CAR_Public/140603.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 109

                             Headlines


ADT CORP: Securities Action Seeks Class Status
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Issues Discovery Order in "Minns" Suit
AGV SPORTS: Accused of Failing to Pay Minimum Wages to Interns
ALMA REALTY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
AM CONVELLI: Faces "Pendarvis" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

AMGEN INC: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification in Onyx Sale Suit
AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Granted Leave to Amend Securities Complaint
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over iMessage Service in iPhones and iPads
APPLE INC: Tech Firms Settle No Poach Class Action for $324.5MM
AST SPORTS: District Court Dismisses "Jones" Class Action

ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, GA: Accused of Not Honoring Contract
AXA EQUITABLE: Sued by Variable Annuity Policyholder in New York
BANCO SANTANDER: Still Waiting for STF Formal Ruling
BANK OF AMERICA: "Ramirez" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
BETTER WORLD: Fails to Pay Class Members' Minimum Wage, Suit Says

BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Files Investor Class Action in Ohio
BOB EVANS: Fails to Pay Assistant Managers' OT Wages, Suit Says
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Motion for Rehearing Filed in Class Action
CENCOSUD SA: Paid CH$17,974-Mil in CAT Fines as of Dec. 31
CLIFFS NATURAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ohio

CON-WAY INC: Challenges Class Cert. Bid in Pina & Quezada Cases
CONNECTONE BANCORP: Defendant in Suits Over Center Bancorp Merger
COOK COUNTY, IL: Interfered With Class's FMLA Rights, Suit Says
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES: "Pardee" Trial to Commence Sept. 9
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES: Defendant in Two Consumer Suits

CORELOGIC INC: Intends to Defend Against RESPA Class Action
CZ COMMERCE: Faces "Balik" Suit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
DREYFUSS FIRM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Tenn. Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay & Penalties
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defendant in Mortgage Assignment Lawsuits

FINAL & TOUCH: Tex. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
FLUSHMATE: August 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Removed "Soto" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
GARDEN STATE CLE: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Says
GENERAL INFORMATION SERVICES: Sued in Ky. for Violating FCRA

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Markle" Suit Over Faulty Ignition Switches
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Holliday" Suit Over Defective Switches
H J HEINZ: July 31 Case Mgmt. Conference in "Stez" Class Suit
HANGTIME INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Claims
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sept. 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

HYATT HOTELS: Court Dismissed Antitrust Complaint
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Defendant in Securities Act Violations
IMH FINANCIAL: Completed Notes Issuance in April 18
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Subsys' Off Label Marketing
JAMES M. BARB CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

JF VEHICLE: Driver Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
JM SMUCKER: Class Action Over False "Natural" Claims Can Proceed
K & L COURT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
KEYCORP: Court Denied Rehearing on Metyk Litigation Dismissal
KFORCE INC: Labor Suit Plaintiff Appeals Summary Judgment Order

KKR FINANCIAL: Discovery in Shareholder Litigation Stayed
LATE JULY: Judge Stays Cane Juice False Ad Class Action
LG DISPLAY: Appealing TFT-LCD Class Certification Decision
LG DISPLAY: Waiting for Service of Israel Class Complaint
LITTON LOAN: Faces "Perryman" Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in Ill. Credit Card Receipts Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in "Kiken" Securities Litigation
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in 2 TCPA Violations Class Actions
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Defendant in Shareholder Class Action Complaint
ML ZAGER: Accused of Using False/Deceptive Method to Collect Debt

MOUNT SINAI HOSPITALS: Fails to Billing Workers, Suit Says
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: 11th Cir. Reversed Class Certification Ruling
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Certification Ruling in "Hardy" Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Gregory" Class Suit
NITHUN CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says

NOKIA CORP: "Majad" Case over Investment Plan Now Closed
NOKIA CORP: "Romero" ERISA Suit Now Closed
O'REILLY AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Background Check
OCWEN LOAN: Sued for Not Timely Presenting Proof to County Clerks
ONEWEST BANK: Sued Over Force-Placed Insurance-Related Practices

ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: June 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PANHANDLE AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Pass-Through Fee Class Action
PFIZER INC: Two Former Execs Can't Escape Celebrex Class Suit
POOL CORP: Court Rules on Motions in Antitrust Actions
PORTUGAL TELECOM: Oi Posted R$11.2-Mil for Customer Service Claims

PORTUGAL TELECOM: Oi Awaits Decision in TNL's R$300-Mil Lawsuit
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: Lloyds Banking to Join Class Action
SAFEWAY INC: Faces 12 Class Action Albertsons Merger Complaints
SM ENERGY: Sold Assets Subject to Chieftain Class Action Suit
TELEXFREE INC: Faces "Cellucci" Adversary/Class Suit in Mass.

TELEXFREE LLC: Facing "Griffith" Suit Over Sale of Securities
TOMY GROUP: Fails to Pay Federally Mandated Wages, Suit Claims
TWIN AMERICA: Settles Monopoly Class Action for $19 Million
UNION CENTRAL: September 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
UNITED HEALTH: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act

URBAN DECAY: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Deceptive Product Marketing
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action in New York Over Delivery Tips
WPX ENERGY: No Conflict Between New Mex. and Col. Law, Court Says
ZAPPOS.COM INC: Court Issues Ruling in Security Breach Litigation


                            *********


ADT CORP: Securities Action Seeks Class Status
----------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation is a defendant in a lawsuit seeking class
action status and alleging Securities Act 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 28, 2014.

The Company states: "On April 28, 2014, we and certain of our
current and former officers and directors were named as defendants
in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks
monetary damages, including interest, and class action status on
behalf of all plaintiffs who purchased our common stock during the
period between November 27, 2012 and January 29, 2014, inclusive.
We intend to vigorously defend [] against the allegations in this
action."

The ADT Corporation (ADT) is a provider of electronic security,
interactive home and business automation, and monitoring services
for residences and small businesses in the United States and
Canada. The Company's products and services include home and
business solutions, and home health services. The Company's brands
include ADT, ADT Pulse and Companion Service. As of September 31,
2013, the Company offers a variety of alternate and back-up alarm
transmission methods including cellular, digital radio and
broadband Internet. On August 2, 2013, the Company acquired Devcon
Security Holdings, Inc. In November 2013, Kastle Systems
International announced that it had acquired Mutual Central Alarm
Services and Stat-Land Security Systems from ADT Corporation.


ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Issues Discovery Order in "Minns" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston issued an order on discovery in the
case captioned MARIE MINNS and KEMBERLY BRIGGS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ADVANCED CLINICAL EMPLOYMENT STAFFING LLC, Defendant, NO.
C 13-03249 SI, (N.D. Cal.).

The parties in the case have entered into a stipulated protective
order to govern the "production of personal, private information,
corporate trade secrets or other confidential information for
which special protection from public disclosure and from use for
any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be
warranted."

According to Judge Illston, the Defendant has not explained why
the protective order does not address its privacy concerns, and
the Court finds that the production of the names and contact
information pursuant to the existing protective order adequately
addresses class member privacy concerns.

Accordingly, the Court directs the Defendant to produce the
requested class member contact information.

A copy of Judge Illston's May 9, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/apz9fWfrom Leagle.com.

Marie Minns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Leo Gildor --
dan@chavezgertler.com -- Chavez & Gertler LLP, Jonathan E Gertler
-- jon@chavezgertler.com -- Chavez & Gertler LLP & Lori Erin
Andrus -- lori@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.

Kemberly Briggs, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing LLC, Defendant, represented
by Harold R. Jones -- hrj@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, Joel
Lawrence Halverson -- jlh@severson.com -- Severson and Werson &
Rhonda Louise Nelson -- rln@severson.com -- Severson & Werson.

Sutter Health Systems, Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Geidt
-- tomgeidt@gbgllp.com -- Grube Brown & Geidt LLP, E. Jeffrey
Grube, Esq. -- jeffgrube@gbgllp.com -- Grube Brown & Geidt LLP &
Elizabeth Alexandra Brown -- lisabrown@gbgllp.com -- Grube Brown &
Geidt LLP.

East Bay Hospitals, doing business as Alta Bates Summit Medical
Center, Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Geidt, Grube Brown &
Geidt LLP, E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq., Grube Brown & Geidt LLP &
Elizabeth Alexandra Brown, Grube Brown & Geidt LLP.

Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing LLC, 3rd party plaintiff,
represented by Harold R. Jones, Severson & Werson, Joel Lawrence
Halverson, Severson and Werson & Rhonda Louise Nelson, Severson &
Werson.


AGV SPORTS: Accused of Failing to Pay Minimum Wages to Interns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Wolfe, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly
Situated Employees v. AGV Sports Group, Inc., and Michael
Parrotte, Case No. 1:14-cv-01601-CCB (D. Md., May 15, 2014)
alleges that the Company has a policy, whereby it classifies a
significant majority of AGV's labor force as Unpaid Interns;
hence, the Company failed to pay them at least minimum wages, as
required by applicable employment laws.

AGV is a motorcycle apparel company based in Frederick, Maryland.
AGV designs, develops, and produces motorcycle safety clothing for
road race and sportbike markets.  Michael Parrotte is AGV's
founder and president.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. David Hoskins, Esq.
          Max F. Brauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS LLC
          16 East Lombard Street, Suite 400
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 662-6500
          Facsimile: (410) 662-7800
          E-mail: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com
                  maxbrauer@hoskinslaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
                  rgray@cwg-law.com

               - and -

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484)588-5516
          Facsimile: (484)450-2582
          E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
                  rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


ALMA REALTY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Moreno, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, v. Alma Realty Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
02906 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et
seq.

