits; and injunctive relief.

In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the
Company and plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences
conducted by the court on February 6, 2013, February 19, 2013,
April 2, 2013, September 12, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and
also engaged in mediation conducted by a third party mediator on
July 15, 2013.  As a result, the parties agreed to settle the
lawsuit. On March 23, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement. The court has scheduled a hearing for October
1, 2014, to consider granting final approval of the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed that class
members who submit valid and timely claim forms will receive
either a $25 gift card (with proof of purchase) or a $10
merchandise voucher (without proof of purchase). Additionally, the
Company agreed to pay plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs
awarded by the court, enhancement payments to the class
representatives and claims administrator's fees. Under the
settlement, if the total amount paid by the Company for the class
payout, class representative enhancement payments and claims
administrator's fees is less than $1.0 million, then the Company
will issue merchandise vouchers to a charity for the balance of
the deficiency in the manner provided in the settlement agreement.
The Company's estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is
reflected in a legal settlement accrual recorded in the third
quarter of fiscal 2013. The Company admitted no liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.
Once final approval is granted, the settlement will constitute a
full and complete settlement and release of all claims related to
the lawsuit. Based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the
Company currently believes that settlement of this litigation will
not have a material negative impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial condition. However, if the settlement is
not finally approved by the court, the Company intends to defend
this litigation vigorously. If the settlement is not finally
approved by the court and this litigation is settled or resolved
unfavorably to the Company, this litigation and the costs of
defending it could have a material negative impact on the
Company's results of operations or financial condition.

The Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions
arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of
management, the ultimate disposition of these matters is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations or financial condition.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation is a sporting goods retailer in
the western United States, operating 414 stores in 12 states under
the Big 5 Sporting Goods name as of December 30, 2012. The Company
provides a product offering in a traditional sporting goods store
format that averages approximately 11,000 square feet. The
Company's product mix includes athletic shoes, apparel and
accessories, as well as a broad selection of outdoor and athletic
equipment for team sports, fitness, camping, hunting, fishing,
tennis, golf, snowboarding and roller sports. The Company's stores
carry a range of products from well brand name manufacturers,
including adidas, Coleman, Easton, New Balance, Nike, Reebok,
Spalding, Under Armour and Wilson. The Company purchases its
branded merchandise from a list of sporting goods equipment,
athletic footwear and apparel manufacturers.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Settles Majority of Pradaxa Suits for $650MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Boehringer
Ingelheim GmbH, the German family-owned drugmaker, agreed to pay
$650 million to settle the majority of lawsuits filed over its
blood thinner Pradaxa, which has been linked to more than 500
patient deaths.

Boehringer, slated to face the first U.S. trial in September of
claims there was no antidote to stop bleed-out deaths among
Pradaxa patients, is seeking to resolve about 4,000 suits, company
officials said in a statement on May 28.  That would provide an
average per-case payout of $162,500.

The settlement comes about week after the drugmaker, based in
Ingelheim, Germany, said a new analysis of a company-funded study
used to win approval of the Pradaxa found 22 serious bleeding
events that weren't included in the original report.

Researchers contend Pradaxa is more effective at preventing
strokes than older competitors, including Bristol-Myers Squibb
(BMY) Co.'s Coumadin.  Consumer lawyers counter Boehringer
marketed the drug as superior to existing blood thinners while
knowing its performance wasn't better.

"Boehringer may have been reluctant to take any of these cases to
trial because the causation evidence that Pradaxa can cause bleed-
outs was pretty clear," Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability
law at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said in an
interview on May 28.

                           $1 Billion

Patients and their families alleged Boehringer executives knew
Pradaxa posed a deadly risk to some consumers when they brought it
to the U.S. market in October 2010.  Researchers last year came up
with an experimental antidote for the drug, which has generated
more than $1 billion in sales worldwide for Boehringer, the
world's biggest family-owned drugmaker.

More than 2,500 Pradaxa suits have been consolidated before U.S.
District Judge David Herndon in East St. Louis, Illinois, for
pre-trial information exchanges.  An additional 1,500 cases are in
state courts in Illinois, Connecticut, California and Delaware.
Boehringer officials are seeking to resolve all those cases as
part of the May 28 accord.

"This settlement allows BI to avoid the distraction and
uncertainty of lengthy litigation and focus on our mission of
improving patients' lives," Desiree Ralls-Morrison, general
counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp., said in the statement.

                          Safety Concerns

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Pradaxa as a safe
and effective alternative to 58-year-old Coumadin, a brand of
warfarin, for preventing strokes caused by blood clots.

Concerns about Pradaxa's safety surfaced soon after U.S. doctors
began prescribing it.  FDA officials said they received reports of
542 deaths and 3,781 side-effect incidents tied to the drug in
2011.

Boehringer officials continue to contend that Pradaxa is safe and
point to an FDA finding this month that the drug had a lower risk
of blood-clot-related strokes, bleeding in the brain and death
compared to warfarin.

Documents made public as part of patients' Pradaxa suits showed
Boehringer officials didn't disclose to U.S. regulators a data
analysis that indicated the blood-thinning drug may have caused
more fatal bleeding after it was cleared for sale than in a study
used to win approval.

Judge Herndon ordered Boehringer to pay a $931,000 fine in
December for failing to preserve "countless" files on Pradaxa's
development and marketing.  Patients' lawyers say Boehringer
should have placed an effective "litigation hold" on the
documents, forcing employees to preserve them.

The judge's sanction may have been a factor in prompting
Boehringer officials to settle, Mr. Tobias said.

"They probably saw that similar document-destruction claims
against Takeda and Lilly involving files about the Actos diabetes
drug recently led to a $9 billion punitive award," Mr. Tobias
said.

The case is In re Pradaxa Products Liability Litigation, 12-MD-
02385, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois (East
St. Louis).


CARING FOR MONTANANS: Removed "Ibsen" Suit to District of Montana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mark Ibsen, Inc. v. Caring for
Montanans, et al., Case No. BDV-2014-270, was removed from the
Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, to
the United States District Court for the District of Montana.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-00032-SEH to the
proceeding.

Mark Ibsen, Inc., doing business as Urgent Care Plus, is a Montana
corporation based in Helena, Montana, and was an employer and the
plan administrator of an employee welfare benefit plan that was
insured by CFM until August 1, 2013.

CFM is a Montana non-profit corporation headquartered in Helena,
Montana, and operating under a plan of voluntary dissolution.
Prior to August 1, 2013, CFM operated as a Montana health service
corporation under the name of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Montana, Inc., and offered health insurance and related services
and products.  CFM ceased all health insurance related business as
of August 2, 2013.

In its amended complaint, Ibsen alleges that CFM charged premiums
for the Ibsen Plan in excess of the amount permitted under Montana
law and under Ibsen's and its insured employees' contract with
CFM.  In particular, Ibsen alleges that CFM has violated Sections
33-18-208 and 212 of the Montana Code Annotated by charging
"external rates" that included "payment for additional insurance
products in a manner that was not disclosed to consumers,"
presumably meaning Ibsen's insured employees.

Defendant Caring for Montanans, formerly known as Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Montana Inc., is represented by:

          Michael F. McMahon, Esq.
          Bernard F. Hubley, Esq.
          Stefan T. Wall, Esq.
          MCMAHON, WALL & HUBLEY, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1713
          Helena, MT 59624
          Telephone: (406) 442-1054
          E-mail: mike@mlfpllc.com
                  bernie@mlfpllc.com
                  stefan@mlfpllc.com

               - and -

          John C. Heenan, Esq.
          BISHOP AND HEENAN
          1631 Zimmerman Trail, Suite 1
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 839-9091
          Facsimile: (406) 839-9092
          E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com

               - and -

          John M. Morrison, Esq.
          Linda M. Deola, Esq.
          MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
          401 N Last Chance Gulch
          PO Box 557
          Helena, MT 59601
          Telephone: (406) 442-3261
          Facsimile: (406) 443-7294
          E-mail: john@mmslawgroup.com
                  ldeola@mswdlaw.com

Defendant Health Care Service Corp. is represented by:

          M. Christy S. McCann, Esq.
          BROWNING KALECZYC BERRY & HOVEN
          800 N. Last Chance Gulch, Suite 101
          PO BOX 1697
          Helena, MT 59624-1697
          Telephone: (406) 443-6820
          Facsimile: (406) 443-6883
          E-mail: christy@bkbh.com

               - and -

          Stanley T. Kaleczyc, Esq.
          BROWNING KALECZYC BERRY & HOVEN
          PO Box 1697
          825 Great Northern Blvd, Suite 105
          Helena, MT 59624-1697
          Telephone: (406) 443-6820
          Facsimile: (406) 443-6883
          E-mail: stan@bkbh.com


CLA HOLD: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Cal. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Ruderman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CLA Hold, LLC dba American Laser Skincare, Case No.
3:14-cv-02224-MEJ (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2014) alleges that the
Company negligently and willfully contacted the Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

CLA Hold, LLC, doing business as American Laser Skincare, is a
corporation headquartered in Farmington Hills, Michigan.  The
Company conducted business in the state of California and in the
County of Contra Costa.

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


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Says Loss "Possible" in Environmental Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2013, Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais - Cemig disclosed that
on December 31, 2013, it has determined that the amount involved
in seven class actions was R$107.7 million.  The Company added
that the chance of loss is "possible".

The Company states: "The Minas Gerais Public Attorney filed class
actions against CEMIG and Cemig Generation and Transmission
seeking an order against the companies to invest at least 0.5% of
its total operational revenue per year from 1997 onward, on the
protection and environmental preservation of the water tables of
the municipalities in which our  generation plants are located and
indemnify the State of Minas Gerais proportionally for the
environmental damage caused as a result of Cemig's failure to
comply with the law of the State of Minas Gerais No. 12.503/97. In
four  of these actions, judgment was granted partly in favor of
the Public Attorneys' Office of Minas Gerais, in the lower courts,
with CEMIG and Cemig Generation and Transmission being ordered to
invest 0.5% per year of the gross operational revenue since 1997
on measures for environmental preservation and protection of the
water tables in Ouro Preto, Uberaba, Agua Comprida, Campo Florido,
Delta, Verissimo, Ponte Nova and Araxa. We have filed an appeal
with the STJ and the STF, since the actions involve Federal Law
and constitutional matters."

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais Cemig is a Brazil-based
holding company primarily engaged in the electricity sector. The
Company is mainly active in the construction and operation of
systems of production, transformation, transmission, distribution
and commercialization of electric power. It is involved in the
provision of telecommunication services, and purchase, transport
and distribution of natural gas. It has a number of subsidiaries,
including Cemig Geracao e Transmissao, which operates
hydroelectric plants, thermoelectric plants, wind farms and
transmission lines; Cemig Distribuicao SA, which is engaged in the
electric power distribution; Companhia de Gas de Minas Gerais,
which holds the concession for gas distribution in the state of
Minas Gerais, and Cemig Telecomunicacoes SA, which provides
telecommunication services, among others. In June 2013, it sold a
total stake in it's concessionaires of transmission to
Transmissora Alianca de Energia Eletrica SA (TAESA).


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Public Illumination Nullity Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais - Cemig is a defendant in
several public civil actions claiming nullity of the clause in the
Electricity Supply Contracts for public illumination, according to
the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

Cemig is defendant in several public civil actions (class
actions), claiming nullity of the clause in the Electricity Supply
Contracts for public illumination, signed between the Company and
the various municipalities of its concession area, and restitution
by the Company of the difference representing the amounts charged
in the last 20 years, in the event that the courts recognize that
these amounts were unduly charged. The actions are grounded on a
supposed mistake by Cemig in the estimate of time that was used
for calculation of the consumption of electricity for public
illumination, funded by the Public Illumination Contribution
(Contribuicao para Illuminacao Publica, or CIP).

The Company believes that it has arguments of merit for legal
defense, and as a result has not constituted a provision for this
action, the amount of which is estimated at R$ 1,291 (R$ 1,163 on
December 31, 2012). The chances of loss in this action have been
assessed as 'possible', due to the Consumer Defense Code (Codigo
de Defesa do Consumidor, or CDC) not being applicable, because the
matter is governed by the specific regulation of the electricity
sector, and because Cemig complied with Aneel Resolutions 414 and
456, which deal with the subject.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais Cemig is a Brazil-based
holding company primarily engaged in the electricity sector. The
Company is mainly active in the construction and operation of
systems of production, transformation, transmission, distribution
and commercialization of electric power. It is involved in the
provision of telecommunication services, and purchase, transport
and distribution of natural gas. It has a number of subsidiaries,
including Cemig Geracao e Transmissao, which operates
hydroelectric plants, thermoelectric plants, wind farms and
transmission lines; Cemig Distribuicao SA, which is engaged in the
electric power distribution; Companhia de Gas de Minas Gerais,
which holds the concession for gas distribution in the state of
Minas Gerais, and Cemig Telecomunicacoes SA, which provides
telecommunication services, among others. In June 2013, it sold a
total stake in it's concessionaires of transmission to
Transmissora Alianca de Energia Eletrica SA (TAESA).