Alma Realty Corp., is a New York domestic business corporation
located at 3110 37th Avenue, Long Island City, New York 11101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AM CONVELLI: Faces "Pendarvis" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Pendarvis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. A.M. Convelli Company, Inc., d/b/a Panera Bread, a Florida for
profit corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00757 (M.D. Fla., May 14,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A.M. Convelli Company, Inc., is a Florida corporation that
operates and conducts business in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


AMGEN INC: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification in Onyx Sale Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc., disclosed that plaintiff Phil Rosen filed a motion
seeking to certify a class in the consolidated class action matter
in connection with the sale of Onyx to Amgen, 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 March 21, 2014, plaintiff Phil Rosen filed a motion seeking to
certify a class and to be designated class representative in this
consolidated class action matter pending against the former
members of the board of directors of Onyx in which the plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the Onyx director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Onyx shareholders in connection
with the sale of Onyx to Amgen.

Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers,
develops, manufactures and delivers human therapeutics. Its
medicines help millions of patients in the fight against cancer,
kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), bone disease, and other
serious illnesses. On December 10, 2012, the Company acquired all
of the outstanding stock of deCODE Genetics (deCODE). In July 5,
2012, the Company acquired KAI Pharmaceuticals, a privately held
company based in South San Francisco. In September 2013, Swedish
Orphan Biovitrum AB (publ) (Sobi) announced that they have
acquired the full rights to develop and commercialize Kineret
(anakinra) from Amgen Inc for all therapeutic indications.


AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Granted Leave to Amend Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court on April 14, 2014, entered an order allowing plaintiffs
leave to file a second consolidated amended securities class
action complaint in this securities class action lawsuit against
Amgen Inc., alleging that the Company made false statements that
resulted in, among other things, deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business, 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 April 14, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California entered an order allowing plaintiffs leave
to file a second consolidated amended class action complaint in
this securities class action lawsuit. While the new complaint was
filed under seal, like the first consolidated class action
complaint the new complaint alleges that Amgen and certain of its
officers and directors (the Federal Defendants) made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices. In addition,
like the first consolidated class action complaint, the new
complaint makes off-label marketing allegations that, throughout
the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly marketed
Aranesp(R) (darbepoetin alfa) and EPOGEN(R) (epoetin alfa) for
off-label uses while aware that there were alleged safety signals
with these products. The named defendants have not changed and the
alleged class period remains the same. Plaintiffs continue to seek
compensatory damages, legal fees and other relief deemed proper.

Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers,
develops, manufactures and delivers human therapeutics. Its
medicines help millions of patients in the fight against cancer,
kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), bone disease, and other
serious illnesses. On December 10, 2012, the Company acquired all
of the outstanding stock of deCODE Genetics (deCODE). In July 5,
2012, the Company acquired KAI Pharmaceuticals, a privately held
company based in South San Francisco. In September 2013, Swedish
Orphan Biovitrum AB (publ) (Sobi) announced that they have
acquired the full rights to develop and commercialize Kineret
(anakinra) from Amgen Inc for all therapeutic indications.


APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over iMessage Service in iPhones and iPads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Moore, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-02269-LHK (N.D. Cal., May
15, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated persons
within the United States, who obtained wireless cellular service
on an Apple iPhone or iPad device that was equipped with Apple's
iMessage service, and subsequently replaced that device (on which
they were obtaining their wireless cellular service) with a non-
Apple device instead.

Ms. Moore contends that Apple failed to properly disclose to her
and the putative class members, at the time that they owned their
Apple iPhone or iPad devices (or anytime thereafter) that, should
they switch away from an Apple device to a non-Apple device,
Apple's iMessage and Messages service and application would act to
prevent these persons from receiving all their text messages on
the non-Apple device that these class members used to replace
their Apple iPhone or iPad devices.

Apple Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino,
California.  Apple is one of the world's largest and most popular
makers of, inter alia, wireless devices, including various
versions of the iPhone and iPad.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 242-5642
          Facsimile: (858) 430-3719
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

Interested party Adam Backhaut is represented by:

          Theodore H. Chase, Esq.
          AUDET AND PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: tchase@audetlaw.com


APPLE INC: Tech Firms Settle No Poach Class Action for $324.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Ribeiro, writing for IDG News Service, reports that Google,
Apple, Intel and Adobe Systems have agreed to pay US$324.5 million
to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the companies of
entering into secret agreements not to hire each others' workers,
according to a filing seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The filing late on May 22 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose division, by lawyers for
class representatives Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan, and
Daniel Stover states that the companies will deposit an initial
sum of $1 million from the settlement amount into an escrow
account within 10 days of the preliminary approval, to be used for
notice and administration costs.

The remaining $323.5 million will be paid into the account after
the final approval of the settlement.

Class members who do not opt out will be eligible to receive a
share of the settlement fund, based on a formula set on the basic
salary paid during the relevant period.

Each of the named plaintiffs also gets "service award payments" of
$80,000 for their services as class representatives. They worked
in technical positions for the companies in the settlement, and
"incurred the substantial risks and costs of taking on leadership
roles in this visible litigation against seven of the most
prominent technology firms in the world," according to the filing.

The attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses are
also to be paid from the settlement fund.

The four companies and the employees had informed the court of a
settlement in a filing in April but had not disclosed the sum and
other terms of the settlement.

One class representative Michael Devine has since objected to the
settlement, stating that the amount was too small.  In a letter to
District Judge Lucy Koh, earlier last month, Mr. Devine wrote that
he was not informed "that the most recent round of mediation that
lead to the tentative settlement was even taking place until the
day after Plaintiffs' and Defendants' counsel had already reached
an agreement."

Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar had previously settled for about $20
million.

The complaint filed by five engineers alleged that Adobe, Apple,
Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, all high-tech
companies with principal place of business in the San Francisco-
Silicon Valley area of California, had engaged in an "overarching
conspiracy" to fix and suppress employee compensation and to
restrict employee mobility.

The companies were said to have set up "Do Not Call" lists,
putting each firm's employees off-limits to the other companies,
with instructions to recruiters not to "cold call" these
employees.

The seven companies settled similar charges in 2010 with the U.S.
Department of Justice while admitting no wrongdoing, but agreed
not to ban cold calling and enter into any agreements that prevent
competition for employees.

The employees held that the DOJ put an end to the allegedly
illegal agreements, but the government was unable to compensate
the victims of the conspiracy, which was the reason why they were
filing a suit.  Top tech executives including former Apple CEO and
cofounder Steve Jobs were said to have monitored and enforced the
anti-poaching agreements.


AST SPORTS: District Court Dismisses "Jones" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roger T. Benitez granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned COREY JONES Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AST SPORTS SCIENCE, INC.;
and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-2434 BEN
(RBB), (S.D. Cal.).

Defendant AST Sports Science, Inc. filed the Motion to Dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

According to Judge Benitez's Order dated May 9, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/LpFzOEfrom Leagle.com, the
Plaintiff has failed to show that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million, as required for the Court to have jurisdiction
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

"As this issue is dispositive, the parties' remaining arguments
will not be addressed. This action is dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction," he said.

Corey Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. Ferrell --
sferrell@trialnewport.com -- Newport Trial Group & Victoria C.
Knowles -- vknowles@trialnewport.com -- Newport Trial Group.

AST Sports Science, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott
Silverman -- dsilverman@venable.com -- VENABLE LLP and:

   R. Garth Ferrell, Esq.
   Mallgren & Ferrell, P.C.
   Denver Tech Center
   8480 East Orchard Road, Suite 6500
   Greenwood Village, CO 80111
   Telephone: 303-692-0700
   Facsimile: 303-692-0701


ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, GA: Accused of Not Honoring Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, Nancy Cochran, Bobby Snipes and Wendell Faulkner,
on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated v.
Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, Case No.
3:14-cv-00043-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 15, 2014) accuses the Defendant
of breaching contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffery Spence Johnson, Esq.
          Dustin R. Marlowe, Esq.
          JOHNSON MARLOWE LLP
          455 Epps Bridge Parkway, Suite 101
          Athens, GA 30606
          Telephone: (706) 425-8740
          E-mail: spence@johnsonmarlowe.com
                  dustin@johnsonmarlowe.com

               - and -

          James W. Cobb, Esq.
          CAPLAN COBB LLP
          1447 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 880
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 596-5600
          E-mail: jcobb@caplancobb.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
          CAPLAN COBB LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St., Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4174
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Sued by Variable Annuity Policyholder in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela C. Swallow, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03505-VSB (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2014) arises out of the
Company's alleged improper application of an investment strategy
designed to reduce its own risk and market exposure at the expense
of its variable annuity policyholders.

AXA Equitable, established in 1859, is a stock life insurance
company organized under New York law with its principal place of
business located in New York City.  AXA Equitable offers a variety
of insurance products and variable and fixed interest annuity
products principally to individuals, small and medium-size
businesses and professional and trade associations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          Thomas Michael Skelton, Esq.
          David Charles Harrison, Esq.
          Noelle-Kristen Frances Ruggiero, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  tskelton@lowey.com
                  dharrison@lowey.com
                  nruggiero@lowey.com


BANCO SANTANDER: Still Waiting for STF Formal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A., is waiting for the STF formal
ruling on class actions relating to the calculation of inflation,
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: "Like the rest of the banking system,
Santander Brazil has been the subject of claims from customers,
mostly depositors, and of class actions brought for a common
reason, arising from a series of legislative changes relating to
the calculation of inflation ("planos economicos"). The claimants
considered that their vested rights had been impaired due to the
immediate application of these adjustments. In April 2010, the
High Court of Justice ("STJ") set the limitation period for these
class actions at five years, as claimed by the banks, rather than
twenty years, as sought by the claimants, which will probably
significantly reduce the number of actions brought and the amounts
claimed in this connection. As regards the substance of the
matter, the decisions issued to date have been adverse for the
banks, although some proceedings have been brought at the STJ and
the Supreme Federal Court ("STF") with which the matter is
expected to be definitively settled. In August 2010, STJ handed
down a decision finding for the plaintiffs in terms of substance,
but excluding one of the "planos" from the claim, thereby reducing
the amount thereof, and once again confirming the five-year
statute of limitations period. Shortly thereafter, the STF issued
an injunctive relief order whereby the proceedings in progress in
this connection were stayed until this court issues a final
decision on the matter. In spite of the fact STF initiated
judgment in November 2013, a formal ruling has not been handed
down as of the date hereof we cannot predict as to when a formal
ruling will be handed down by either the STJ or the STF."

Banco Santander Brasil SA (the Bank) is a Brazil-based bank. The
Bank operates as a multiple service bank through three business
segments: Commercial Bank, Global Wholesale Bank and Asset
Management and Insurance. The Commercial Banking segment
encompasses the entire commercial banking business (except for the
Corporate Banking business managed globally using the Global
Relationship Model). The Asset Management and Insurance segment
includes the contribution to the Bank arising from the design and
management of the investment fund, pension and insurance
businesses of the various units. The Global Wholesale Banking
segment reflects the returns on the Global Corporate Banking
business, those on Investment Banking and Markets around the
world.  On December 17, 2013, the Company sold a total number of
shares of Santander Brasil Asset Management Distribuidora de
Titulos e Valores Mobiliarios SA.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Ramirez" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ramirez, et al. v. Bank of
America, N.A., Case No. 3:11-cv-02008, 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 Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-
cv-02175-HRL to the proceeding.

On August 31, 2011, Sandra Ramirez and Scott Fowler brought the
class action for damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies,
resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting them on their
cellular telephones without their express prior consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM
          9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@markankcorn.com

               - and -

          Beth Terrell, Esq.
          Kimberlee L. Gunning, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE, PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com
                  kgunning@tmdwlaw.com

               - and -

          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

               - and -

          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

               - and -

          Marc Lackner, Esq.
          David S. Reidy, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: mlackner@reedsmith.com
                  dreidy@reedsmith.com


BETTER WORLD: Fails to Pay Class Members' Minimum Wage, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Corrales and Harold Pequero, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Better World Transport, LLC, a
Florida Profit Corporation, Dynamic Medical Services, Inc., a
Florida Profit Corporation, and Dennis C. Nobbe, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-21793-UU (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2014) alleges that
the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wage as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida
Constitution.

Better World Transport, LLC and Dynamic Medical Services, Inc.
were incorporated in Florida and are headquartered in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.  Dennis C. Nobbe is the registered agent,
officer, director, manager, or owner of Better World.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Grissel Seijo, Esq.
          Jose A. Socorro, Esq.
          HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC
          3211 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 102
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-6628
          Facsimile: (305) 444-6627
          E-mail: seijolawfirm@gmail.com
                  gseijo@hudsoncalleja.com
                  jsocorro@hudsoncalleja.com

               - and -

          Jose Alberto Socorro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSE A. SOCORRO PA
          500 S Dixie Highway, Suite 302
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 503-2990
          Facsimile: (305) 774-5908
          E-mail: jose@socorrolaw.com


BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Files Investor Class Action in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC on May 22 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased the common stock of Biozoom, Inc. from
market maker KCG Americas, LLC between May 16, 2013 and June 25,
2013, inclusive.

Please contact Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC at 888-998-
0520 or by email at arosca@praclawfirm.com to discuss this matter.

Biozoom was previously known as Entertainment Art, Inc.  According
to an ongoing action by the SEC, between January 2013 through
June 2013, certain Argentinean nationals opened brokerage accounts
at two U.S. brokerage firms and deposited millions of shares of
unregistered Entertainment Arts stock into those accounts.  On
March 12, 2013, Entertainment Art announced a dramatic change in
business operations from a company that developed fashionable
leather bags to a company that was involved in the biomedical
industry.  On April 1, 2013, Entertainment Art changed its name to
Biozoom and listed itself on the OTC Bulletin Board.

Beginning on May 23, 2013, Biozoom began issuing a series of press
releases claiming it created the world's first portable, handheld
consumer device to instantly measure certain "biomarkers" such as
anti-oxidant levels, vitamin absorption and stress levels.  Those
claims were also made by certain stock promoters.  Following the
press releases and stock promotion Biozoom's stock price and
volume rose dramatically.  Between May 16, 2013 and June 19, 2013,
the Argentinean nationals allegedly sold millions of unregistered
shares of Biozoom for large profits.  On June 25, 2013, the SEC
issued a ten day trading suspension in Biozoom stock.  Thereafter,
the price of Biozoom shares fell dramatically.  Plaintiff and the
Class purchased their shares of Biozoom on the OTCBB from
defendant KCG Americas.  They asserted claims under Section
12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 against the defendant in
connection with the sales of the Biozoom shares.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve
as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.  If you wish to
learn more about this action, or have any questions about this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to this
matter, please contact Alan Rosca or Joe Peiffer at the Peiffer
Rosca Law Firm, at 888-998-0520 or arosca@praclawfirm.com

Case: Corso v. KCG Americas LLC, 14-cv-01087, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D.
Ohio (May, 2014)

           About Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC

Peiffer Rosca Abdullah Carr & Kane LLC --
http://www.securitieslitigators.com-- prosecutes securities fraud
and represents investors in securities litigation and FINRA
arbitrations throughout the U.S.


BOB EVANS: Fails to Pay Assistant Managers' OT Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Mackin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00450 (S.D.
Ohio, May 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay its
Assistant Managers for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime
on a timely basis, and failing to pay the legally required amount
of overtime compensation in an amount required by law for all
hours worked over forty in a workweek.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Delaware, with its corporate headquarters at
3776 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Drew T. Legando, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER-GRIECO-MERRIMAN, LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
              drew@lgmlegal.com

           - and -

      Scott E. Smith, Esq.
      SCOTT ELLIOT SMITH LPA
      5003 Horizons Drive
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Telephone: (614) 846-1700
      Facsimile: (614) 486-4987
      E-mail: ses@sestriallaw.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Motion for Rehearing Filed in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a motion for
rehearing has been filed in the Supreme Court of Texas in a class
action lawsuit against Carrington Mortgage Services.

The court's May 16 decision approved restructurings of Texas home
equity loans that add past-due property taxes and insurance but
that do not independently satisfy the constitutional requirements
for a home equity loan, according to a motion filed May 19 in the
Supreme Court of Texas.

Frankie Sims and Patsy Sims claim the court's decision does not
specifically address whether a restructuring can add future-due
property taxes and insurance without satisfying the requirements
for a home equity loan.

"That issue is present in some of the pending cases . . . and
should therefore be resolved in this court before the Fifth
Circuit takes up this case again," the motion states.  "The Fifth
Circuit's order certifying questions to this court does not
explicitly break out the issue of past-due sums vs. future-due
sums, but the Sims directly addressed the matter in their briefs
and oral argument."

According to court filings in the case, many of the pending loan
restructuring cases alleged lenders paid future property taxes and
insurance from dollars added to the principal of the note.

The plaintiff-appellants claim the future-due problem "goes to the
heart of what constitutes home equity lending."

"If this court determines that property taxes and insurance due
after a restructuring can be paid from the proceeds of the
restructuring, then lenders and borrowers can finance future
property taxes and insurance without limitation once a home equity
loan has been originated and has once satisfied the 80% loan-to-
value test," the motion states.

If that is permissible, the restructuring transaction can finance
those items for 20 or 30 years at the note's rate of interest and
further collateralize the homestead each year, yet the practice
would also "skirt the 80 percent loan-to-value requirement,"
according to the motion.

"If borrowers can ask lenders to take more collateral every year
in this way to pay coming bills for property taxes and insurance,
the 80% loan-to-value ratio that was met at inception is really
just a one-time test for the particular lender who originates the
loan," the motion states.

The Simses are asking the court to grant a rehearing to answer or
clarify whether a home equity lender can add dollars to the
principal of an existing home equity note in order to pay property
taxes and insurance coming due after the transaction adding those
dollars to the note.

They are being represented by J. Patrick Sutton --
jpatricksutton@jpatricksuttonlaw.com -- of the Law Office of J.
Patrick Sutton in Austin; Jeffrey W. Hurt of Hurt & Berry; and
David M. Gottfried of the Law Office of David M. Gottfried in
Dallas.

Supreme Court of Texas case number: 13-0638


CENCOSUD SA: Paid CH$17,974-Mil in CAT Fines as of Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Cencosud S.A. has made payments in connection with a court's
ruling on a class action lawsuit against its subsidiary, Cencosud
Administradora de Tarjetas S.A., that amounted to Ch$17,974
million as of December 31, 2013, 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: "Our subsidiary, Cencosud Administradora de
Tarjetas S.A. ("CAT"), was a defendant in a class action suit
initiated by SERNAC. On April 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of Chile
ruled for the plaintiff and at this junction no further appeals
are available. In its ruling, the court determined that CAT
included certain clauses in its 2006 contracts that were abusive
to consumers. Said clauses allowed CAT to charge an incremental
maintenance fee of Ch$530 per month to cardholders with a usage
under Ch$50 thousand per month, without written consent from
cardholders as required by the Ley de Proteccion al Consumidor. In
the ruling the court ordered CAT to pay a fine of approximately
Ch$2 million and to reimburse certain cardholders for the excess
maintenance fees charged since 2006 plus adjustments for inflation
and interests. We made payments in connection with this ruling
that amounted to Ch$17,974 million as of December 31, 2013."

Cencosud SA is a Chile-based holding company primarily engaged in
the retail sector. The Company's activities include the management
and operation of a network of supermarkets, home centers,
department stores and shopping malls, which operate under such
names as Jumbo, Paris, Santa Isabel, Easy, Paris and Aventura
Center, among others. The Company's business also comprises the
provision of consumer financial services and insurance brokerage,
as well as it operates family entertainment centers. The Company
has such subsidiaries as: Cencosud Retail SA, Easy SA, Banco Paris
SA and Circulo Mas SA, among others. Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, the Company has operations established in Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru. As of December 31, 2012,
Inversiones Quinchamali Limitada was the Company's major
shareholder with 23.2% of its interest.