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Awaits Judgment on Appeal of Tariff Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais - Cemig awaits judgment on it
interlocutory appeal relating to a class action filed by the
Federal Public Attorneys' Office to avoid exclusion of consumers
from classification in the Low-income Residential Tariff Sub-
category, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against
the Company and Aneel, to avoid exclusion of consumers from
classification in the Low-income Residential Tariff Sub-category,
requesting an order for the Company to pay 200% of the amount
allegedly paid in excess by consumers. Judgment was given in favor
of the plaintiffs, but the Company and Aneel have filed an
interlocutory appeal and await judgment. On December 31, 2013 the
amount of the contingency was approximately R$142 million (R$133
million on December 31, 2012). The Company has classified the
chances of loss as 'possible' due to other favorable judgments on
this theme.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais Cemig is a Brazil-based
holding company primarily engaged in the electricity sector. The
Company is mainly active in the construction and operation of
systems of production, transformation, transmission, distribution
and commercialization of electric power. It is involved in the
provision of telecommunication services, and purchase, transport
and distribution of natural gas. It has a number of subsidiaries,
including Cemig Geracao e Transmissao, which operates
hydroelectric plants, thermoelectric plants, wind farms and
transmission lines; Cemig Distribuicao SA, which is engaged in the
electric power distribution; Companhia de Gas de Minas Gerais,
which holds the concession for gas distribution in the state of
Minas Gerais, and Cemig Telecomunicacoes SA, which provides
telecommunication services, among others. In June 2013, it sold a
total stake in it's concessionaires of transmission to
Transmissora Alianca de Energia Eletrica SA (TAESA).


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defendant in Tariff Adjustment Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais - Cemig is a defendant in a
class action for identification of all the consumers allegedly
damaged in the processes of Periodic Review and Annual Adjustment
of tariffs, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April
30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Municipal Association for Protection of the Consumer and the
Environment (Associacao Municipal de Protecao ao Consumidor e ao
Meio Ambiente, or Amprocom) filed a class action against the
Company and against Aneel, for identification of all the consumers
allegedly damaged in the processes of Periodic Review and Annual
Adjustment of tariffs, in the period 2002 to 2009, and
restitution, through credits on electricity bills, of any amounts
unduly charged, arising from non-consideration of the impact of
future variations in consumer electricity demand on non-manageable
cost components, from the distributor's non-manageable costs
('Portion A' costs), and the allegedly undue inclusion of these
gains in manageable costs of the distributor ('Portion B'" costs),
causing economic/financial imbalance of the contract. The amount
of the contingency is R$182 million (R$163 million on December 31,
2012).

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais Cemig is a Brazil-based
holding company primarily engaged in the electricity sector. The
Company is mainly active in the construction and operation of
systems of production, transformation, transmission, distribution
and commercialization of electric power. It is involved in the
provision of telecommunication services, and purchase, transport
and distribution of natural gas. It has a number of subsidiaries,
including Cemig Geracao e Transmissao, which operates
hydroelectric plants, thermoelectric plants, wind farms and
transmission lines; Cemig Distribuicao SA, which is engaged in the
electric power distribution; Companhia de Gas de Minas Gerais,
which holds the concession for gas distribution in the state of
Minas Gerais, and Cemig Telecomunicacoes SA, which provides
telecommunication services, among others. In June 2013, it sold a
total stake in it's concessionaires of transmission to
Transmissora Alianca de Energia Eletrica SA (TAESA).


DELL INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 21 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Dell Inc. common stock between
February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 21, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/dell1/

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.

The complaint charges Dell and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act.  During the Class
Period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and future prospects and failed to disclose adverse
facts, including that: (i) Dell was experiencing severe market
pricing pressures associated with its notebook and desktop
personal computer ("PC") products, particularly in its European,
Middle Eastern and African ("EMEA") and Asia-Pacific, Japanese
("APJ") markets; (ii) as a result of such extreme pricing
pressures, Dell's management issued a directive not to pursue
certain notebook and desktop PC sales in its EMEA and APJ markets;
(iii) Dell was experiencing weakening demand for its notebook and
desktop PC products, particularly in its EMEA and APJ markets; and
(iv) Dell was experiencing material undisclosed operational
deficiencies within is sales function that were adversely
impacting its Large Enterprise and Public business segments.

On May 22, 2012, after the close of trading, Dell issued a press
release disclosing that revenues for its fiscal 2013 first
quarter, the period ended May 4, 2012, were $14.4 billion,
approximately one-half billion dollars less than Dell's guidance
and Wall Street estimates.  Dell also disclosed that it was
projecting revenues of just $14.7 to $15 billion for its fiscal
2013 second quarter, when securities analysts, based on
defendants' Class Period statements, had been projecting revenues
of $15.4 billion.  In response to these revelations, the price of
Dell stock fell from its May 22, 2012 closing price of $15.08 per
share to close at $12.49 per share on May 23, 2012, a decline of
$2.59 per share, or more than 17%, its largest single-day decline
in over 11 years, on extremely high volume of more than one
billion shares traded, or approximately six times the average
daily trading volume during the Class Period.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Dell common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action.


DOLPHIN GOURMET: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ali M. Alnakeeb, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Dolphin Gourmet Deli, Corp., and Hasan Ahmed Salle, an
individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-03482-CM (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Mr. Alnakeeb at any rate
of pay, let alone at the overtime or minimum wage rates of pay,
for any hours that he worked per week in excess of 40 as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Dolphin Gourmet Deli, Corp., is a New York corporation, and a
grocery store business, with its principal place of business at
320 West 14th Street, in New York City.  At that location, the
Company does business as "Dolphin Deli."  On that same block, the
Company operates another grocery store that does business as
"Super Deli."  The Super Deli location is at 350 West 14th Street,
in New York City.  Hasan Ahmed Salle owns and operates both
grocery store locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. Andrews, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
          E-mail: pja@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com


DORAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Blue" Securities Suit in Puerto Rico
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blue, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Doral Financial Corporation, Glenn R. Wakeman, Robert
E. Wahlman, Penko Ivanov, David Hooston, Enrique R. Ubarri-
Baragano and Christopher C. Poulton, Case No. 3:14-cv-01393-GAG
(D.P.R., May 14, 2014) is a securities class action brought on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Doral between
April 2, 2012, and May 1, 2014, inclusive.

The Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies against Doral and certain
of its most senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Doral, headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico, operates as the
bank holding company for Doral Bank, which provides retail banking
services to the general public and institutions, primarily in
Puerto Rico.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andres W. Lopez, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C.
          P.O. Box 13909
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 294-9508
          Facsimile: (787) 294-9519
          E-mail: andreswlopez@yahoo.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


ELBIT IMAGING: Noteholder Appeals Israeli Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
A note holder who had previously filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Elbit Imaging Ltd., filed an appeal with the
Israeli Supreme Court and requested the cancelation of the Debt
Restructuring approval by an Israeli District Court, according to
the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Following the approval of the Tel-Aviv Jaffa
District Court (the "Court") of the Debt Restructuring (the "Court
Ruling"), a holder of our Series B Notes which hold less than 0.1%
of the outstanding unsecured debt of the Company prior to the debt
Restructuring and which had previously filed with the Court a
purported class action lawsuit against us on April 11, 2013 (the
"Previous Action"), filed an appeal with the Israeli Supreme Court
arguing that the Court erred in approving the Debt Restructuring,
with specific reference to the exemption from personal civil
liability that could potentially have been accorded to our then-
current officers and directors (other than Mr. Mordechai Zisser)
and the rejection of the Previous Action. One of the alternative
remedies requested by the appellant was the cancelation of the
approval of the Debt Restructuring by the District Court. As of
December 31, 2014, the appeal is yet to be heard by the Supreme
Court. If the Supreme Court will award the alternative remedy of
the cancellation of the Court Ruling, we may incur material harm
and may be required to negotiate a new debt restructuring plan,
the failure of which will likely result in our liquidation."

Elbit Imaging Ltd., is an Israel-based holding company. It
operates in the fields of Commercial and Entertainment Centers,
engaged in the initiation, construction and sale of shopping and
entertainment centers and other mixed-use real property projects,
predominantly in the retail sector; United States Real Property,
investing in commercial real property in the United States;
Hotels, engaged in the management and operation of hotels; Medical
Industries, engaged in research and development, production and
marketing of magnetic resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound
treatment equipment and development of stem cell population
expansion technologies and stem cell therapy products for
transplantation and regenerative medicine; Residential Projects,
engaged in the initiation, construction and sale of residential
projects and other mixed-use real property projects, predominately
residential, and Fashion Apparel, engaged in the Distribution and
marketing of fashion apparel and accessories.


ELBIT IMAGING: Class Actions Could Adversely Affect Cash Flow
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd., disclosed in its Form 20-F filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that a determination on the
purported class action lawsuits against the Company may materially
adversely affect its results of operations and cash flow.

The Company states: "Certain legal proceedings have been initiated
against us, including purported class action lawsuits filed
against us by our note holders on February 25, 2013 and April 11,
2013 arising out of, among other things, our suspending principal
and interest payments on our Series A and B notes, and an appeal
filed against us following the Court's approval of the Debt
Restructuring.  . . . In addition, litigation was initiated
against us and certain other third parties, including former
directors of the Company and Elscint Ltd., in connection with the
change of control of us and our former subsidiary Elscint Ltd.
("Elscint," which was merged into us in 2010) in May 1999 and the
acquisition of the hotel businesses by Elscint in September 1999,
as well as motions to certify certain of such claims as class
actions (Gadish et al v. Elscint et al). On May 28, 2012, the
Supreme Court certified the lawsuit as a class action with respect
to the claim that the hotels were allegedly sold to us at a price
higher than the then-current fair value and that Elron Electronic
Industries Ltd. (an unrelated third party) had breached certain
minority rights in the framework of the sale of Elscint's shares
to Europe Israel (our controlling shareholder prior to the Debt
Restructuring), and the case was remanded to the Court for hearing
the case without prejudicing the parties' rights and arguments
with respect to a derivative action. A determination against us in
some or all of these proceedings, mainly those related to class
actions, may materially adversely affect our results of operations
and cash flow.

"Following the approval of the Debt Restructuring by the Court
(the "Court Ruling"), a holder of our Series B Notes which had
previously filed with the Court a purported class action lawsuit
against us on April 11, 2013 (the "Previous Action"), filed an
appeal with the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the Court erred
in approving the Debt Restructuring, with specific reference to
the exemption from personal civil liability that could potentially
have been accorded to our officers and directors (other than Mr.
Mordechai Zisser) and the rejection of the Previous Action. To
date, the appeal is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court, and the
Debt Restructuring was consummated.  . . .  The hearing of the
appeal is currently scheduled for February 2015."

Elbit Imaging Ltd., is an Israel-based holding company. It
operates in the fields of Commercial and Entertainment Centers,
engaged in the initiation, construction and sale of shopping and
entertainment centers and other mixed-use real property projects,
predominantly in the retail sector; United States Real Property,
investing in commercial real property in the United States;
Hotels, engaged in the management and operation of hotels; Medical
Industries, engaged in research and development, production and
marketing of magnetic resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound
treatment equipment and development of stem cell population
expansion technologies and stem cell therapy products for
transplantation and regenerative medicine; Residential Projects,
engaged in the initiation, construction and sale of residential
projects and other mixed-use real property projects, predominately
residential, and Fashion Apparel, engaged in the Distribution and
marketing of fashion apparel and accessories.


ELS EDUCATIONAL: Fails to Pay Regular & Overtime Pay, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trudy Barnes, Hanna Geshelin and Richard McOmber, individually and
on behalf of the class of ELS employees that are similarly
situated v. ELS Educational Services Inc. dba ELS Language
Centers, and their parent and associated entities, Case No. 4:14-
cv-00188-REB (D. Idaho, May 14, 2014) accuses the Company of
failing to pay regular and overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ELS Educational Services Inc., doing business as ELS Language
Centers, is foreign New Jersey corporation that did business in
Pocatello, Idaho (Bannock County).  The Company's primary business
is teaching the English language to foreign students, who do not
speak English as their primary language.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON OLSON CHARTERED
          419 West Benton
          P.O. Box 1725
          Pocatello, ID 83204-1725
          Telephone: (208) 232-7926
          Facsimile: (208) 232-9161
          E-mail: cjlaw@cableone.net


EXELON CORP: Cotter Defendant in Radioactive Materials Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed that a class action complaint was
filed on April 11, 2014, against Cotter Corporation (Cotter), a
former ComEd subsidiary, alleging negligent handling of
radioactive materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri against Cotter and six
additional defendants. The complaint alleges that individuals
living in the North St. Louis area within a three-mile radius of
the West Lake Landfill suffered damage to property or loss of use
of property due to the defendants' negligent handling of
radioactive materials. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for
monetary damages under the Price-Anderson Act. At this stage of
the litigation, Exelon and Generation cannot estimate a range of
loss, if any.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO)
subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of Columbia
and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000 megawatts
of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy products and
services to approximately 100,000 business and public sector
customers and approximately 1 million residential customers.
Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas to more
than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern Illinois
and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


EXELON CORP: ComEd Has Reserve for Probable Loss in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison Company,
established a reserve, as of March 31, 2014, representing its best
estimate of probable loss associated with the class action
complaint alleging that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to
customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such
messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd
from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages
could range from $500 to $1,500 per text.