CLIFFS NATURAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 22 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and docketed
under 1:14-cv-01106, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Cliffs
securities between March 14, 2012 and March 26, 2013, both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cliffs securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 11, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Cliffs is an international mining and natural resources company
that derives substantially all of its revenue from the production
and sale of iron ore and coal.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
were aware of, but failed to disclose, systemic problems with its
Bloom Lake's facilities that caused massive cost overruns and
serious production issues.  These problems made it impossible for
Cliffs to produce ore from Bloom Lake at low costs or to maintain
the Company's dividend.  The true facts, which Defendants knew but
misrepresented or concealed from investors, were that: (i) Bloom
Lake's facilities had serious problems, including inadequate
equipment and shipping facilities that were incapable of
efficiently transporting iron ore products; (ii) the mining
operation of Bloom Lake would be more expensive than disclosed,
including that the production cost of iron ore per ton had
increased and could not be decreased, as a result of the Company's
reliance on contract labor and a failure to efficiently manage the
operation; (iii) production volumes at Bloom Lake had decreased
rather than increased; (iv) the Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects
designed to increase production at Bloom Lake were not
economically viable; (v) as a result of the systemic and
persistent problems at Bloom Lake, the Company's dividend was not
sustainable; and (vi) the Company was incapable of adequately
testing the dividend.

On November 19, 2012, the Company announced significant
adjustments to its 2013 operating plan, effectively admitting that
the Bloom Lake project was encountering serious problems.  These
adjustments included a suspension of key components of the Phase 2
expansion at Bloom Lake, and a delay of Cliffs' Phase 3 study.
The Company, however, continued to conceal from investors the full
extent of the issues at the mine as well as the fact that
Defendants knew that Cliffs' dividend was not sustainable.  The
next day, Goldman Sachs cut its rating on Cliffs' stock, citing
Bloom Lake's expansion delay, high production costs, as well as
concerns regarding the Company's ability to continue paying its
dividend.  On this news, the price of Cliffs' stock dropped from
$35.33 per share to $30.48 per share, or almost 14%, on
November 19, 2012.

On February 12, 2013, after the financial markets had closed,
Cliffs announced that it would slash its dividend by 76% to $0.15
per share.  Significantly, this announcement came less than one
year after Cliffs more-than-doubled its dividend and after
repeated assurances that the dividend had been tested and was
sustainable.  The next day, Cliffs stated during its fourth
quarter 2012 earnings conference call that Bloom Lake's costs
remained elevated at $86 per ton.  On this news, the price of
Cliffs' stock dropped approximately 20%, or $7.32 per share, from
$36.61 per share on February 12, 2013 to $29.29 per share on
February 13, 2013.

On March 27, 2013, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse severely cut
their price targets on Cliffs' stock, citing a weak balance sheet,
the potential need to sell core assets, structural changes in its
business and increased costs.  On this news, the price of Cliffs'
stock declined from $21.43 per share on March 26, 2013, to $18.46
per share on March 27, 2013 or almost 14%, on March 27, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


CON-WAY INC: Challenges Class Cert. Bid in Pina & Quezada Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Con-way Inc., continues to challenge the certification of the
class in the Pina case and the Quezada case, and cannot estimate
the amount of potential loss, if any, 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.

Con-way is a defendant in several class-action lawsuits alleging
violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to pay certain drivers for
all compensable time and that certain other drivers were not
provided with required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs
seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest
and attorneys' fees. The two primary cases are Jorge R. Quezada v.
Con-way Inc., dba Con-way Freight, (the "Quezada" case), and Jose
Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the
"Pina" case). The Quezada case was initially filed in February
2009 in San Mateo County Superior Court, and was removed to the
U.S. District Court of California, Northern District. The Pina
case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County
Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court of
California, Northern District. By agreement of the parties, in
March 2010, the Pina case and the Quezada case were deemed related
and transferred to the same judge. On April 12, 2012, the Court
granted plaintiff's request for class certification in the Pina
case as to a limited number of issues. On October 15, 2012, the
Court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification in the
Quezada case and granted summary judgment as to certain issues.
The class certification rulings do not address whether Con-way
will ultimately be held liable.

Con-way continues to challenge the certification of the class in
both cases, and further contends that plaintiffs' claims are
preempted by federal law and not substantiated by the facts. Con-
way has denied any liability with respect to these claims and
intends to vigorously defend itself in these cases. There are
multiple factors that prevent Con-way from being able to estimate
the amount of potential loss, if any, in excess of its accrued
liability that may result from this matter, including: (1) Con-way
is vigorously defending itself and believes that it has a number
of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) at this early stage in the
cases, there are unresolved questions of fact that could be
important to the resolution of these matters. Accordingly, Con-way
cannot estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any, in
excess of its accrued liability.

Con-way Inc., and its subsidiaries (Con-way) provides
transportation, logistics and supply-chain management services for
a range of manufacturing, industrial and retail customers. Con-
way's business units operate in regional and transcontinental
less-than-truckload and full-truckload freight transportation,
contract logistics and supply-chain management, multimodal freight
brokerage, and trailer manufacturing. Con-way operates in four
segments: Freight, Logistics, Truckload and Other. The Freight
segment consists of the operating results of the Con-way Freight
business unit. During the year ended December 31, 2012, Con-way
Freight's average weight per shipment was 1,326 pounds. The
Logistics segment consists of the operating results of the Menlo
Worldwide Logistics business unit. The Truckload segment consists
of the operating results of the Con-way Truckload business unit.
The Other reporting segment consists of the operating results of
Road Systems, a trailer manufacturer.


CONNECTONE BANCORP: Defendant in Suits Over Center Bancorp Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc., disclosed in its second amended Form
10-K filed on April 30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013,
that complaints were filed against the Company seeking class
action status and asserting violations in connection with the
proposed merger with Center Bancorp, Inc.

On January 27, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company and
the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Bergen County, seeking class action status and asserting
that the Company and the members of its Board had violated their
duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the
proposed merger with Center Bancorp, Inc. Subsequently, several
additional complaints also seeking class action status and raising
substantially the same allegations, were filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. The plaintiffs propose to
consolidate these cases. The litigation is in its very early
stages, and the Company's time to answer has not yet run. The
Company believes these complaints are without merit, and intends
to vigorously defend these complaints.

ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. serves as a bank holding company for
ConnectOne Bank (the Bank). The Bank is a community-based, full
service commercial bank. The Bank offers a range of deposit and
loan products and services to the general public and, in
particular, to small and mid-sized businesses, local professionals
and individuals residing, working and shopping in its trade area.
The Bank offers a broad range of deposit and loan products.
Products and services provided include personal and business
checking accounts, retirement accounts, money market accounts,
time and savings accounts, credit cards, wire transfers, access to
automated teller services, Internet banking, Treasury Direct, ACH
origination, lockbox services and mobile banking by phone. In
addition, the Bank offers safe deposit boxes.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Interfered With Class's FMLA Rights, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lenard Brown, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
persons v. Office of the Transitional Administrator, Earl Dunlap,
and the County of Cook, Case No. 1:14-cv-03581 (N.D. Ill.,
May 15, 2014) is brought to seek redress for the Defendants'
alleged unlawful interference with the rights of the Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated persons in violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

According to the complaint, the Office of the Transitional
Administrator ("OTA") and Earl Dunlap recently instituted a "no
overtime restrictions" policy wherein the Defendants allegedly
coerce Cook County Juvenile Detention Center employees to rescind
their OTA-designated FMLA leave or to change their medical
certification, regardless of medical necessity.  Mr. Brown alleges
that JTDC employees, who do not give up their FMLA rights, are
forced onto a different work shift, regardless of hardship.

The Office of the Transitional Administrator is a public agency
created pursuant to court orders in the case of Doe v. Cook
County, Case No. 99 C 3945 (N.D. Ill.).  OTA is in charge of the
day-to-day operations of the JTDC.  Earl Dunlap is and was the
Transitional Administrator of the OTA at all times material to the
complaint.  County of Cook is a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          Matthew I. Farmer, Esq.
          Alenna K. Bolin, Esq.
          Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
          ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861-1800
          E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org
                  matt@potterlaw.org
                  alenna@potterlaw.org
                  patrick@potterlaw.org


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES: "Pardee" Trial to Commence Sept. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., reported that Jonathan Pardee's
motion as to liability has been set for trial, to commence on
September 9, 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.

The Company states: "We were for some time a defendant in a class
action (the "Stanwich Case") brought in the California Superior
Court, Los Angeles County. The original plaintiffs in that case
were persons entitled to receive regular payments (the "Settlement
Payments") pursuant to earlier settlements of claims, generally
personal injury claims, against unrelated defendants. Stanwich
Financial Services Corp. ("Stanwich"), an affiliate of the former
chairman of our board of directors, is the entity that was
obligated to pay the Settlement Payments. Stanwich defaulted on
its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in June 2001 filed
for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal
bankruptcy court in Connecticut. By February 2005, we had settled
all claims brought against us in the Stanwich Case.

In November 2001, one of the defendants in the Stanwich Case,
Jonathan Pardee, asserted claims for indemnity against us in a
separate action, which is now pending in federal district court in
Rhode Island. We have filed counterclaims in the Rhode Island
federal court against Mr. Pardee, and have filed a separate action
against Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island attorneys, in the same court.
The litigation between Mr. Pardee and us was stayed for several
years through September 2011, awaiting resolution of an adversary
action brought against Mr. Pardee in the bankruptcy court, which
is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich.

Pursuant to an agreement with the representative of creditors in
the Stanwich bankruptcy, that adversary action has been dismissed.
Under that agreement, we paid the bankruptcy estate $800,000 and
abandoned our claims against the estate, while the estate has
abandoned its adversary action against Mr. Pardee. With the
dismissal of the adversary action, all known claims asserted
against Mr. Pardee have been resolved without his incurring any
liability. Accordingly, we believe that this resolution of the
adversary action will result in limitation of our exposure to Mr.
Pardee to no more than some portion of his attorneys fees
incurred. The stay in the action against us in Rhode Island has
been lifted, and both we and Mr. Pardee filed motions for summary
judgment. The court ruled on those motions in February 2013,
denying our motion, and granting Mr. Pardee's motion as to
liability. The matter has been set for trial, to commence
September 9, 2014. The issues remaining for trial are the extent
of our obligation to indemnify Mr. Pardee."

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is a specialty finance company.
The Company's business is to purchase and service retail
automobile contracts originated primarily by franchised automobile
dealers and, to a lesser extent, by select independent dealers in
the United States in the sale of new and used automobiles, light
trucks and passenger vans. Through its automobile contract
purchases, it provides indirect financing to the customers of
dealers who have limited credit histories, low incomes or past
credit problems. It serves as an alternative source of financing
for dealers, facilitating sales to customers who otherwise might
not be able to obtain financing from traditional sources, such as
commercial banks, credit unions and the captive finance companies
affiliated with automobile manufacturers.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES: Defendant in Two Consumer Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., is currently defending two
purported class actions filed by consumers violations of law
applicable to collection of receivables, one of which has been
settled by agreement with the plaintiffs, 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 routinely involved in various legal
proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and
practices, both continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do
initiate lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable
to collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege
that resolution as a class action is appropriate. We are currently
defending two such purported class actions, one of which has been
settled by agreement with the plaintiffs (such settlement remains
subject to approval by the court). For the most part, we have
legal and factual defenses to such claims, which we routinely
contest or settle (for immaterial amounts) depending on the
particular circumstances of each case. We have recorded a
liability as of March 31, 2014 with respect to such matters, in
the aggregate."

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is a specialty finance company.
The Company's business is to purchase and service retail
automobile contracts originated primarily by franchised automobile
dealers and, to a lesser extent, by select independent dealers in
the United States in the sale of new and used automobiles, light
trucks and passenger vans. Through its automobile contract
purchases, it provides indirect financing to the customers of
dealers who have limited credit histories, low incomes or past
credit problems. It serves as an alternative source of financing
for dealers, facilitating sales to customers who otherwise might
not be able to obtain financing from traditional sources, such as
commercial banks, credit unions and the captive finance companies
affiliated with automobile manufacturers.


CORELOGIC INC: Intends to Defend Against RESPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014, disclosed that CoreLogic Valuation
Services, LLC (CVS), as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to
defend against a purported class action alleging violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, among other things.

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between
WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to
artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value
loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9,
2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against
eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order.

CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (CVS), as the successor to
eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against this claim vigorously;
however, it may not be successful. At this time the Company cannot
predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range
of damages, if any.

CoreLogic, Inc. (CoreLogic), is a provider of property
information, analytics and services provider in the United States
of America and Australia. The Company provides detailed coverage
of property, mortgages and other encumbrances, consumer credit,
tenancy, location, hazard risk and related performance
information. The Company offers its customers databases of public,
contributory data covering real property and mortgages
information, judgments and liens, parcel and geospatial data,
criminal background records, national coverage eviction
information, non-prime lending records, credit information, and
tax information, among other data types. The Company operates in
three segments: data and analytics, mortgage origination services
and asset management and processing solutions. In March 2014, the
Company completed the Marshall & Swift/Boeckh (MSB), and DataQuick
Information Systems. Effective March 25, 2014, CoreLogic acquired
a 30.105% interest in Symbility Solutions Inc.


CZ COMMERCE: Faces "Balik" Suit Over Alleged FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Serkan Balik, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
v. CZ Commerce, LLC d/b/a OK Petroleum, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-
02905 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) is brought against the Defendants
for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
sections 201 et seq. that the Plaintiffs are entitled of unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

CZ Commerce, LLC, is a New York Corporation doing business as OK
Petroleum is located at 151 Hempstead Avenue, West Hempstead,
11552.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


DREYFUSS FIRM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Glover and Tamara Glover, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. The Dreyfuss Firm, a Professional Law
Corporation, and Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01228-CAB-WVG (S.D. Cal., May 15, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Tenn. Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay & Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Dawson on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
emplpoyees, v. Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C., Case No.
1:14-cv-01105 (W.D. Tenn., May 8, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 207, 216(b).

Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C., is a domestic corporation
located at 620 Skyline Drive, Jackson, Tennessee 38301.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER PLC
      5409 Maryland Avenue, Suite 150
      Brentwood, TN 37027
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defendant in Mortgage Assignment Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp., is a defendant in class action lawsuits
where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment,
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.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Services Related Litigation
MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and
servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the
following material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs
allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the
failure to pay recording fees in violation of state recording
statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting
Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al. filed in
October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio,
and later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to
state court; (2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond,
Plymouth County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March 2012 in the
Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, later removed to federal
court and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit; (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick,
County Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP,
Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al.
filed in April 2012 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky; (4) St. Clair County, Illinois v.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et
al., filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois;  (5) County of
Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et
al., filed in December 2012 in an Oregon state court,  later
removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and
subsequently remanded back to the state court; (6) Delaware
County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in November
2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania, and later removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; (7) County of
Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v. MERSCORP Holdings,
Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in the Second Judicial
District Court, subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court,
District of Minnesota and now on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and (8) Jackson County,
Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registrations
Systems, Inc., et al., filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri and later removed to federal court where
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and now
stayed due to the bankruptcy filing of defendant GMAC. In these
material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case
generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants
to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive
damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs. We believe the
plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to contest all
such claims vigorously."

EverBank Financial Corp (EverBank), incorporated in 2004, is an
unitary savings and loan holding company. The Company provides a
range of financial products and services directly to customers
through multiple business channels. Its operating subsidiary is
EverBank. EverBank provides services to customers through
Websites, over the phone, through the mail and at 14 Florida-based
Financial Centers. The Company operates in two operating business
segments: Banking and Wealth Management, and Mortgage Banking. Its
Banking and Wealth Management segment includes earnings generated
by and activities related to deposit and investment products and
services and portfolio lending and leasing activities. Its
Mortgage Banking segment consists of activities related to the
origination and servicing of residential mortgage loans. In March
2014, the Company announced that it has completed the sale of
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and private investor mortgage servicing
rights (MSR) to Green Tree Servicing LLC.


FINAL & TOUCH: Tex. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Carrera-Hernandez and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B), v. Final & Touch Cleaning Service, et al, Case
No. 3:14-cv-01715 (N.D. Tex., May 8, 2014) arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. sections 201-216 specifically to
recover unpaid wages, damages and attornry fees.

Final & Touch Cleaning Service is a company that regularly
transacts business within Dallas County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLUSHMATE: August 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about the
Series 503 Flushmate III Pressure Assist Flushing System.  You may
be eligible for cash payments from a proposed $18 million
Settlement.  The money compensation is in addition to the
Flushmate System recall remedy you may have received and may
request from Flushmate as part of its recall program.

Who's Included?

The Settlement includes anyone who owns or owned a toilet with a
Flushmate System manufactured from October 14, 1997 through
June 30, 2009.  Flushmate Systems were installed in various toilet
brands sold at Home Depot and Lowe's stores and through
distributors and plumbing contractors.

Installed in: American Standard, Crane, Ecotech, Eljer, Gerber,
Kohler, Mancesa, Mansfield, Orion, St. Thomas, Universal Rundle,
Vitra, Vitromex and Western Pottery toilets.

What does the Settlement provide?

Subject to Court approval, and to the extent not previously
reimbursed, Class Members can receive a distribution from the
Settlement Fund for having installed: (1) a Flushmate Repair Kit,
(2) a replacement pressure vessel, or (3) a replacement toilet.
Depending on the number of qualified claims, it is possible that
Class Members will receive less than the full amount of their out-
of-pocket expenses.  To the extent not previously reimbursed,
Class Members can also receive reimbursement for any direct
property damage caused by a Flushmate System that leaked or burst.
Any money left in the Settlement Fund after two years will be
divided among Class Members who file valid claims or will
be donated to a charitable organization.

How can I get a payment?

File a claim online at www.FlushmateClaims.com or call 1-877-412-
5277. (For questions related to the Flushmate Recall, please visit
www.flushmate.com or www.flushmate.com/recall.)

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions.
If you want to keep your right to sue the Defendants yourself, you
must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by July 25, 2014.
If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the
Settlement by July 30, 2014.

The Court will hold a hearing on August 25, 2014 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys'
fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of
attorneys' costs and expenses.  You or your own lawyer may
appear at the hearing at your own expense.

For more information or a Claim Form: 1-877-412-5277 or
www.FlushmateClaims.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Removed "Soto" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Soto v. Freedom Mortgage
Corporation, et al., Case No. 14-02432CA01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-21789-JEM to
the proceeding.