On February 21, 2014, ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class
action complaint and intends to contest the allegations of this
suit. As of March 31, 2014, ComEd established a reserve, which was
not material, representing its best estimate of probable loss
associated with this class action complaint. As ComEd is unable to
predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding, actual damages
may differ from the estimated amount recorded, which may be
material to ComEd's results of operations, cash flows, and
financial position.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO)
subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of Columbia
and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000 megawatts
of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy products and
services to approximately 100,000 business and public sector
customers and approximately 1 million residential customers.
Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas to more
than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern Illinois
and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


FORM-TEC INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Villafuerte, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Form-tec, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-02857
(E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Acts, as amended, 29  U.S.C. sections 201, et seq.

Form-tec, Inc., is a New York domestic business entity located at
216 North Main Street, Freeport, New York 11520.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


G WILLI-FOOD: Class Certification Sought for Mislabeling Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three civil complaints and applications for their approval as
class actions were filed against G. Willi-Food International Ltd.,
alleging the unlawful and misleading labeling of imported and sold
products, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

In December 2012, November 2013, and December 2013, three civil
complaints and applications for their approval as class actions
were filed against the Company  alleging the unlawful and
misleading labeling of products imported and sold by the Company.
The complaints seek to represent every resident of the State of
Israel who purchased products of the Company. The aggregate amount
of the claims, as estimated by the plaintiffs, is approximately
NIS 17 million (USD 4.8 million). In light of the early stage of
the procedures, it is not possible at this time to provide an
assessment of the chances of success of the claims and, therefore
no provision has been made in the financial statements.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd., is engaged, directly and through
subsidiaries, in the development, import, export, manufacturing,
marketing and distribution of a range of over 600 food products
worldwide. The Company purchases food products from over 150
suppliers located in Israel and throughout the world, including
from the Far East (China, India, the Philippines and Thailand),
Ethiopia, Eastern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Latvia),
South America (Ecuador and Costa Rica), the United States, Canada,
Western and Central Europe (the Netherlands, Belgium, Monaco,
Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, and France) and Southern
Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Turkey, Greece). The Company
markets most of its products under the brand name Willi-Food. On
January 1, 2012, the Company completed the sale of its entire 51%
ownership interest in Shamir and closed its manufacturing segment.


GARMIN LTD: Defendant in Illinois Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed against Garmin Ltd.,
asserting, among other things, claims for breach of contract, and
violations of Illinois statutory law, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2014.

Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc.

On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lead
plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated. The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz
purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any
model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United
States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory
law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an
unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On
January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice.

On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit with the
same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding an
additional claim for unjust enrichment. Garmin believes that
plaintiff Andrea Katz's claims were mooted prior to the lawsuit
being re-filed. On February 4, 2014, the court ordered the case to
be transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Utah. Garmin sought reconsideration of that order. On
February 13, 2014, the court ordered the parties to brief a
dispositive motion concerning whether Andrea Katz had legal
standing at the time she filed her second action. After Garmin
filed a motion to dismiss, Andrea Katz voluntarily dismissed the
litigation. On March 6, 2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the
District Court for the District of Utah with the same claims, but
with additional claims for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales
Practice Act, Lanham Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act. The
relief she requests is the same. On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a
motion to transfer the Utah action back to the Northern District
of Illinois. On April 17, 2014 the plaintiff filed an opposition
to the motion to transfer. Although there can be no assurance that
an unfavorable outcome of this litigation would not have a
material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity, or
financial position, Garmin believes that the claims in this
lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this
action.

Garmin Ltd. (Garmin) is a provider of navigation, communication
and information devices and applications, which are enabled by
global positioning system (GPS) technology. Garmin designs,
develops, manufactures and markets a diverse family of hand-held,
portable and fixed-mount GPS-enabled products and other
navigation, communications and information products for the
automotive/mobile, outdoor, fitness, marine, and general aviation
markets. Garmin has four segments: Automotive/Mobile, Aviation,
Marine, Outdoor and Fitness. In September 2012, its subsidiary
acquired Nexus Marine AB, a designer and manufacturer of
instrumentation for the sailing and yachting market.


GARMIN LTD: Court Allows Defective Batteries Complaint to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on January 24, 2014, granted, in part, and denied, in
part, a motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint
against the Company, alleging defective lithium-ion batteries,
allowing the case to proceed on other substantive counts,
according to Garmin Ltd.'s Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 29, 2014.

On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action
complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and
Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas. Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in certain
Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the
batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's
warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification,
a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of
injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin
products, and an award of attorneys' fees. On September 18, 2013
the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin Ltd. as a defendant
without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint. On November 1, 2013 the remaining
Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the
complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for
declaratory relief and the prayer for a declaration that the
batteries are defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other
substantive counts. No class has been certified at this time.
Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of
this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our
operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action.

Garmin Ltd. (Garmin) is a provider of navigation, communication
and information devices and applications, which are enabled by
global positioning system (GPS) technology. Garmin designs,
develops, manufactures and markets a diverse family of hand-held,
portable and fixed-mount GPS-enabled products and other
navigation, communications and information products for the
automotive/mobile, outdoor, fitness, marine, and general aviation
markets. Garmin has four segments: Automotive/Mobile, Aviation,
Marine, Outdoor and Fitness. In September 2012, its subsidiary
acquired Nexus Marine AB, a designer and manufacturer of
instrumentation for the sailing and yachting market.


GE CAPITAL: Accused of Using Illegal Automated Dialing Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jodie Cowan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GE Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 3:14-cv-00696 (D.
Conn., May 14, 2014) accuses GE of using automated dialing systems
to bombard unsuspecting consumers with automated calls, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

GE Capital Retail Bank is a Connecticut business entity
headquartered in Kettering, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Nava" Suit Over Defective Ignition Switch
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Nava, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. General Motors, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 8:14-cv-00755-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2014) seeks
redress and remedy from GM on behalf of class members, each of
whom purchased or leased one or more 2003-2007 Saturn Ion
vehicles.

The Plaintiff alleges that the vehicles contain a uniformly
designed ignition switch, which is prone to fail during ordinary
and foreseeable driving situations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM PC
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on April 15, 2014, denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class in a putative class action lawsuit against
Genworth Financial, Inc., alleging securities law and other
violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April
30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company disclosed that, "in December 2009, one of our former
non-insurance subsidiaries, one of the former subsidiary's
officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. (now known as Genworth
Holdings, Inc.) were named in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial
Wealth Management, Inc. et al., in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege
securities law and other violations involving the selection of
mutual funds by our former subsidiary on behalf of certain of its
Private Client Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
monetary other relief. Oral argument on plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class action was conducted on January 30, 2013. On April
15, 2014, the court issued its decision denying the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class."

Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) is a financial security
company. The Company provides insurance, wealth management,
investment and financial solutions. As of December 31, 2011, the
Company had more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries. The Company operates in Insurance,
Mortgage Insurance and Corporate and Runoff. The Mortgage
Insurance Division includes the business segments, such as
International Mortgage Insurance and U.S. Mortgage Insurance. The
Corporate and Runoff Division includes the Runoff segment and
Corporate and Other activities. In September 2013, Genworth
Financial, Inc closed the sale of its Wealth Management business,
including Genworth Financial Wealth Management and alternative
solutions provider, the Altegris companies, to a partnership of
Aquiline Capital Partners and Genstar Capital.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defendant in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., is a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit alleging securities law violations, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., and a former and current
officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned
City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities
law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning
Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business, including our
plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such
equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The
Company intends to vigorously defend this action.

Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) is a financial security
company. The Company provides insurance, wealth management,
investment and financial solutions. As of December 31, 2011, the
Company had more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries. The Company operates in Insurance,
Mortgage Insurance and Corporate and Runoff. The Mortgage
Insurance Division includes the business segments, such as
International Mortgage Insurance and U.S. Mortgage Insurance. The
Corporate and Runoff Division includes the Runoff segment and
Corporate and Other activities. In September 2013, Genworth
Financial, Inc closed the sale of its Wealth Management business,
including Genworth Financial Wealth Management and alternative
solutions provider, the Altegris companies, to a partnership of
Aquiline Capital Partners and Genstar Capital.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Menichino" Suit Stayed Pending Riddle Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., reported that on March 26, 2014, the
so-called Menichino action was stayed pending the outcome of the
Riddle appeal, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April
30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

According to the Company, "beginning in December 2011 and
continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage
insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage
insurers and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative
class action lawsuits alleging that certain "captive reinsurance
arrangements" were in violation of RESPA. On February 5, 2014, the
court in Menichino denied the motions to dismiss without prejudice
to the defendants re-raising the affirmative defense of the
statute of limitations on a more fully developed record at summary
judgment. On March 5, 2014 the Ba case was stayed, pending the
outcome of the Riddle appeal by plaintiff of the court's decision
granting our motion for summary judgment dismissing the case as
time barred. On March 26, 2014, the Menichino action was stayed
pending the outcome of the Riddle appeal. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the remaining actions."

Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) is a financial security
company. The Company provides insurance, wealth management,
investment and financial solutions. As of December 31, 2011, the
Company had more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries. The Company operates in Insurance,
Mortgage Insurance and Corporate and Runoff. The Mortgage
Insurance Division includes the business segments, such as
International Mortgage Insurance and U.S. Mortgage Insurance. The
Corporate and Runoff Division includes the Runoff segment and
Corporate and Other activities. In September 2013, Genworth
Financial, Inc closed the sale of its Wealth Management business,
including Genworth Financial Wealth Management and alternative
solutions provider, the Altegris companies, to a partnership of
Aquiline Capital Partners and Genstar Capital.


GOOGLE INC: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, a consumer rights law firm, on May 20 filed a
national class-action lawsuit against Google, claiming the company
unlawfully denies payments to thousands of website owners and
operators who place ads on their sites sold through Google
AdWords.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleges that Google abruptly cancels
website owners' AdSense accounts often without explanation shortly
before payments are due, and refuses to pay for the ads that ran
prior to the cancelation.

"This wrongful practice has sparked numerous bitter complaints
from website owners across the Web, with some reporting losses
reaching thousands of dollars a pop," said Steve Berman, attorney
representing consumers and founding partner of Hagens Berman.
"What we believe to be true from our research is that Google's
practice is likely hurting thousands of website owners and
operators who feel they have no way to fight a giant company like
Google."

According to the suit, Google's popular AdSense program translates
annually to billions of dollars payable to website operators that
host its ads via AdSense.  Google's AdSense advertising program
induces website operators to host space for ads on their websites.
Each time a visitor to the website interacts with the ad, the ad
publisher who hosts the ad earns payment.

The complaint claims that the contracts and terms of service
Google requires web publishers to sign are unconscionably one-
sided, giving Google free reign to embark on what the suit claims
are actions devoid of good faith or fair dealing.

"We have heard from Web publishers who tell us the same thing:
Google cuts them off right before a payment is due, and stonewalls
them when they object," Mr. Berman said.  "Google's company motto
is 'Don't be evil.' Knowing what we know, I think they have a lot
of work to do to be true to that goal."

The complaint states, "Given Google's contractual terms
purportedly permitting it to withhold payment to publishers with
disabled accounts, and in light of the experience of the plaintiff
in seeing this policy actually effected, the total of earned funds
that Google has refused to pay its AdSense publishers could be
enormous."

The lawsuit claims Google is in violation of contracts with users
and in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.

The named plaintiff, Free Range Content, Inc., is a California
corporation that owns and operates Repost.us.  Free Range Content
first noticed a spike in AdSense earnings in Feb. 2014.  At the
end of Feb. 2014, Google issued a report stating that the
plaintiff's estimated earnings for the covered period were over
$40,000 -- a number that seemed far too high.  Then on March 4,
2014 -- two days before a scheduled March 6, 2014 call with an
AdSense representative was slated to occur -- the plaintiff
received word from the AdSense program that Google had disabled
its account.

The lawsuit seeks damages for all U.S. Google AdSense publishers
whose AdSense account was disabled or terminated, and whose last
AdSense program payment was withheld permanently by Google.

Concerned consumers are encouraged to contact a Hagens Berman
attorney by emailing GoogleAdSense@hbsslaw.com or calling
(206) 623-7292.

Additional information about the investigation is available at

http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/cases/Google-AdSense

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List seven times.


GOOGLE INC: Appeals Court Won't Revive Gmail Ads Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Daily Online Examiner, reports that a
federal appellate court has turned away consumers who say their
privacy is violated by Gmail ads.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the consumers' attempt
to immediately appeal U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh's recent
decision denying them class-action status in the case.  Judge
Koh's ruling theoretically still allows the consumers to move
forward as individuals.  But as a practical matter, the decision
could make it prohibitively expensive for the consumers to go
ahead with the lawsuit.  The appellate court didn't give any
reason for its decision, which was quietly issued last week.