The case asserts real property-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
          Karen Jill Barnet-Backer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LA LEY CON JOHN H. RUIZ
          4182 SW 74th Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582-0907
          E-mail: fmartinez@lawofficeslaley.com
                  kbacker@lawofficeslaley.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
          JOHN H. RUIZ PA
          5040 NW 7th Street, Suite PH1
          Miami, FL 33126
          E-mail: rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Rosy Anette Aponte, Esq.
          R. APONTE & ASSOCIATES
          8180 NW 36th Street, Suite 100j
          Doral, FL 33166
          Telephone: (786) 360-3263
          Facsimile: (786) 360-3266
          E-mail: a2aponte@aol.com

Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation is represented by:

          Randy Richard Dow, Esq.
          MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
          1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 356-2501
          Facsimile: (954) 252-3806
          E-mail: rdow@mcglinchey.com

Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and JP
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., are represented by:

          Robert Mark Brochin, Esq.
          Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 5300 Wachovia Financial Center
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          Telephone: (305) 415-3456
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: rbrochin@morganlewis.com
                  bercole@morganlewis.com

Defendant Country Walk Master Association, Inc., is represented
by:

          Joyce Goodman-Guenther, Esq.
          GOODMAN-GUENTHER JOYCE PA
          10723 SW 104th Street
          Miami, FL 33176
          Telephone: (305) 274-5668
          Facsimile: (305) 273-0339
          E-mail: jgg@jgguentherlaw.com


GARDEN STATE CLE: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------
George Vietengruber, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Garden State CLE, New Jersey Continuing
Legal Education Services, LLC and John Doe, Case No. 3:14-cv-03056
(D.N.J., May 14, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's actions
of sending unsolicited fax advertisements to the unwilling fax
recipients which violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Garden State CLE is a New Jersey corporation located at 21
Winthrop Road, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL INFORMATION SERVICES: Sued in Ky. for Violating FCRA
------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Lacy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. General Information Services, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00051-JHM-
HBB (W.D. Ky., May 15, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 S. Broad St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald L. Burdge, Esq.
          BURDGE LAW OFFICE
          2299 Miamisburg Centerville Road
          Dayton, OH 45459
          Telephone: (937) 432-9500
          Facsimile: (937) 432-9503
          E-mail: elizabeth@burdgelaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Markle" Suit Over Faulty Ignition Switches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peyton Markle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. General Motors LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, and Delphi
Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21788-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
May 15, 2014) arises from GM's recent string of recalls, the
culmination of GM and Delphi's alleged scheme to defraud GM
consumers through their unconscionable failure to disclose and
active concealment of a defect in certain GM vehicles that renders
them unsafe to drive and has killed at least 13 innocent victims
and possibly hundreds more.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Archie Cleveland Lamb, Jr., Esq.
          ARCHIE LAMB & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          P.O. Box 2088
          Birmingham, AL 35201
          Telephone: (205) 612-6789
          E-mail: alamb@archielamb.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Holliday" Suit Over Defective Switches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Holliday and Elvira Calvillo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, General
Motors Holding, LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, And Dph-Das, LLC F/K/A
Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No.1:14-cv-00271 (E.D. Tex.,
May 14, 2014), bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated who purchased or leased vehicles
manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by the Defendants with
defective ignition switches.

General Motors Corporation was a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The Corporation through its
various entities designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and
sold Pontiac, Saturn, Chevrolet and other brand automobiles in
Texas and multiple other locations in the United States and
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell A Toups, Esq.
      WELLER GREEN TOUPS & TERRELL LLP
      2615 Calder, Suite 400
      Beaumont, TX 77704
      Telephone: (409) 838-0101
      Facsimile: (409) 832-8577
      E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com


H J HEINZ: July 31 Case Mgmt. Conference in "Stez" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order setting a case
management conference in MICHAEL STEZ, Plaintiff(s), v. H.J. HEINZ
COMPANY, Defendant(s), NO. C 14-1871 PJH, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of
the May 9, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/UstM1dfrom
Leagle.com.

Judge Hamilton ordered, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and
Civil L. R. 16-10, that a Case Management Conference be held in
this case on July 31, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd
Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, in Oakland, California.

Lead counsel are ordered to meet and confer as required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case Management Conference with respect
to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c).  Not less
than seven days before the conference, counsel must file a joint
case management statement.

Michael Stez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower --
dbower@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP.


HANGTIME INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Kozlow, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Hangtime, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-02249-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
May 15, 2014) is brought to stop the Company's alleged practice of
sending unsolicited advertisements to consumers via text message,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Hangtime is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          Jennifer L. McIntosh, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  jlm@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  rich@bockhatchllc.com
                  james@bockhatchllc.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sept. 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Labaton Sucharow LLP
and Motley Rice LLC regarding the In re Hewlett-Packard Company
Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. SACV 11-1404 AG (RNBx)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
SHARES OF HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK IN
THE OPEN MARKET DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 22, 2010 TO AND
THROUGH AUGUST 18, 2011, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
settlement with Hewlett-Packard Company, Leo Apotheker, and R.
Todd Bradley in the amount of $57,000,000 has been proposed by the
Settling Parties.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford,
United States District Judge, on September 15, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
in Courtroom 10D of the United States Courthouse, 411 West Fourth
Street, Santa Ana, California 92701 for the purpose of
determining, among other things, (i) whether the proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; (ii) whether, thereafter, this Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated as of March 31, 2014; (iii) whether
the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; and (iv) the reasonableness of
the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses, with interest, incurred in
connection with this Action.  The Court has reserved the right to
reschedule the hearing without further notice.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class described above, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement
thereof.  If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim form, you may
obtain them by contacting the Claims Administrator:

HEWLETT-PACKARD SECURITIES LITIGATION
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10056
Dublin, OH 43017-6656
(877) 782-8059

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
1-888-219-6877
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com

MOTLEY RICE LLC
Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
1-843-216-9000
www.motleyrice.com
HPsettlementquestions@motleyrice.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked or received no later than September 16, 2014
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  As further
described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered
in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim,
unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than August 25, 2014.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
and expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice, such that they are received no
later than August 25, 2014.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS
NOTICE.

DATED: May 28, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


HYATT HOTELS: Court Dismissed Antitrust Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corp., reported that the Court dismissed for failure
to state a claim, a putative class action filed against the
Company alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws,
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 September 2012, a putative class action was filed against the
Company, several other hotel companies and several online travel
companies in federal district court in Connecticut seeking an
unspecified amount of damages and equitable relief for an alleged
violation of the federal antitrust laws. The online travel
companies and the other hotel companies were also named in other
actions, and these cases and the case naming the Company were
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas. The federal
court in the Northern District of Texas dismissed the complaint
for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs moved for leave to
file an amended complaint, but that amended complaint does not
include the Company nor any of the other hotel companies as
defendants. Accordingly, this case is no longer pending against
the Company.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation (Hyatt) is a global hospitality company.
The Company manages, franchises, owns and develops Hyatt-branded
hotels, resorts and residential and vacation ownership properties
globally. As of December 31, 2011, the Company's portfolio
consisted of 483 properties (132,727 rooms and units). During the
year ended December 31, 2011, the Company acquired three Woodfin
Suites properties and 20 hotels. In May 2013, Chesapeake Lodging
Trust acquired the Hyatt Fisherman's Wharf from the Company. In
September 2013, Inland American Lodging Group, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and
Hyatt Hotels Corporation announced the respective purchase and
sale of the 14-story, 501-room Hyatt Regency Santa Clara in Santa
Clara, Calif.


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Defendant in Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., is a defendant in a putative class
action complaint alleging Securities Act violations relating to
the Company's financial restatements, 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 July 18, 2012, we announced our intention
to restate our financial statements for the years ended December
28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the related
interim periods. On July 20, 2012, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us, certain of our current directors and
officers and the underwriters in the initial public offering
("IPO"). The plaintiffs allege that all the defendants violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
and certain of our directors and officers have control person
liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act, based on
allegations that in light of the July 18, 2012 restatement
announcement, our IPO registration statement and prospectus
contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made therein not
misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

"We have begun the discovery process, however, we continue to
believe this lawsuit is without merit, and are vigorously
defending the lawsuit. However, we are unable to predict the
outcome of this case and any future related cases."

Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. operates two restaurant brands,
Joe's Crab Shack (Joe's) and Brick House Tavern + Tap (Brick
House). The Company's Joe's Crab Shack and Brick House Tavern +
Tap operate in a diverse set of markets across the United States.
Joe's Crab Shack is a national chain of casual seafood restaurants
serving a variety of seafood items, with an emphasis on crab.
Brick House Tavern + Tap is a casual restaurant brand that
provides guests a gastro pub experience by offering a blend of
menu items. As of December 31, 2012, the Company owned and
operated 144 restaurants in 33 states. In September 2013, Ignite
Restaurant Group Inc announced the opening of its newest Joe's
Crab Shack restaurant, located in Newark, New Jersey.


IMH FINANCIAL: Completed Notes Issuance in April 18
---------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corp. completed the issuance of notes under an
Exchange Offering and Rights Offering on April 28, 2014, relating
to the final approval of a Class Action Settlement, according to
the Company's Form 8-K dated April 28, 2014, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2014.

The Company states: "on or about November 25, 2013, IMH Financial
Corporation ("IMH" or the "Company") received Final Approval of
the Class Action Settlement (the "Settlement") when the Delaware
Supreme Court dismissed the last remaining appeal. Under the terms
of the Settlement, we offered to Class members: 1) up to $20.0
million of 4% five-year subordinated unsecured notes to members of
the Class in exchange for up to approximately 2.5 million shares
of our common stock at an exchange rate of one share per $8.02 in
subordinated notes ("Exchange Offering"); and 2) up to $10.0
million of convertible notes to Class members that are accredited
investors, with the same financial terms as the convertible notes
previously issued to NW Capital ("Rights Offering"). We commenced
the Exchange Offering and the Rights Offering on February 12,
2014, which remained open for 25 business days and were closed for
subscription on March 20, 2014. Following the review of certain
documentation submitted by participating shareholders that
required additional administrative attention, as well as the
coordination and execution of final documents, we completed the
issuance of notes under the Exchange Offering and the Rights
Offering on April 28, 2014. The final amount of settlement loss
resulting from these transactions is not expected to vary
materially from the amount previously reported in Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2013."

IMH Financial deals in real estate lending and investment mainly
in the southwestern US.  Although its family of companies
historically has focused on acquiring and originating short-term
bridge loans to enable commercial real estate development and
construction, market conditions -- mainly lack of mortgage capital
availability -- are prompting the company to change course. Its
focus now is to make investments across a more diverse set of
target assets, including interim loans used to pay off
construction or property loans and whole commercial real estate
mortgage loans. Its primary markets include Arizona, California,
and Texas. IMH filed to go public in 2010 but withdrew the next
year.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Subsys' Off Label Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------
Derick Larson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Michael Babich, and Darryl
S. Baker, Case No. 2:14-cv-01043-GMS (D. Ariz., May 15, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements
concerning, and failed to disclose, among other things that the
Company engaged in illegal and unethical off label marketing of
Subsys.

In March 2012, Insys launched Subsys, the proprietary sublingual
fentanyl spray for breakthrough cancer pain in opioid-tolerant
patients, through a purported "cost-efficient commercial
organization of approximately 50 sales professionals."