The ruling marks the latest chapter in a longstanding battle about
Google's practice of scanning Gmail messages in order to surround
them with targeted ads.  The consumers argue that the scans
violate the federal wiretap law, which prohibits companies from
intercepting electronic communications without at least one
party's consent.

Google has said that Gmail account holders consent by accepting
the company's terms of service, and that non-account holders
implicitly consent by using the service.

Judge Koh surprised many observers last year, when she agreed with
the consumers that the scans potentially violated the wiretap law.
Specifically, she disagreed with Google that its written policies
clearly disclosed its practices.

But even though consumers won that round, they lost a key battle
in March, when Judge Koh ruled that they can't proceed as a class-
action.  She said that one of the main contested issues will be
whether people consented to the email scans, but figuring out the
answer to those questions will require case-by-case analysis.

Meanwhile, Google revised its privacy policy last month.  The
company now tells users: "Our automated systems analyze your
content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant
product features, such as customized search results, tailored
advertising, and spam and malware detection.  This analysis occurs
as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored."


GRUMA SAB: No FDA Determination Yet on Tortilla Chips Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on January 6, 2014, said it
would not, at this time, consider the referred issue of the use of
the "All Natural" identifier on Gruma SAB de CV's Mission tortilla
chips, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On or about December 21, 2012, a consumer filed a putative class
action against Gruma Corporation, claiming that Mission tortilla
chips should not be labeled "All Natural" if they contain certain
non-natural ingredients. The plaintiff seeks restitution or other
actual damages including attorneys' fees. In response to a motion
to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers granted in part Gruma Corporation's motion, and
referred to the US FDA for an administrative determination
regarding the use of the "All Natural" identifier. On January 6,
2014 the FDA responded that it would not, at this time, consider
the referred issue. The court then requested additional briefing
from the parties, and will be proceeding with the case.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. It
is the opinion of the Company that the outcome of this proceeding
will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position,
results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

Gruma SAB de CV (GRUMA) is a Mexico-based company engaged, through
its subsidiaries, in the production, distribution and sale of corn
flour. The Company's range of products includes wheat flour, corn
flour, corn tortilla, oats and rice. Its whole production is
marketed under the Juana, Demasa, Robin Hood, Flor de Trigo,
Polar, Monica and Lassie brands. In addition, the Company is
active in the development and manufacturing of its production
equipment and facilities. The Company owns such subsidiaries as
Grupo Industrial Maseca, SAB de CV, Molinera de Mexico SA de CV,
Gruma Corporation, Gruma International Foods SL, Derivados de Maiz
Seleccionado CA, Tortimasa SA and Industrializadora y
Comercializadora de Palmito SA, among others. The Company operates
in the United States and regions of Latin America, Europe and Asia
and Oceania.


GRUMA SAB: Motion to Stay Class Certification Bid Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gruma SAB de CV's Motion to Stay Determination of Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Class a putative class action claiming that
Mission tortilla chips should not be labeled "All Natural" is
pending, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On or about August 12, 2013, a consumer filed a putative class
action against Gruma Corporation, claiming that Mission tortilla
chips should not be labeled "All Natural" if they contain certain
non-natural ingredients. The plaintiff seeks restitution or other
actual damages including attorneys' fees. In response to a motion
to dismiss filed by Gruma Corporation, plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint and Motion to Certify Class. On October 25,
2013, Gruma Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint, and on October 29, 2013, filed a Motion to Stay
Determination of Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. Those
motions are pending.

Gruma Corporation intends to vigorously defend against this
action. It is the opinion of Gruma Corporation that the outcome of
this proceeding will not have a material adverse effect on Gruma
Corporation's financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.

Gruma SAB de CV (GRUMA) is a Mexico-based company engaged, through
its subsidiaries, in the production, distribution and sale of corn
flour. The Company's range of products includes wheat flour, corn
flour, corn tortilla, oats and rice. Its whole production is
marketed under the Juana, Demasa, Robin Hood, Flor de Trigo,
Polar, Monica and Lassie brands. In addition, the Company is
active in the development and manufacturing of its production
equipment and facilities. The Company owns such subsidiaries as
Grupo Industrial Maseca, SAB de CV, Molinera de Mexico SA de CV,
Gruma Corporation, Gruma International Foods SL, Derivados de Maiz
Seleccionado CA, Tortimasa SA and Industrializadora y
Comercializadora de Palmito SA, among others. The Company operates
in the United States and regions of Latin America, Europe and Asia
and Oceania.


GRUMA SAB: U.S. Court Stayed Wage & Hour Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
According to Gruma SAB de CV in its Form 20-F filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, a U.S. Court has stayed a
putative class action seeking wage and hour claims against Gruma
Corporation, while Gruma evaluates the claims and prepares its
answer.

On or about June 26, 2013, a former employee of Gruma Corporation,
filed a putative class action against Gruma Corporation seeking
damages for certain wage and hour claims under California law. The
court has entered a stay while Gruma Corporation evaluates
plaintiff's claims and prepares its answer. Gruma Corporation
intends to vigorously defend against this action. It is the
opinion of Gruma Corporation that the outcome of this proceeding
will not have a material adverse effect on Gruma Corporation's
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Gruma SAB de CV (GRUMA) is a Mexico-based company engaged, through
its subsidiaries, in the production, distribution and sale of corn
flour. The Company's range of products includes wheat flour, corn
flour, corn tortilla, oats and rice. Its whole production is
marketed under the Juana, Demasa, Robin Hood, Flor de Trigo,
Polar, Monica and Lassie brands. In addition, the Company is
active in the development and manufacturing of its production
equipment and facilities. The Company owns such subsidiaries as
Grupo Industrial Maseca, SAB de CV, Molinera de Mexico SA de CV,
Gruma Corporation, Gruma International Foods SL, Derivados de Maiz
Seleccionado CA, Tortimasa SA and Industrializadora y
Comercializadora de Palmito SA, among others. The Company operates
in the United States and regions of Latin America, Europe and Asia
and Oceania.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Medical Record Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Des Moines law firm LaMarca & Landry P.C. has filed a class-action
lawsuit that alleges a Georgia-based company has overcharged
possibly thousands of Iowans for medical records requests.  The
petition, filed April 23 in Polk County District Court, alleges
that HealthPort Technologies LLC violated state law by charging
per-page amounts that exceed the actual expense to prepare
duplicates, and by charging a "basic fee" for delivery of each
medical billing statement requested.  The lawsuit, filed by the
firm on behalf of several of its personal-injury clients, also
alleges that HealthPort charges an "electronic delivery fee" that
is not related to the actual expense of postage incurred.  In 2008
the Legislature enacted a statute that limits the fees that can be
charged for medical record services.  The plaintiffs are seeking
an injunction on HealthPort as well as refunds of amounts
unlawfully collected.  The case is Gerald P. Young et.al. v.
HealthPort Technologies LLC.


HOSPIRA INC: Securities Suit Plaintiffs Seek Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., is a defendant in a lawsuit alleging violations of
the Securities and Exchange Act seeking class action status,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

Hospira and certain of its corporate officers and former corporate
officers are defendants in a lawsuit alleging violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: City of Sterling Heights
General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. Michael
Ball, Thomas E. Werner, James H. Hardy, Jr., and Christopher B.
Begley, amended complaint filed June 25, 2012 and pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The lawsuit alleges, generally, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Hospira's financials and business prospects and failed to disclose
material facts affecting Hospira's financial condition. The
lawsuit alleges a class period from February 4, 2010 (announcement
of fourth quarter, 2009 financial results) through October 17,
2011 (Hospira announced preliminary financial results for third
quarter, 2011 on October 18, 2011). The lawsuit seeks class action
status and damages including interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The parties have reached a tentative agreement to settle this
matter. It is anticipated that the settlement will be fully funded
by insurance proceeds.

Hospira, Inc. (Hospira) is a provider of injectable drugs and
infusion technologies. Hospira's portfolio includes generic acute-
care and oncology injectables, as well as integrated infusion
therapy and medication management products. Hospira's portfolio of
products is used by hospitals and alternate site providers, such
as clinics, home healthcare providers and long-term care
facilities. Hospira conducts operations worldwide and is managed
in three reportable segments: Americas; Europe, Middle East and
Africa (EMEA), and Asia Pacific (APAC). The Americas segment
includes the United States, Canada and Latin America; the EMEA
segment includes Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the APAC
segment includes Asia, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. In all
segments, Hospira sells a line of products, including specialty
injectable and other pharmaceuticals and medication management
products.


HUNTSVILLE, AL: Desegregation Suit No Longer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
WAFF reports that the judge overseeing the process to desegregate
Huntsville City Schools made an important ruling on May 20.  The
case will no longer be handled as a class-action lawsuit.  The
original filing of the case did not designate it as a class-action
suit.  As a result, the attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
will no longer be party to the case.

Because of a long-standing desegregation order, Huntsville City
Schools must obtain federal approval before making any zoning
changes.  The Department of Justice is fighting Huntsville's
recently-submitted plan to make zoning changes.


KEVIN DURANT: Sued in Kentucky for Funding Murderous Sexual Cult
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Joseph Millard and all others similarly situated v. Kevin
Durant; Oklahoma City Thunder; National Basketball Association
a/k/a NBA; and Chesapeake Energy, Case No. 5:14-cv-00100-TBR (W.D.
Ky., May 14, 2014) accuses Kevin Durant of funding a murderous
sexual cult.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is serving a state
sentence in Pennsylvania for a sex crime.  Mr. Millard is also
under investigation for running a sex and murder cult.

The Plaintiff said he is "whistleblowing the covert operation" and
that "Durant did my crime, I was framed."

He also said Chesapeake Energy, who owns the Oklahoma Thunder
basketball club, "has been ripping off Pennsylvania residents with
fracking, making them pay shipping fees while orchestrating this
savage and sinister cult in Northeast Philadelphia who go
unnoticed covertly from security intelligence agencies."

"Everyday that Kevin Durant scores 30 points his employers drill
another well, kills animals and destroys all eco systems, plots
terror with his Philadelphia cult/Terror Base affiliates all the
while laughing to the bank," the hand-written complaint alleges.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the case.


LAKE COUNTY, IN: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Eaton, Juanita Leipert, Jaylynn Cox, and all others similarly
situated v. County of Lake, Lake County Indiana, and The Lake
County Sheriff's Department, Case No. 2:14-cv-00163 (N.D. Ind.,
May 14, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lake County is a county government unit of the state of Indiana.
Lake County Sheriff's Department is a department of Lake County
and has authority pursuant to applicable law to be the chief law
enforcement officer of Lake County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan A. Hagerty, Esq.
          ASHER, GITTLER & D'ALBA, LTD.
          200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 263-1500
          Facsimile: (312) 263-1520
          E-mail: rah@ulaw.com


LATAM AIRLINES: C$700,000 Settlement to Plaintiffs Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Latam Airlines Group SA disclosed in its Form 20-F filed on April
30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that approved a settlement
agreement with certain class actions plaintiffs for C$700,000 in
January 2012.

According to the Company, the investigation by the U.S. Department
of Justice prompted the filing of numerous civil class actions by
freight forwarding and shipping companies against many airlines,
including LAN Cargo and LATAM Airlines Group, including 54 in the
United States. The cases filed in the United States were
consolidated in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of New York and the original complaint was subsequently amended to
include additional airlines, including ABSA. On May 11, 2011, LAN
Cargo announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with
the class action plaintiffs in relation to this litigation. As per
the settlement agreement, LAN Cargo agreed to pay US$59.7 million.
Furthermore, ABSA also reached a settlement agreement with class
action plaintiffs and agreed to pay US$6.3 million. The amounts
were paid to plaintiffs' counsel escrow account in 2011. DHL, a
former member of the civil class action plaintiffs, timely opted
out of the settlements agreement. LAN Cargo reached a settlement
agreement with StarBroker A.G., on behalf of DHL Global
Forwarding, whereby LAN Cargo agreed to pay US$8.2 million, of
which US$7.1 million was recovered by LAN Cargo from the escrow
amount set aside in the class action settlement previously paid by
LAN Cargo for opt out plaintiffs.

The Canadian Competition Bureau ("CCB"), in conjunction with the
DOJ, also initiated a global investigation of a large number of
international cargo airlines (among them LAN Cargo) for possible
price fixing of cargo fuel surcharges and other fees in the
Canadian air cargo markets in 2006. On August 20, 2013, LAN Cargo
reached a plea agreement with the CCB in relation to the CCB's
ongoing investigation regarding price fixing of fuel surcharges
and other fees for cargo shipments. Under the plea agreement, LAN
Cargo agreed to pay a fine of US$975,000. The CCB's investigation
prompted the filing of four separate civil class actions by
freight forwarding and shipping companies against many airlines,
including LAN Cargo and LAN, in Canada. On January 31, 2012, LAN
and LAN Cargo approved a settlement agreement with the class
actions plaintiffs for an amount of C$700,000 (Canadian Dollars).