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Chandler, Arizona.  Insys is a commercial-stage specialty
pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes innovative
supportive care products, primarily intended to assist cancer
patients cope with the symptoms of their disease and treatment or
therapy.  The Company has two marketed products, Subsys and
Dronabinol SG Capsule, which utilize Insys' sublingual spray drug
delivery technology and dronabinol formulation and manufacturing
capabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Martin, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Kroll, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          1850 N. Central Ave., Suite 2010
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  fmcconville@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com


JAMES M. BARB CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Holdfer, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. James M. Barb Construction, Inc., a foreign profit corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00261 (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2014), seeks to recover
overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

James M. Barb Construction, Inc., is a foreign profit corporation
and was engaged in business in the state of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      Suite 300, 1003 Del Prado Blvd
      Cape Coral, FL 33990
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


JF VEHICLE: Driver Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Ramos, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. JF Vehicle Transporters, Inc., a Florida corporation,
Juan M. Ferret, individually, and Avis Budget Group, Inc., a
Foreign Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61150-WJZ (S.D. Fla.,
May 15, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of the Defendants' drivers to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Defendants provide car detailing and parking services to Avis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor
          P.P. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


JM SMUCKER: Class Action Over False "Natural" Claims Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah J. Abramson, Esq. -- sjabramson@Venable.com -- and Angel A.
Garganta, Esq. -- aagarganta@Venable.com -- at Venable LLP, report
that another consumer class action over allegedly false and
misleading "natural" claims survived a motion to dismiss in the
Southern District of New York on May 15, 2014.  At issue in Ault
v. J.M. Smucker Co. is whether "All Natural" claims made on labels
of Smucker's Crisco branded vegetable oils are false and
misleading.  The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the
claim is misleading for two reasons: 1) the oils are derived from
genetically modified vegetables which are not natural, and 2) the
oils are so heavily processed that they bear no chemical
resemblance to the ingredients from which they are derived.

In response to the complaint, Smucker's filed a motion to dismiss
on the grounds that FDA policies and regulations preempt the
plaintiffs' state false advertising claims, and argued that the
Court should decline to enter that "All Natural" debate and defer
to the FDA as it has primary jurisdiction.  On May 15, 2014, Judge
Crotty of the Southern District of New York denied the motion to
dismiss.

This result is not surprising given that the FDA has consistently
refused to offer a definition of "natural" that settles common
issues of contention like genetically modified organisms, even
when faced with industry groups and judges clamoring for guidance
on this issue.  The May 15, 2014 order stressed the FDA's silence
on this issue and cited heavily to the agency's January 6, 2004
letter to three district court judges of the Northern District of
California and the District of New Jersey, which directly rejected
the courts' request for the FDA to weigh in on whether products
containing genetically modified ingredients may or may not be
labeled "natural."  Judge Crotty expressed concern that finding
preemption or primary jurisdiction in the face of this regulatory
hole would leave deceived consumers with no recourse under either
state or federal law.

This outcome serves as an illustration of another emerging trend
in food labeling consumer class actions:  class certification is
an easier target for defendants than agency preemption, especially
in cases where the agency has not directly spoken on an issue
through notice and comment rulemaking.  For more information about
this trend see Gregory Sater's post on the Chipotle "Naturally
Raised" case and a recent article by Dan Silverman, Gregory Sater,
and Bety Javidzad on the POM Wonderful decertification decision.


K & L COURT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mee Wooi Chan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. K & L Court Food, Inc. d/b/a Chance Asian Bistro & Bar, ABC
Corp. d/b/a Yamato Modern Asian Cuisine, Ken Hua Li a/k/a Ken Li,
John Doe, and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-03075-ILG-RLM (E.D.N.Y.,
May 15, 2014) is brought on behalf of current and former employees
of the Defendants seeking unpaid wages guaranteed to them under
the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

K & L Court Food, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.  K & L, doing business as
Chance Asian Bistro & Bar, was in the business of preparing and
serving Asian food via patronage of and take-out delivery from its
restaurant.

ABC Corp. is the fictitious name of the unknown corporation or
entity operating as Yamato Modern Asian Cuisine located in
Brooklyn, New York.  Yamato Restaurant prepares and serves Asian
cuisine via dine-in and take-out delivery.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, shareholders, or managers of the Defendant
Corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
          Thomas Hsien Chih Kung, Esq.
          XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          401 Broadway, Suite 1009
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 219-2275
          Facsimile: (212) 219-2276
          E-mail: thomaskung@xuelaw.com


KEYCORP: Court Denied Rehearing on Metyk Litigation Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp reported that on April 28, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc relating to the order granting KeyCorp's motion
to dismiss in the Thomas Metyk class action 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.

On January 29, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio ("Northern District") entered an order
granting KeyCorp's motion to dismiss in a consolidated class
action lawsuit styled Thomas Metyk, et al. v. KeyCorp, et al.
("Metyk"). Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Northern
District's dismissal of the lawsuit and its denial of plaintiffs'
motion to set aside final judgment to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Sixth Circuit"). On March 26,
2014, the Sixth Circuit filed its opinion affirming the judgment
of the Northern District for both issues on appeal. On April 9,
2014, the appellants filed with the Sixth Circuit a petition for
rehearing or rehearing en banc seeking a review of the opinion. On
April 28, 2014, the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing or rehearing en banc.

KeyCorp, is a bank holding company. It is a bank-based financial
services company. KeyCorp is the parent holding company for
KeyBank National Association (KeyBank), its principal subsidiary,
through which most of its banking services are provided. Through
KeyBank and certain other subsidiaries, the Company provides a
range of retail and commercial banking, commercial leasing,
investment management, consumer finance and investment banking
products and services to individual, corporate and institutional
clients through two major business segments: Key Community Bank
and Key Corporate Bank. In August 2013, KeyCorp closed on its
agreement to sell Victory Capital Management and its broker dealer
affiliate Victory Capital Advisers.


KFORCE INC: Labor Suit Plaintiff Appeals Summary Judgment Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc., disclosed that on February 20, 2014, the plaintiff in
the class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, unpaid
compensation, has filed an appeal of the district court's summary
judgment decision, 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 June 18, 2013, Kforce, along with other staffing firms, was
named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the Orange
County Superior Court of the State of California. The plaintiff
alleges that a class of current and former Kforce employees
working in California was denied compensation for the time they
spent interviewing with current and potential clients of Kforce,
over a period covering four years prior to the filing of the
complaint.  The plaintiff seeks recovery in an unspecified amount
for this alleged unpaid compensation, the alleged failure of
Kforce to provide them with accurate wage statements, the alleged
improper use of debit cards as an employee payment mechanism in
certain circumstances, alleged unfair competition, and statutory
penalties, attorney's fees and other damages. On August 30, 2013,
Kforce moved the matter to the U.S. District Court of the Central
District of California, Case No. 8:13cv1356. On January 30, 2014,
the U.S. District Court of Central District of California granted
summary judgment in favor of Kforce except for the plaintiff's
claim for waiting time penalties, which is an individual claim and
not part of the class action. On February 20, 2014, the plaintiff
filed an appeal of the district court's summary judgment decision
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Kforce Inc. (Kforce) is a provider of professional and technical
specialty staffing services and solutions. It operates in five
segments: Technology (Tech), Finance and Accounting (FA), Clinical
Research (KCR), Health Information Management (HIM) and Government
Solutions (GS). Kforce organizes and manages its Tech and FA
segments on a regional basis: Atlantic, North and West. Its Tech
segment includes Kforce Global Solutions, Inc. (Global), a wholly
owned subsidiary, which has two offices in the Philippines. Its
KCR, HIM and GS segments are organized and managed by specialty.
As of December 31, 2011, it operated 62 field offices, which are
located throughout the United States, and an office in Manila,
Philippines. In April 2012, it sold all of the issued and
outstanding shares of capital stock of Kforce Clinical Research,
Inc.


KKR FINANCIAL: Discovery in Shareholder Litigation Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Master LeGrow on March 12, 2014, orally issued a final report
recommending that the Court grant a stay of discovery in In re KKR
Financial Holdings LLC Shareholder Litigation, CIVIL ACTION NO.
9210-CB pending a decision on defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs took exception to the recommendation in the final
report. Briefing on that issue was completed on May 7, 2014.

On May 19, 2014, the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a ruling
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ZNX2QPfrom
Leagle.com, stating that it agrees with the Master's conclusion
based on its de novo review and will grant the motion to stay
discovery.

This action involves a challenge to a stock-for-stock merger
between KKR Financial Holdings LLC ("KFN") and KKR & Co. L.P.
("KKR"). Plaintiffs did not seek to enjoin the transaction, which
closed on April 30, 2014. The Verified Consolidated Class Action
Complaint seeks compensatory damages for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting.

The lawyers are:

   Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
   Michael J. Barry, Esq.
   Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
   Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
   123 Justison Street
   Wilmington, DE 19801

         - and -

   Gregory P. Williams, Esq.
   Blake Rohrbacher, Esq.
   Susan M. Hannigan, Esq.
   Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
   One Rodney Square
   920 North King Street
   Wilmington, DE 19801

         - and -

   Christine S. Azar, Esq.
   Labaton Sucharow LLP
   300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1225
   Wilmington, DE 19801

        - and -

   Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
   Cooch & Taylor P.A.
   1000 West Street 10th Floor
   Wilmington, DE 19801

        - and -

   Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq.
   Garrett B. Moritz, Esq.
   Seitz Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP
   100 South West Street, Suite 400
   Wilmington, DE 19899

        - and -

   Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
   O'Kelly Ernst & Bielli, LLC
   901 North Market Street, Suite 1000
   Wilmington, DE 19801


LATE JULY: Judge Stays Cane Juice False Ad Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on May 22 said he would stay a proposed class action
accusing Late July Snacks LLC of disguising sugar in its products
under the label "evaporated cane juice," saying he'd like to see
whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration adopts new guidance
on such labeling soon.