Latam Airlines Group SA is a Chile-based airline company. The
Company and its affiliates provides domestic and international
passenger services, as well as freight cargo services in Chile,
Peru, Argentina, Colombia and Ecuador with a wide range of routes
around America, Europe and Oceania. Through its subsidiaries, it
also provides cargo operations in Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, as
well as other services such as ground handling and maintenance.
The Company offers the passenger transport services to about 150
destinations in 22 countries and cargo services to about 169
destinations in 27 countries, with a fleet of 310 aircraft. As of
December 31, 2012, the Company's major shareholder was Costa Verde
Aeronautica S.A. with a stake of 25.92%.


LATAM AIRLINES: Says US$400-Mil Enough to Cover TAM Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Latam Airlines Group SA believes that the cap of US$400 million in
TAM Linhas Aereas' insurance policy with ItauUnibancoSeguros S.A.
is sufficient to cover legal claims involving one of its Fokker
100 aircraft, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April
30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

TAM is party to one action filed by relatives of victims of an
accident that occurred in October 1996 involving one of its Fokker
100 aircraft which crashed during departure, in addition to 22
actions filed by residents of the region of where the accident
occurred, who are claiming pain and suffering, and a class action
related to this crash. Any damages resulting from the
aforementioned legal claims are covered by the civil liability
guarantee provided for in TAM's insurance policy with
ItauUnibancoSeguros S.A. The Company believes that the cap of
US$400 million in that insurance policy is sufficient to cover any
potential penalties and judicial or extrajudicial agreements
arising as a result of this matter.

Latam Airlines Group SA is a Chile-based airline company. The
Company and its affiliates provides domestic and international
passenger services, as well as freight cargo services in Chile,
Peru, Argentina, Colombia and Ecuador with a wide range of routes
around America, Europe and Oceania. Through its subsidiaries, it
also provides cargo operations in Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, as
well as other services such as ground handling and maintenance.
The Company offers the passenger transport services to about 150
destinations in 22 countries and cargo services to about 169
destinations in 27 countries, with a fleet of 310 aircraft. As of
December 31, 2012, the Company's major shareholder was Costa Verde
Aeronautica S.A. with a stake of 25.92%.


LCA-VISION: Plaintiffs Withdrew Motion for Preliminary Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class actions alleging breach of
fiduciary duty against LCA-Vision Inc., in connection with a
planned merger, have agreed to withdraw their motion for
preliminary injunction, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated
April 30, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2014.

The litigation is related to, among other things, the Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated as of February 13, 2014 among LCA-Vision
Inc., PhotoMedex, Inc. ("PMI"), and Gatorade Acquisition Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of PMI (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which PMI agreed to acquire all outstanding shares of LCA
common stock for $5.37 per share (the "Merger") on the terms
described in the Merger Agreement.

The Company has filed a Current Report on Form 8-K to provide
additional disclosures to supplement those contained in the
Definitive Proxy Statement mailed on or about March 28, 2014 to
the Company's stockholders of record as of the close of business
on March 20, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement") in connection with the
solicitation of proxies for use at the special meeting of
stockholders to be held at the Queen City Club, 331 East Fourth
Street, Cincinnati, Ohio on May 7, 2014, at 9 a.m., Eastern Time.
The purpose of the special meeting was to (i) consider and vote on
a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement, pursuant to which PMI
will acquire LCA, and LCA stockholders will be entitled to receive
$5.37 in cash, without interest and less any applicable
withholding taxes, for each share of common stock, par value of
$0.001 per share, of LCA that they own immediately prior to the
effective time of the Merger; (ii) consider and vote on an
advisory, non-binding proposal regarding the compensation that may
be payable to LCA's named executive officers that is based on or
otherwise relates to the Merger; and (iii) consider and vote on a
proposal to approve one or more adjournments or postponements of
the special meeting to a later date or time, if necessary or
appropriate, including adjournments to permit further solicitation
of proxies in favor of the proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement.
The LCA board of directors fixed March 20, 2014 as the record date
for the purpose of determining stockholders who are entitled to
receive notice of, and to vote (in person or by proxy) at the
special meeting.

The Company's board of directors unanimously determined that the
Merger Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement are in the best interests of
the Company and its stockholders and unanimously approved the
Merger Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement. THE COMPANY'S BOARD OF
DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS UNANIMOUSLY THAT THE COMPANY'S STOCKHOLDERS
VOTE "FOR" THE PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE MERGER AGREEMENT AND APPROVE
THE MERGER.

Litigation Related to the Merger

On February 28, 2014 Michael Blank, a stockholder of LCA, filed a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Blank v. LCA Vision Inc.,
et al. (the "Blank Action"), No. A1401239, in the Court of Common
Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio, against the Company, members of
its board of directors and management, PMI and Gatorade
Acquisition Corp. ("Defendants"), alleging, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duty and seeking, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 11, 2014, an amended
complaint was filed in the Blank Action.

Three additional lawsuits subsequently were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio purporting to advance
similar claims against the Defendants (or some combination
thereof). See Lavella v. Woods, et al. (the "Lavella Action"), No.
A1401252 (filed March 3, 2014); Beroff v. LCA Vision Inc., et al.
(the "Beroff Action"), No. A1401509 (filed March 12, 2014); and
Eccles v. LCA Vision, Inc., et al. (the "Eccles Action"), A1401673
(filed March 20, 2014).

By agreement of the parties, the Blank Action, the Lavella Action,
the Beroff Action and the Eccles Action were consolidated on April
25, 2014, and are proceeding on a consolidated basis before the
Honorable Steven Martin under the caption In re LCA-Vision Inc.
Shareholder Litigation (the "Consolidated Action"). The law firm
of Robbins Arroyo LLP was appointed Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in
the Consolidated Action. The law firms of Landskroner Grieco
Merriman, LLC and Cummins & Brown LLC were appointed as Lead
Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs and Co-Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs, respectively.

On or around March 25, 2014, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
and the LCA Defendants reached an agreement by which the LCA
Defendants agreed to produce certain discovery to Plaintiffs on an
expedited basis.

Two lawsuits were also filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
purporting to advance similar claims against the Defendants (or
some combination thereof). See Wallis v. LCA-Vision Inc., et al
(the "Wallis Action"), No. 9369 (filed February 19, 2014) and
Smith v. LCA-Vision Inc. et al (the "Smith Action"), No. 9406
(filed February 28, 2014).

The Smith Action and the Wallis Action were consolidated by Vice
Chancellor Laster on March 24, 2014, and are pending under the
caption In re LCA-Vision Inc. Shareholder Litigation (the
"Consolidated Delaware Action"); the law firms of Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A. and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC were appointed Co-Lead
Counsel for the Delaware Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware
Action; and the law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A was appointed as
Liaison Counsel for the Delaware Plaintiffs.

On April 22, 2014, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a
motion for an expedited hearing on their motion for a preliminary
injunction to restrain the holding of the special meeting and the
consummation of the Merger. The hearing was scheduled to be held
on May 5, 2014.

On April 29, 2014, lead counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action, on behalf of all counsel in the Consolidated Action,
agreed to withdraw their motion for preliminary injunction and,
together with Co-Lead Counsel in the Delaware Action, agreed not
to seek to enjoin the stockholder vote or the consummation of the
Merger, in return for the Company's agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the Merger. This agreement
will not affect the amount of merger consideration that LCA
stockholders will be entitled to receive in the Merger or any
other terms of the Merger Agreement as described in the Proxy
Statement.

The Defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have
committed any of the unlawful or wrongful acts alleged in the
Consolidated Action or otherwise in relation to the Merger, the
Merger Agreement, or any of the events/actions related thereto,
and specifically deny that any further disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law. The Defendants have agreed to provide the
supplemental disclosures solely to minimize the cost of defending
the litigation described above and to permit the special meeting
and stockholder vote to proceed without delay. There can be no
assurance that the Merger will be consummated, that the parties to
the litigation will enter into a stipulation of settlement that
the court will approve, or as to the outcome of the litigation if
the court does not approve a settlement.

LCA-Vision Inc., is a provider of fixed-site laser vision
correction services at its LasikPlus vision centers.


LIFEWATCH USA: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Alleged Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
LifeWatch USA, which provides heart-monitoring services for senior
citizens and others, rips off its customers by fooling them into
paying monthly fees even when their devices are not activated,
according to a proposed class action filed in New York.

The complaint by dentist Edward Reynolds claims sales
representatives of the company tell potential customers that a
family member, friend or other person has purchased a LifeWatch
monitoring device for them, and that all the customer had to do
was pay the monthly $34.95 monitoring charge.

But, in Reynolds v. LifeWatch Inc., filed on May 19 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
plaintiff alleges the telemarketers' representation is simply a
ploy to hook the customer into paying the monthly fees.

In the complaint, Reynolds said he believed the salesperson's
pitch about a family member buying the device for him, and gave
his credit card number.  He alleges his card was charged
immediately, even before he received the device.

Mr. Reynolds alleges he ultimately received the monitor but never
activated it.  Despite that, he continued to be charged the fee
for several months, even after he protested that the device had
never been turned on and would not be.

The complaint alleges LifeWatch violated New York business and
consumer protection laws and engaged in fraud and
misrepresentation.

The plaintiff's attorney is Barry Gainey -- bgainey@gme-law.com --
of Gainey, McKenna & Egleston.


LIHUA INTERNATIONAL: Accused of Securities Laws Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Grodko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Lihua International Inc., et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03503 (C.D. Cal., May 7, 2014), seeks to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Lihua International Inc., is a Delaware corporation that purports
to manufacture, markets, and distribute refine copper products
through its wholly owned subsidiaries Danyang Lihua Electron Co.,
Ltd., and Jiangsu Lihua Copper Industry Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Denied Certification of Bonus Stock Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc., stated that a court denied on
January 7, 2014, plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a
putative class action alleging that certain bonus stock are
subject to vesting requirements under the ERISA, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott
employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action
complaint against us and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"),
alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock
granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees
for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more
rapid than those set forth in the awards. The plaintiffs seek
damages, class attorneys' fees and interest, with no amounts
specified. The action is proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division) and Dennis
Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman are the current named
plaintiffs. The parties completed limited discovery concerning
Marriott's defense of statute of limitations with respect to Mr.
Bond and Mr. Steigman and completed discovery concerning class
certification. We opposed plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and sought summary judgment on the issue of statute
of limitations in 2012. On August 9, 2013, the court denied our
motion for summary judgment on the issue of statute of limitations
and deferred its ruling on class certification. We moved to amend
the court's judgment on our motion for summary judgment in order
to certify an interlocutory appeal, which was denied. On January
7, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and issued a Scheduling Order for full discovery of
the remaining issues in this case. The parties filed a joint
motion to modify the Scheduling Order on March 26, 2014. We and
the Stock Plan have denied all liability, and while we intend to
vigorously defend against the claims being made by the plaintiffs,
we can give you no assurance about the outcome of this lawsuit. We
currently cannot estimate the range of any possible loss to the
Company because an amount of damages is not claimed, there is
uncertainty as to the number of parties for whom the claims may be
pursued, and the possibility of our prevailing on our statute of
limitations defense on appeal may significantly limit any claims
for damages."

Marriott International, Inc. is a diversified hospitality company.
It is a lodging company with more than 3,700 properties in 73
countries and territories. It operates and franchises hotels,
including Marriott, The Ritz-Carlton, JW Marriott, Bulgari,
EDITION, Renaissance, Autograph Collection, AC Hotels by Marriott,
Courtyard, Fairfield Inn & Suites, SpringHill Suites, Residence
Inn, TownePlace Suites, ExecuStay, and Marriott Executive
Apartments brand names. It operates in four segments: North
American Full-Service Lodging, which includes the Marriott Hotels
& Resorts; North American Limited-Service Lodging, which includes
the Courtyard; International Lodging, which includes the Marriott
Hotels & Resorts, and Luxury Lodging, which includes The Ritz-
Carlton. In April 2014, the Company acquired 116-hotel Protea
Hospitality Group (PHG), based in South Africa.


MARRIOTT VACATION: Sued Over Time-Share Trading Programs
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orland Sentinel, reports that The
Marriott Vacation Club is being sued in a proposed class action
that targets the company's time-share trading programs.

The Orlando-based company was named a defendant in a lawsuit filed
recently by three law firms on behalf of one named plaintiff,
Salvatore Desantis of New Jersey.  The suit alleges that Mr.
Desantis and other timeshare owners suffered loss of value to
their timeshares when Marriott switched in 2010 from a week-based
trade program to a points-based program.

The week-based program allowed customers to purchase a week of
ownership at a specific location or resort.  They could trade, but
only with other specific locations.  In the points program,
customers buy points that can be used at a variety of locations.
The points program is intended to offer more flexibility, but
critics of the program complain that the basis for determining
value of points at various properties can be arbitrary or
disputed.

According to the suit, owners who purchased timeshares before 2010
are confined to the week-based program, which has a dwindling
number of members.  Marriott has offered owners a chance to trade
up into the point-based program, but only for a fee of $10,000,
the suit alleges. Attorneys in the case said the class could
number up to 15,000 timeshare owners.

A spokeswoman for MVC's law firm, Greenberg Traurig, said the
company declined to comment on the lawsuit.

"You have a lot of people who feel like they've been short-
changed," said attorney Stephen Fearon -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com
-- of New York-based Squitieri & Fearon, one of the attorneys for
Mr. Desantis.  "In the next stage of discovery, we will try to get
more information to identify the class."

Ray Barto -- raymond@sfclasslaw.com -- another attorney with
Squitieri & Fearon, said some owners "just don't have the 10
grand, and some have it but just don't want to shell that out.
There's also people who paid the fee already that could be in the
class."

The lawsuit seeks class action status.  It was filed in Orange
County Circuit Court in March but transferred May 9 to federal
court in Orlando before U.S. District Judge Gregory A. Presnell.
Other firms representing Mr. Desantis are Varnell & Warwick of
Lady Lake and Gersowitz Libo & Korek of New York.  Greenberg
Traurig is representing Marriott Vacation Club.

Message boards for Marriott timeshare owners, including Marriott
Rewards Insiders, reflected comments and discussion threads where
members discussed the transition from weeks-based to points-based
programs.


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Bunnelle" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Bunnelle, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CT-002094-14, from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02355-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

Sarah Bunnelle is a resident of Ham Lake, in Anoka County,
Minnesota, who suffered injuries as a result of her alleged
exposure to components or individual parts of Medtronic's
Infuse(R) Bone Graft/LT-Cage(TM) Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device
(Infuse(R)).  William Bunnelle is the lawful spouse of Sarah
Bunnelle.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart L. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Marlene J. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-4662
          Facsimile: (612) 367-8107
          E-mail: slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com
                  mjg@goldenberglaw.com

               - and -

          Turner W. Branch, Esq.
          Margaret M. Branch, Esq.
          Adam T. Funk, Esq.
          BRANCH LAW FIRM
          2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 243-3500
          Facsimile: (505) 243-3534
          E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  mbranch@branchlawfirm.com
                  afunk@branchlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Laura V. Yaeger, Esq.
          FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          1330 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 3030
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 621-7944
          E-mail: laura_yaeger@fleming-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


MOBILESMITH INC: Issued Grasford Settlement Shares on Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
MobileSmith, Inc., on December 31, 2013, issued settlement shares
to Grasford, Atlas's assignee under an agreement, in consideration
of $737,500 payable to the Class Action settlement fund amended,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 30, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013.

Until February 7, 2013, Atlas was a beneficial owner of 40% of the
Company's outstanding common stock, and the holder of a majority
of the aggregate outstanding principal amount, or the Requisite
Percentage Holder, of the Notes. On February 7, 2013, Avy Lugassy,
a principal with Atlas, and the beneficial owner of 7,330,269
shares of the Company's common stock, representing approximately
40% of the Company's outstanding common stock, transferred such
shares of common stock from Atlas to Grasford, which is owned and
controlled by Mr. Lugassy.

On December 18, 2013, the Company, Mary Beauregard, as Lead
Plaintiff in the securities class action involving the Company
captioned Mary Jane Beauregard vs. Smart Online, Inc., et al.,
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina, or the Class Action, and Atlas entered into an
Agreement, Acknowledgment and Partial Release.

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Atlas agreed to purchase
25,000 shares of the Company's common stock transferred by Henry
Nouri to the Class Action settlement fund, or the Settlement Fund,
and 1,475,000 shares of the Company's common stock, or the
Settlement Shares, for $0.50 per share, and to waive and
relinquish any claim to any share of the future proceeds of the
Settlement Fund. On December 31, 2013, the Company issued the
Settlement Shares to Grasford, Atlas's assignee under the
Agreement, in consideration of $737,500 payable to the Class
Action settlement fund.

Atlas was the majority holder of the aggregate outstanding
principal amount of the Notes until November 1, 2013, at which
time Mr. Lugassy transferred all approximately $13.83 million in
aggregate principal amount of Notes from Atlas to Grasford. The
terms of the Convertible Secured Subordinated Note Purchase
Agreement, dated November 14, 2007, as amended, and the Notes are
described in "Sale of Convertible Notes to Certain Related
Parties".

MobileSmith, Inc., formerly Smart Online, Inc., develops and
markets a range of mobile application software products and
services that are delivered via a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS),
model. The Company also provides Website and mobile consulting
services to businesses and not-for-profit organizations. Its
principal products and services include SaaS applications for
business management, Web marketing, and e-commerce; Software
business tools that assist customers in developing written
content; Services that are designed to complement its product
offerings and allows it to create custom business solutions that
fit its end users' and channel partners' needs; Services that
assist not-for-profit organizations in their fundraising efforts,
and Mobile phone applications used to provide specialized
communications and e-commerce opportunities for businesses and
not-for-profit organizations.


MSF MECHANICAL: Accused of Discriminatory Termination in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. MSF Mechanical of NYC LLC, S. Tieger Plumbing Company,
Inc., 889 LLC, Sylvan Tieger, Claire Tieger and Mark Stagg, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03477-AKH (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2014) is a collective
action for unpaid wages, premium overtime, employer notice and
record keeping violations, and alleged discriminatory termination
based on a disability.

MSF Mechanical of NYC LLC is a New York Domestic Limited Liability
Company headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.  S. Tieger Plumbing
Company, Inc. is a New York Domestic Business Corporation
headquartered in Bronx, New York.  889 LLC is a New York Domestic
Limited Liability Company headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.
The Individual Defendants are directors or officers of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq.
          PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
          3510 Broadway, Suite 201
          Astoria, NY 11106
          Telephone: (718) 777-0400
          Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
          E-mail: jnfirm@aol.com


NUVASIVE INC: Moved to Dismiss Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
NuVasive, Inc., on March 28, 2014, filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws, which is scheduled to be heard by the court on
July 14, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April
30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed by Danny Popov in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California naming NuVasive and certain of
its current and former executive officers for allegedly making
false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results, specifically relating to the
purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and
Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.
On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On
March 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities
Laws, which is scheduled to be heard by the court on July 14,
2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this
action. At March 31, 2014, the probable outcome of this litigation
cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of
potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the
evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an
accrual related to this litigation.

NuVasive, Inc. is a medical device company, that focuses on
developing minimally disruptive surgical products and procedures
for the spine. Its marketed product portfolio focused on
applications for spine fusion surgery, including biologics. Its
principal product offering includes a minimally disruptive
surgical platform called Maximum Access Surgery (MAS), as well as
offering of biologics, cervical and motion preservation products.
spine surgery product line offerings, which include products for
the thoracolumbar spine, the cervical spine, and a set of motion
preservation product offerings under development, are primarily
used to enable access to the spine and to perform restorative and
fusion procedures in a minimally disruptive fashion. Its biologic
product line offerings include allograft, FormaGraft, a collagen
synthetic product used to aid the fusion process, and Osteocel
Plus, an allograft cellular matrix containing viable mesenchymal
stem cells (MSCs), to aid in spinal fusion.


PRINCIPAL FIN'L: Subsidiary Named as Defendant in ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement Program, on March
18, 2014, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Principal
Life, a subsidiary of Principal Financial Group, Inc., alleging
among other things, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of
prudence, and prohibited transactions under ERISA, according to
PFG's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014.

On March 18, 2014, McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement
Program ("McCaffree") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
against Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other things,
breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of prudence, and
prohibited transactions under ERISA.  McCaffree seeks a nationwide
class action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of
defined contribution retirement plans that invested in any
Principal Separate Account in the last six years. McCaffree seeks
disgorgement of all fees it alleges Principal Life improperly
retained in addition to other general claims for relief. Principal
Life is aggressively defending the case.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) is a provider of retirement
savings, investment and insurance products and services. As of
December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately 18 million
customers. PFG's United States and international operations
concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management.
PFG offers a range of individual and group life insurance,
individual and group disability insurance, and group dental and
vision insurance. It focuses on small and medium-sized businesses
providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions.
The Company operates in four segments: retirement and investor
services, principal global investors, principal international, and
United States insurance solutions. PFG's corporate segment
consists of the assets and activities that have not been allocated
to any other segment. As of December 31, 2011, it owned 26
properties in Des Moines, Iowa, and in various other locations. In
February 2013, it acquired AFP Cuprum S.A.


PRINCIPAL FIN'L: 8th Cir. Denied Appeal on Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied on December 31,
2013, Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of
class certification in putative class action lawsuits against
Principal Financial Group, Inc., alleging among other things,
failure to manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account in
the best interests of investors, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against us; Principal Life; Principal Global Investors, LLC;
Principal Management Corporation; and Principal Real Estate
Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants"). The lawsuits
alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the
Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best
interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze"
on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to
honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available. The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed
complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and
are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation.
Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification was denied by the Eighth Circuit on December 31,
2013. The Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are aggressively defending
the lawsuit.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) is a provider of retirement
savings, investment and insurance products and services. As of
December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately 18 million
customers. PFG's United States and international operations
concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management.
PFG offers a range of individual and group life insurance,
individual and group disability insurance, and group dental and
vision insurance. It focuses on small and medium-sized businesses
providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions.
The Company operates in four segments: retirement and investor
services, principal global investors, principal international, and
United States insurance solutions. PFG's corporate segment
consists of the assets and activities that have not been allocated
to any other segment. As of December 31, 2011, it owned 26
properties in Des Moines, Iowa, and in various other locations. In
February 2013, it acquired AFP Cuprum S.A.


RBS HOLDINGS: Court Dismissed Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V., disclosed in its Form 20-F filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the court in the so-
called Yen action, on March 28, 2014, dismissed the plaintiffs'
antitrust claims, but refused to dismiss their claims under the
Commodity Exchange Act for price manipulation.

Certain members of RBS Group have been named as defendants in a
number of class actions and individual claims filed in the US with
respect to the setting of LIBOR and certain other benchmark
interest rates. The complaints are substantially similar and
allege that certain members of RBS Group and other panel banks
individually and collectively violated various federal laws,
including the US commodities and antitrust laws, and state
statutory and common law, as well as contracts, by manipulating
LIBOR and prices of LIBOR-based derivatives in various markets
through various means.

Most of the USD LIBOR-related actions in which RBS Group companies
are defendants, including all purported class actions relating to
USD LIBOR, have been transferred to a coordinated proceeding in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. In the coordinated proceeding, consolidated class action
complaints were filed on behalf of (1) exchange-based purchaser
plaintiffs, (2) over-the-counter purchaser plaintiffs, and (3)
corporate debt purchaser plaintiffs. On 29 March 2013, the Court
dismissed plaintiffs' antitrust claims, claims under RICO
(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and certain
state law claims, but declined to dismiss certain other claims.
Discovery is stayed. Over 35 other USD LIBOR-related actions
involving RBS Group have been stayed pending further order from
the Court.

Certain members of RBS Group have also been named as defendants in
class actions relating to (i) JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR (the
"Yen action") and (ii) Euribor (the "Euribor action"), both of
which are pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On 28 March 2014, the court in the
Yen action dismissed the plaintiffs' antitrust claims, but refused
to dismiss their claims under the Commodity Exchange Act for price
manipulation.

RBS Holdings N.V. offers a range of banking products and financial
services, principally in Europe and Asia.


RBS HOLDINGS: AECOM Australia Included RBSGA in Cross Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V., reported in its Form 20-F filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that AECOM Australia Pty Ltd
has filed cross-claims in three class actions, including against
RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd.

In 2005 RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd ("RBSGA"), previously ABN
AMRO Australia Pty Limited,  a member of the RBSH Group, was a
member of a consortium that appointed AECOM Australia Pty Ltd
(formerly known as Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd) ("AECOM") to
forecast traffic for the Clem7 Tunnel in Brisbane, Australia.
Three sets of proceedings have been brought against AECOM.

The first (Hopkins v AECOM) is a class action relating to the
initial public offer of units to retail investors in the RiverCity
Motorway Group, which operated the Clem7 Tunnel. The claim relates
to allegations that the IPO disclosure was defective, particularly
in relation to traffic volume forecasts by AECOM. The second and
third proceedings (RiverCity v AECOM and Portigon v AECOM),
involve claims of negligent misstatement and misleading or
deceptive conduct in the issuance of traffic forecasts. In all
three proceedings AECOM has filed a number of cross-claims for
contribution in the event it is found liable, including against
RBSGA.

RBS Holdings N.V. offers a range of banking products and financial
services, principally in Europe and Asia.


RBS HOLDINGS: Affiliates Named as Defendants in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Holdings N.V., reported that certain members of RBS Group are
defendants in a pending consolidated antitrust class action
alleging credit default swap violations, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

Certain members of RBS Group, as well as a number of other
financial institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The plaintiffs generally allege that
defendants violated the U.S. antitrust laws by restraining
competition in the market for credit default swaps through various
means and thereby causing inflated bid-ask spreads for credit
default swaps.

RBS Holdings N.V. offers a range of banking products and financial
services, principally in Europe and Asia.


RBS HOLDINGS: Adverse Judgments Could Restrict Operations
---------------------------------------------------------
According to RBS Holdings N.V., in its Form 20-F filed on April
30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, adverse regulatory
proceedings or adverse judgments against RBSH Group could restrict
or limit the Company's operations.

RBSH Group is involved in ongoing class action litigation,
continuing rate setting related litigation and investigations,
securitization and securities related litigation, and anti-money
laundering, sanctions and compliance related investigations, in
addition to a number of other matters. In addition to these
ongoing legal and regulatory proceedings, RBS Group has recently
settled a number of legal and regulatory investigations including
a settlement reached on February 6, 2013, with the Financial
Services Authority, the Commodity Futures Trading Association and
the United States Department of Justice and on December 4, 2013 in
respect of the LIBOR investigations. In addition, RBSG and the
Royal Bank reached a settlement with the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, the New York State Department of Financial
Services and the Office of Foreign Assets Control with respect to
the Royal Bank's historical compliance with US economic sanction
regulations outside the United States. RBS Group continues to
cooperate with these and other governmental and regulatory
authorities in connection with ongoing investigations and the
probable outcome is that it will incur additional financial
penalties which may be material. Legal, governmental and
regulatory proceedings and investigations are subject to many
uncertainties, and their outcomes, including the timing and amount
of fines or settlements, which may be material, are often
difficult to predict, particularly in the early stages of a case
or investigation.

Adverse regulatory proceedings or adverse judgments in litigation
could result in restrictions or limitations on RBSH Group's
operations or have a significant effect on RBSH Group's
reputation, results of operations and capital position. It is
expected that RBSH Group will continue to have a material exposure
to legacy litigation and regulatory matter proceedings in the
medium term.

RBSH Group may be required to increase provisions in relation to
ongoing legal proceedings, investigations and regulatory matters.
Significant increases in provisions may harm RBSH Group's
reputation and may have an adverse effect on RBSH Group's
financial condition and results of operations.

RBSH Group, like many other financial institutions, has come under
greater regulatory scrutiny in recent years and expects that
environment to continue for the foreseeable future, particularly
as it relates to compliance with historical, new and existing
corporate governance, employee compensation, conduct of business,
anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws and regulations, as
well as the provisions of applicable sanctions programs. Past or
current failure to comply with any one or more of these laws or
regulations could have a significant adverse effect on RBSH
Group's reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

RBS Holdings N.V. offers a range of banking products and financial
services, principally in Europe and Asia.


SAULT AREA HOSPITAL: Lawyer Mulls Privacy Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Della-Mattia, writing for Sault Star, reports that an
Ottawa lawyer says Sault Area Hospital patients who received
letters stating their records were inappropriately accessed have
merits similar to those of a case in Peterborough.

Michael Crystal recently spent three days in Sault Ste. Marie and
met with most of the 144 patients who received letters in March
from the hospital that their files had been accessed by an
employee who had since been terminated.

"I'm encouraged by the case.  It has merits and it's not all that
different than the Peterborough case," Mr. Crystal said.  "Every
indication I have is that this will likely go forward."

It's not expected that a claim would be filed in the courts until
at least summertime.

Mr. Crystal is also involved in a $5.6 million class action
lawsuit with the Peterborough Regional Health Centre where patient
records were also allegedly breached and the hospital fired seven
employees for snooping at records when they were not entitled to
do so.  Mr. Crystal said that in the Sault Ste. Marie case, he
will have to assess the individual cases and determine which of
the best two to four individuals meet the requirements as a
representative plaintiff.

"There are several that can be used but the issue is, ironically
that this is a privacy case and it requires to some extent that
the representative plaintiffs will lose that privacy through
litigation," he said.

A representative plaintiff is one person who has enough of the
common elements as other potential plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit.  There are usually about 10-15 common issues in such
cases.  Common issues include items like all plaintiffs receiving
letters about the breach, all told their records were snooped
against hospital policy and that the snooping was intentional and
within a certain period of time.  Another issue that also needs to
be determined is how costs will be paid and several options are
available that still need to be investigated.

"This isn't a case about individuals who will receive a lot of
money.  The key is privacy and wanting the hospital to have a
higher priority of privacy in the future," Mr. Crystal said.
"People want to know they have privacy and peace of mind because
they have to go back to that hospital at some point in time."

The courts can often force an institution to put greater
importance on certain matters, including those of protecting
patient records, he said.

"Sometimes a class action suit is a remedy where a judge can force
the organization to upgrade and make issues, like patient privacy,
an issue," he said.

Mario Paluzzi, vice president of SAH public relations, said that
given the potentially pending litigation, SAH cannot make further
comment on the issue.

In April, Mr. Paluzzi had confirmed that last summer it was
discovered during a random audit that an employee was
inappropriately accessing patient files.

The investigation resulted in a complete audit of the individual's
access into the MediTech system and went back to 2008.  The
results indicated that 144 "breaches" were discovered and patients
whose information was inappropriately accessed, were notified by
way of a letter.

It's not believed the records were copied, downloaded or exported
and it doesn't appear as if OHIP numbers were stolen.  SAH policy
is only employees who are in the direct circle of care of a
patient can access the records.

Mr. Paluzzi said that audits of this kind are not done on every
person with MediTech access at the same time.  The hospital has
about 1,850 employees -- not including doctors -- and the majority
have access to the patient records system.

"It would certainly be possible that a person or areas audited at
one time wouldn't necessarily have been audited at another point
in time," Mr. Paluzzi said in an email in response to questions by
The Sault Star.

He could not comment on how the breaches were discovered or what
other specific measures have been undertaken to augment the
hospital's efforts to ensure patient privacy.

"At the end of the day, we are confident that we followed all
protocols and took all appropriate action with regard to the
breaches," he said, including working with the Information and
Privacy Commissioner's office.

Mr. Crystal is also questioning the hospitals commitment and
priority to privacy after learning that individuals who applied
for certain jobs at the SAH ended up having their job applications
and cover letters posted online.

Mr. Paluzzi said the online job application situation is a
completely different matter from the patient records.  In that
case, the SAH's external web service provider erred in not
enabling a security setting.  He said the security setting was
enabled as soon as the problem was discovered and all cached files
on Google were deleted.  It was a one-time incident, he said.


SIGNAL INT'L: Five Actions Consolidated as Human Trafficking MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Signal International, LLC, Signal International, Inc.,
Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas,
L.P., asked to transfer, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation accepted the filing of, five lawsuits pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont
Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

The consolidated multidistrict litigation is captioned IN RE:
Signal International LLC Human Trafficking Litigation, MDL No.
2554.

The Beaumont actions are:

   (1) Reji Samuel, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al.,
       Case No. 1:13-cv-323;

   (2) Biju Mukkrukkattu, et al. Joseph v. Signal International,
       et al., LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-324;

   (3) Raju Meganathan, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et
       al., Case No. 1:13-cv-497;

   (4) Srinivasa Rao Kambala, et al. v. Signal International,
       LLC, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-498; and

   (5) Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, et al. v. Signal International,
       LLC, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-499.

Signal sought that the Beaumont actions be transferred for
pretrial proceedings with the first action, David v. Signal Int'l,
LLC, Case No. 08-1220(E)(3) on the docket of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The "David"
case has been pending since March 2008.  In the "David" action,
class certification was denied in January 2012.  Signal noted that
the "David" case precipitated the developments that culminated in
the transfer motion.

The lawsuits allege that the Defendants have collectively
exploited and defrauded the Plaintiffs by fraudulently recruiting
them to work in the United States and effectuating a broad scheme
of psychological coercion, threats of serious harm and physical
restraint, and threatened abuse of the legal process to maintain
control over the Plaintiffs.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated workers, approximately 590 Indian men, were
trafficked into the United States through the federal government's
H-2B guestworker program to provide labor and services to Signal
International L.L.C.  Recruited to perform welding, pipefitting,
and other marine fabrication work, the Plaintiffs contend that
they were subjected to forced labor and other serious abuses at
Signal operations in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas.

Kurian David, et al., are represented by:

          Daniel Werner, Esq.
          Naomi Tsu, Esq.
          Kristi L. Graunke, Esq.
          IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT
          Southern Poverty Law Center
          233 Peachtree Street, Suite 2150
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
          E-mail: daniel.werner@splcenter.org
                  naomi.tsu@splcenter.org
                  kristi.graunke@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1055 St. Charles Ave., # 505
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Anjali J. Nair, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Ave.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8255
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: anjali.nair@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Chandra S. Bhatnagar, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street - 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 519-7840
          E-mail: cbhatnagar@aclu.org

               - and -

          Tracie L. Washington, Esq.
          LOUISIANA JUSTICE INSTITUTE
          1631 Elysian Fields Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70117
          Telephone: (504) 872-9134
          Facsimile: (504) 872-9878
          E-mail: tracie@LouisianaJusticeInstitute.org
                  tlwesq@cox.net

               - and -

          Alan B. Howard, T.A., Esq.
          Hugh Sandler, Esq.
          Melia Amal Bouhabib, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING, LLP
          590 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 803-4042
          E-mail: ahoward@crowell.com
                  hsandler@crowell.com
                  abouhabib@crowell.com

               - and -

          Ivy O. Suriyopas, Esq.
          ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND
          99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212)966-5932
          E-mail: isuriyopas@aaldef.org

               - and -

          Joseph Bjarnson, Esq.
          SAHN WARD COSCHIGNANO & BAKER
          333 Earle Ovington Blvd., # 601
          Uniondale, NY 11553
          Telephone: (516) 228-1300
          E-mail: jbjarnson@swcblaw.com

The Signal Entities are represented by:

          Erin Casey Hangartner, Esq.
          HANGARTNER RYDBERG & TERRELL, LLC
          One Shell Square
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 310
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 522-5690,
          Facsimile: (504) 522-5689
          E-mail: ehangartner@hanrylaw.com


STATE FARM: Plaintiffs Dispute Confidentiality in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that documents that State
Farm must produce in a $7 billion class action about Illinois
Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier should not be kept
confidential, Chicago lawyer Robert Clifford argues in U.S.
District Court.

"The public has a significant interest in access to filed
information pertaining to the impartiality of a state supreme
court justice and to an alleged scheme to funnel corporate money
through the courthouse's back door," he wrote on May 16.

Mr. Clifford wrote that the public "has a substantial interest in
allegations that an independent Illinois Supreme Court was
compromised for private gain."

He opposed a motion from State Farm and individual defendants,
Ed Murnane and William Shepherd, for an order protecting
confidentiality of documents they produce.

"Plaintiffs submit that it would be best for the court to weigh
the public interest now, to avoid the complication of engaging in
this process motion by motion later, when defendants seeks to seal
plaintiffs' discovery filings," Mr. Clifford wrote.

"Defendants' failure to show good cause, coupled with the public's
overwhelming interest in transparency, counsel the court to define
confidential information very narrowly here.

"Plaintiffs do seek materials pertaining to political
contributions and related associational communications, but those
materials do not merit protection."

The First Amendment protects donor identities only if a group
shows that disclosure would probably subject them to threats,
harassment or reprisals, he wrote.

Defendants have not demonstrated this likelihood of harm, he
wrote.

Mr. Clifford's clients belonged to a class that sued State Farm in
Williamson County in 1997, claiming the insurer supplied inferior
parts for crash repairs.

Jurors returned a verdict for about five million policy holders in
1999, and associate judge John Speroni entered judgment of $1.18
billion.

Fifth District appellate judges trimmed it to $1.05 billion in
2001.

On appeal, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in 2003.

"In 2003, State Farm implemented a scheme to compromise the
Illinois Supreme Court's impartiality and defraud the Avery class
members of their judgment," Mr. Clifford wrote.

State Farm convinced a relatively unknown trial court judge to run
for Supreme Court, and managed and orchestrated his campaign, he
wrote.

The company contributed millions through entities or committees it
formed or controlled, he wrote.

State Farm was not honest with the Illinois Supreme Court or the
United States Supreme Court about its participation in his
election, he wrote.

"Justice Karmeier knew of State Farm's participation and
deception," he wrote.  "There are emails proving that."

The Avery class moved him to recuse himself, and he refused,
Clifford wrote.

Justice Karmeier and three other justices voted to decertify the
class and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for review.

In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a judge's failure to
recuse in a case involving a contributor violated a plaintiff's
due process, he wrote.

That decision encouraged Avery class counsel to hire a retired
Federal Bureau of Investigation investigator to examine the
campaign, he wrote.

"He found evidence of State Farm's extensive participation, which
State Farm had not disclosed to the Illinois Supreme Court," he
wrote.

In 2011, the class petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to recall
the mandate in Avery, and the Court denied it without comment, The
U.S. Supreme Court then denied the class's petition for review.

Plaintiffs filed the Hale case in 2012, asserting claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and corrupt Organizations Act.

"Plaintiffs have pleaded plausible allegations that defendants
engaged in an extensive and covert racketeering campaign to
deprive plaintiffs of an impartial judicial forum and to rig the
state judicial system at its highest level," Mr. Clifford wrote.

Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams has set a hearing June 17.

Chief District Judge David Herndon presides over the case.


TARO SUSHI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Caralampio and Francisco Munoz, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Taro Sushi N.Y. Inc. d/b/a
Taro Sushi and Yuji Sano, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03037-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2014) is brought to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant
to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former delivery employees at the Defendants'
well-known sushi restaurant in Brooklyn, New York.

Taro Sushi N.Y. Inc., doing business as Taro Sushi, is an active
New York Corporation with its principle place of business in
Brooklyn, New York.  Yuji Sano is the owner, operator and manager
of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, 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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 430,500 Cars Over Corrosion, Airbag Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Eisenstein, writing for NBC News, reports that Toyota
issued three safety-related recalls on May 22 covering 430,500
vehicles sold in the United States, as the auto industry continued
on pace for an all-time recall record this year.

The largest of the three new recalls covers 370,000 Toyota Sienna
minivans sold between the 2004 and 2011 model-years and registered
in colder climate states.  The problem centers around corrosion
that can be triggered by road salt and can cause the spare tire of
the vans to fall off if their supporting cable rusts out.

The tires are stored under the vehicle and a foam splash protector
in front of the spare tire carrier may actually wind up allowing
high concentrations of salt to build up and eventually corrode the
spare tire carrier assembly.

Toyota has had several large recalls related to excess corrosion
in recent years, including actions targeting the Japanese giant's
Tacoma and Tundra pickups.  Toyota also had previously recalled
some of the Sienna minivans in April 2010 for a similar problem.

The second recall covers 50,000 Toyota Highlander and Highlander
SUVs from the 2014 model-year.  The Highlander uses a "smart"
airbag system designed to distinguish between large adult males,
small women and children.  That can affect how fast the airbags
inflate, if they inflate at all, depending on the severity of the
collision.  But a software glitch may result in the bags not
inflating properly.

The third recall covers 10,500 2013 Lexus GS350 sedans.  A sensing
switch designed to sense when a driver has applied pressure to the
brake pedal may inadvertently activate on its own.  If that
happens, the car could begin to decelerate unexpectedly, and
without the brake lights coming on to warn other drivers.  That
could lead to a rear-end collision.

The maker says it knows of no accidents, injuries or fatalities
connected to the problem.


U.S. STEEL: Antitrust Class Action Cert. Hearing Completed
----------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation disclosed that a hearing on class
certification of class actions relating to conspiracy in antitrust
violations, was completed in April 2014, and a determination is
pending before the Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in
violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of
raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of steel products in the United States. The cases are filed
as class actions and claim damages related to steel product
purchases during the time period of April 1, 2005 to December 31,
2007. A hearing on class certification was completed in April of
2014 and a determination is pending before the Court. U. S. Steel
is vigorously defending these lawsuits and does not believe that
it is probable a liability regarding these matters has been
incurred. We are unable to estimate a range of possible loss at
this time.

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) is an integrated
steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products.


US FOODSERVICE: Ahold to Make $297MM Payment Into Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ahold on May 21 announced that it has signed a term sheet agreeing
in principle to settle a class action pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut in respect of
pricing practices of Ahold's former subsidiary U.S. Foodservice in
the period 1998-2005.

Under the term sheet that was signed on May 21, Ahold has agreed
to make a payment of $297 million into a settlement fund in return
for a release from all claims from all participating class members
in relation to these pricing practices.

Ahold indemnified U.S. Foodservice against damages arising out of
this class action, referred to in Ahold's annual reports as the
"Waterbury litigation", as part of the terms of Ahold's sale of
U.S. Foodservice in July 2007 to a consortium of Clayton, Dubilier
& Rice and Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co for a purchase price of
$7.1 billion.

The class comprises any person in the United States who purchased
products from U.S. Foodservice pursuant to an arrangement that
defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a mark-up
and for which U.S. Foodservice used a so-called "Value Added
Service Provider" transaction to calculate the cost component.

The settlement is subject to approval by the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, which is
anticipated to address the issue in late 2014 or early 2015 and is
subject to potential reduction and/or termination based on the
compensable sales volume attributable to class members that elect
to opt out of the settlement (i.e. do not wish to be bound by the
settlement).  Upon becoming unconditional the settlement will
definitively resolve this potential liability for Ahold.

Ahold will record a provision in the amount of EUR215 million in
Q1, 2014.  Ahold will be funding its payment to the settlement
fund out of its available cash balances and expects this payment
to take place in late 2014 or the beginning of 2015.

Commenting on the settlement, Lodewijk Hijmans van den Bergh,
member of the Ahold Management Board and Chief Corporate
Governance Counsel, said: "We are pleased to have reached this
settlement which resolves a legacy litigation since 2006 related
to our former subsidiary U.S. Foodservice.  The settlement permits
us to avoid more lengthy, time-consuming and costly litigation,
and to focus our resources and attention to our current business."


WELLPOINT INC: Defends Action Due to AICI Demutualization
---------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., is defending a certified class action filed as a
result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies,
Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 30,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are defending a certified class action
filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance
Companies, Inc., or AICI. The lawsuit names AICI as well as
Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc., and is captioned
Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of
Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of AICI from
a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant
to Indiana law. Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of
the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory
Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in
exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company.
Plaintiffs in Gold allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong
ESMs. Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and
denied in part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of
sovereign immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of
Connecticut, or the State. The trial court also denied our motion
for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005.
The State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut
Supreme Court.

"We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On May
11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court
denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under
sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was granted on December 15, 2011.
We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for summary
judgment on January 24, 2013. Argument on the renewed motions was
held on April 19, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court deferred
a final ruling on our motion for summary judgment, instead
requesting supplemental argument which occurred on November 7,
2013. On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied our motion for
summary judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed.
Trial has been scheduled to commence on October 14, 2014. We
intend to vigorously defend the Gold lawsuit; however, its
ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

WellPoint, Inc. (WellPoint) is a health benefit company in terms
of medical membership in the United States. The Company manages
its operations through three segments: Commercial, Consumer, and
Other. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), an association of independent
health benefit plans. The Company offers a spectrum of network-
based managed care plans to the large and small employer,
individual, Medicaid and senior markets. Its managed care plans
include preferred provider organizations (PPOs); health
maintenance organizations (HMOs); point-of-service plans (POS)
plans; traditional indemnity plans and other hybrid plans,
including consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs); and hospital only
and limited benefit products. In February 2014, WellPoint sold its
online contact lens retail subsidiary 1-800 CONTACTS to private
equity firm Thomas H. Lee Partners.


WELLPOINT INC: Facing Consolidated OON Reimbursement Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., is currently defending putative class actions
relating to out-of-network reimbursement that were consolidated
into a single multi-district lawsuit, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are currently a defendant in eleven
putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON,
reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates
Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in
2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf
of a putative class of members who received OON services for which
the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical
Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians,
chiropractors, clinical psychologists, podiatrists,
psychotherapists, the American Podiatric Association, California
Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological
Association on behalf of a putative class of all physicians and
all non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have filed
several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO,
the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state
law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and in
our use of non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies.

"We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those
amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in
part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading
filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we
filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In
July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying
in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal
anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed
in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the
ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix
methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-
disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also
dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice.
The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one plaintiff, and
one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the California Unfair
Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part
and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately
allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have
exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix
methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff
so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is complete.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November
2013. The plaintiffs seek the following classes: (1) a subscriber
ERISA class as to OON claims processed using the Ingenix database
as the pricing methodology; (2) a physician provider class as to
OON claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a non-physician provider
class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (4) a provider
ERISA class as to OON claims processed using non-Ingenix pricing
methodologies; (5) a California subscriber breach of
contract/unfair competition class; and (6) a subscriber breach of
implied covenant class for all WellPoint states except California.
We deposed all of the plaintiffs' class certification experts. In
March 2014, we filed a response in opposition to class
certification, along with a supporting expert report, and motions
to exclude the plaintiffs' class certification experts. A hearing
on our motions to exclude plaintiffs' class certification experts
is set for June 2014.

"Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the
Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the medical doctors
and doctors of osteopathy and certain medical associations based
on prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The
Florida Court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that
are barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition
for declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these
claims are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation.
We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action,
which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined
physicians have not yet dismissed their claims. The Florida Court
found the enjoined physicians in contempt and sanctioned them in
July 2012. The barred physicians are paying the sanctions and have
appealed the Florida Court's sanctions order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral argument on that
appeal occurred in October 2013. We intend to vigorously defend
these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined."

WellPoint, Inc. (WellPoint) is a health benefit company in terms
of medical membership in the United States. The Company manages
its operations through three segments: Commercial, Consumer, and
Other. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), an association of independent
health benefit plans. The Company offers a spectrum of network-
based managed care plans to the large and small employer,
individual, Medicaid and senior markets. Its managed care plans
include preferred provider organizations (PPOs); health
maintenance organizations (HMOs); point-of-service plans (POS)
plans; traditional indemnity plans and other hybrid plans,
including consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs); and hospital only
and limited benefit products. In February 2014, WellPoint sold its
online contact lens retail subsidiary 1-800 CONTACTS to private
equity firm Thomas H. Lee Partners.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Cohen & Malad Files Class Action in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Cohen & Malad, LLP have filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of consumers who purchased Whirlpool built-in
wall ovens with self-cleaning features (State of Indiana, Marion
County Superior Court 49D12 14 05 FL 016420).  The lawsuit alleges
these ovens are defective because during the self-cleaning
process, the wall ovens become excessively hot, blow fuses, burn
out control panels, and lose power -- making the ovens lock and
rendering them unusable.

Complaints about the Whirlpool wall ovens involve the failure of
the self-cleaning feature, a universal defect, which requires a
service call in order to make the oven useable.  The lawsuit
alleges that Whirlpool was aware of this design defect and failed
to notify consumers of the failure of the self-cleaning feature of
its wall ovens.

If you have purchased a Whirlpool built-in wall oven, contact
Cohen & Malad, LLP.  They would like to talk with you about your
experience with the self-cleaning feature specifically any
instances of control panel failure, blown fuses, or loss of power.

                     About Cohen & Malad, LLP

Cohen & Malad, LLP -- http://www.cohenandmalad.com-- was founded
in 1968 by former Indiana Attorney General John J. Dillon, Louis
F. Cohen and others.  Since that time, Cohen & Malad, LLP, has
garnered a national reputation.  The firm's class action practice
litigates complex antitrust, securities and investment fraud,
consumer protection, and human rights matters.


* Food Safety Group's Suit v. USDA Seeks Salmonella Ban
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Legal Times, reports that in a bid to
force the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take action on
antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella in ground meat and
poultry, the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued the
agency on May 28 in U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

Three years ago, the nonprofit food safety watchdog filed a
citizen's petition with USDA asking the agency to declare four
strains of salmonella that are resistant to antibiotics to be
impermissible "adulterants" under the Federal Meat Inspection Act
and Poultry Products Inspection Act.  Doing so would prohibit the
sale of meat tainted with these strains and give the agency
greater authority to issue recalls.

From 2012 to 2014, two separate outbreaks linked to Foster Farms
chicken parts that were contaminated with an antibiotic-resistant
form of salmonella heidelberg sickened more than 650 people,
according to the center.  The suit also seeks to ban the newport,
hadar and typhimurium strains from the food supply.

USDA has yet to take action on the petition despite the center's
request for expedited review.  Secretary Thomas Vilsack wrote to
the center last summer apologizing for the delay and said the
agency is "currently considering the merits" of the petition.  He
added that USDA "must operate within the bounds of both case law
and the statutes when fulfilling its food safety mission."

There is precedent for banning a pathogen -- in 1994 the USDA's
Food Safety and Inspection Service declared E. coli 0157:H7 an
adulterant after four children died from eating tainted hamburgers
from Jack in the Box.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest in its suit sounds a
similar note of urgency on antibiotic-resistant salmonella.  "To
protect public safety and prevent needless death and injury, CSPI
seeks a declaration that defendants have acted unlawfully by
withholding action on CSPI's petition and an order requiring
defendants to act thereon," according to the complaint, filed by
Julie Murray and Allison Zieve of Public Citizen Litigation Group.

The widespread use of antibiotics in food-producing animals, such
as cattle and chickens, has contributed to the rise of antibiotic-
resistant bacteria.  When people are sickened by antibiotic-
resistant salmonella, their illnesses tend to be more serious and
prolonged, with a greater chance of hospitalization or death,
according to the complaint.

Industry groups oppose the move to declare salmonella an
adulterant, arguing that it is a naturally occurring microorganism
that is inherent to chickens.

"Safe handling and fully cooking poultry to 165 degrees F (74
degrees C) is what fully eradicates Salmonella," Michael Brown of
the National Chicken Council wrote in a recent op-ed published in
Food Safety News.  "Given that Americans eat 160 million servings
of chicken every day, the vast majority of consumers are cooking
and handling chicken properly and having a safe experience."


                             *********

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  * * *