Late July urged U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen to dismiss
the case in a February motion, arguing that the FDA has
jurisdiction over labeling issues such as the ones raised in the
lawsuit.  In March, the agency invited new public comment on the
use of the term "evaporated cane juice" on food labeling,
suggesting it may update the draft guidance it issued in 2009,
Late July said in March.

"I'm inclined to find that the primary jurisdiction doctrine
applies here," Judge Chen said after oral arguments on the motion
on May 22.  "But I'm also inclined to stay the case.  This is a
matter that could benefit from some input and guidance from the
FDA."

Ben Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates, an attorney for the
plaintiffs, argued on May 22 that the case should survive Late
July's motion because it's based on settled regulations, not on
the FDA's 2009 draft guidelines for evaporated cane juice
labeling. Even if it were based on that draft, the court isn't
bound by that document, Gore argued.

"We think the defendant falsely labels sugar.  It's sugar, not
juice, and the FDA never approved calling sugar 'juice,'" Mr. Gore
said.

Judge Chen conceded that whatever the FDA adopts may not be
binding, but said the agency's take on evaporated cane juice
labeling "might still be entitled to Chevron-level deference," he
said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 1984
case Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Although Late July's attorney, Rocky Tsai --
Rocky.Tsai@ropesgray.com -- of Ropes & Gray LLP, said on May 22
that he's happy with Judge Chen's motion to stay, he pointed out
that there's no way to know how soon the FDA will act.  The judge
asked both sides to return in late October to discuss what
progress the agency has made and to consider whether to reopen the
case.

In a number of recent California labeling-related class actions
against companies such as Lifeway Foods, Attune Foods Inc.,
Redwood Hill Farm and Creamery, Inc. and Yucatan Foods LP, U.S.
District Court judges have found that courts should defer to the
FDA, Late July noted in court filings.  Some of the cases involve
the same named plaintiffs who sued Late July, Mary Swearingen and
Robert Figy, court records show.

Ms. Swearingen and Mr. Figy sued Late July in September, alleging
that they purchased a variety of the company's crackers, sandwich
crackers and chips, and that on each product evaporated cane juice
was listed as an ingredient.  They claim the term is banned from
use on food labels under California and federal law.

Ms. Swearingen and Mr. Figy said Late July uses the term
"evaporated cane juice" to make its products appear healthier than
a product that lists sugar as an ingredient.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ben. F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates and by David Shelton of David Shelton PLLC.

Late July is represented by Joshua L. Solomon --
jsolomon@psdfirm.com -- of Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP and by Rocky
C. Tsai of Ropes & Gray.

The case is Mary Swearingen, et al. v. Late July Snacks LLC,
number 3:13-cv-04324 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


LG DISPLAY: Appealing TFT-LCD Class Certification Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd., is pursuing an appeal of the class
certification decision on the class action complaints filed by the
direct and indirect purchasers in May 2011, 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 2007, class action complaints alleging violations of Canada
competition laws were filed against LG Display and other TFT-LCD
manufacturers in Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario
and Quebec. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
class action complaints filed by the direct and indirect
purchasers in May 2011. The Company is pursuing an appeal of the
class certification decision. The actions in Quebec and British
Columbia have been stayed.

LG Display Co., Ltd. is a Korea-based company engaged in the
development, manufacture and sale of display and related
accessories. The Company mainly provides thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in
televisions (TVs), laptops, desktop monitors and other
applications such as mobile phones, industrial devices, online
stock trades, automobile navigation systems, aircraft
instrumentation, medical devices and others. It also involves in
the production of organic light-emitting diode (OLEDs) and
monitors. Its products are under the brand name of LG Display. The
Company distributes its products within domestic market and to
overseas markets, including America, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, China
and Singapore.


LG DISPLAY: Waiting for Service of Israel Class Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd., still has to receive service of a class
action complaint filed in the Central District in Israel,
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: "In December 2013, a class action complaint
was filed in the Central District in Israel. As of April 29, 2014,
we have yet to receive the service of complaint from the class. We
plan to vigorously defend against any claims asserted by the
class."

LG Display Co., Ltd. is a Korea-based company engaged in the
development, manufacture and sale of display and related
accessories. The Company mainly provides thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in
televisions (TVs), laptops, desktop monitors and other
applications such as mobile phones, industrial devices, online
stock trades, automobile navigation systems, aircraft
instrumentation, medical devices and others. It also involves in
the production of organic light-emitting diode (OLEDs) and
monitors. Its products are under the brand name of LG Display. The
Company distributes its products within domestic market and to
overseas markets, including America, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, China
and Singapore.


LITTON LOAN: Faces "Perryman" Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margo Perryman on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP; Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC;
Southwest Business Corporation; American Security Insurance
Company; and Does 1-100, Case No. 3:14-cv-02261-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
May 15, 2014) seeks damages and other relief against the
Defendants for their alleged wrongful and collusive business
practices related to force-placed insurance.

Litton Loan Servicing LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership,
headquartered in Houston, Texas.  Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is a
Delaware company with a principal place of business located in
West Palm Beach, Florida.  Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation.  Litton and Ocwen
are in the business of mortgage servicing.

Southwest Business Corporation is a privately held financial
services company based in San Antonio, Texas.  American Security
Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Atlanta, Georgia, and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Assurant, Inc.  ASIC writes force-placed insurance
policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sheri L. Kelly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY
          31 E. Julian St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 287-7712
          Facsimile: (408) 583-4249
          E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com

               - and -

          Barry Himmelstein, Esq.
          HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK
          2000 Powell St., Suite 1605
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (510) 450-0782
          Facsimile: (510) 924-0403
          E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Owings, Esq.
          Alexander P. Owings, Esq.
          OWINGS LAW FIRM
          1400 Brookwood Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 661-9999
          Facsimile: (501) 661-8393
          E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com
                  apowings@owingslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brent Walker, Esq.
          WALKER LAW PLLC
          502 Dogwood Meadows
          Austin, AR 72007
          Telephone: (501) 605-8595
          Facsimile: (888) 571-0319
          E-mail: bwalker@walkerlawplc.com

               - and -

          Jack Wagoner, Esq.
          Angela Mann, Esq.
          WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1320 Brookwood, Suite E
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 663-5225
          Facsimile: (501) 660-4030
          E-mail: jack@wagonerlawfirm.com
                  angela@wagonerlawfirm.com

Defendant American Security Insurance Company is represented by:

          Frank G. Burt, Esq.
          William Glenn Merten, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW
          Suite 400 East
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8100
          Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
          E-mail: fburt@cfjblaw.com
                  gmerten@cfjblaw.com

               - and -

          Dawn B. Williams, Esq.
          JORDEN BURT LLP
          1025 Thomas Jefferson St NW, Suite 400 East Lobby
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8100
          Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
          E-mail: dbw@jordenusa.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in Ill. Credit Card Receipts Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit alleging that violations in connection with
electronically printed credit card receipts, 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 August 30, 2012, Jaroslaw Prusak, a
purported customer ("Prusak"), filed a putative class action
lawsuit, which was subsequently amended, against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Prusak alleges that we willfully violated the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act in connection with electronically printed credit card receipts
provided to certain of our customers. Prusak, for himself and the
putative class, seeks statutory damages of no less than $100 and
no more than $1,000 per violation, punitive damages, attorney's
fees and costs, and other relief. Prusak has filed a motion
seeking certification of the putative class and the parties have
each filed motions seeking summary judgment with regard to matters
at issue in the case. Those motions are currently pending before
the Court. Although we believe we have defenses to the claims
asserted and have opposed the motion to certify the class, our
estimate of the reasonably possible loss that may result from this
action is a range between zero and $2.3 million, with no amount
within that range a better estimate than any other amount."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (Lumber Liquidators) is retailer
of hardwood flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and
accessories. The Company offers an assortment of wood flooring,
which includes prefinished domestic and exotic hardwoods,
engineered hardwoods, unfinished hardwoods, bamboo, cork and
laminates, as well as resilient flooring. Its flooring
enhancements and accessories include moldings, noise-reducing
underlay and adhesives. Lumber Liquidators and Bellawood are it
brands. Its hardwood flooring products are available in various
widths and lengths. It offers approximately 350 different flooring
product stock-keeping units. In September 2011, it acquired
certain assets of Sequoia Floorings Inc. (Sequoia) relating to
Sequoia's quality control and assurance, product development and
logistics operations in China. In June 2013, Lumber Liquidators
Holdings Inc announced that the Company has opened its 300th
store, located in Las Vegas, Nevada.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in "Kiken" Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in a securities
class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the
Company made material misstatements on the chemical content of its
wood products, 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 or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken
("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit, which was
subsequently amended, in the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against us, our Founder, Chief
Executive Officer and President, and Chief Financial Officer
(collectively, the "Defendants"). In the complaint, Kiken alleges
that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our
business, operations and prospects. In particular, Kiken alleges
that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions
related to our compliance with the federal Lacey Act and the
chemical content of our wood products. In addition to attorney's
fees and costs, Kiken seeks to recover damages on behalf of
himself and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our
stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated
prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. We
dispute Kiken's claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously.
Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the
case, insurance coverage issues and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification and success on
the merits, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (Lumber Liquidators) is retailer
of hardwood flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and
accessories. The Company offers an assortment of wood flooring,
which includes prefinished domestic and exotic hardwoods,
engineered hardwoods, unfinished hardwoods, bamboo, cork and
laminates, as well as resilient flooring. Its flooring
enhancements and accessories include moldings, noise-reducing
underlay and adhesives. Lumber Liquidators and Bellawood are it
brands. Its hardwood flooring products are available in various
widths and lengths. It offers approximately 350 different flooring
product stock-keeping units. In September 2011, it acquired
certain assets of Sequoia Floorings Inc. (Sequoia) relating to
Sequoia's quality control and assurance, product development and
logistics operations in China. In June 2013, Lumber Liquidators
Holdings Inc announced that the Company has opened its 300th
store, located in Las Vegas, Nevada.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defendant in 2 TCPA Violations Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in two class
action cases alleging that the Company unlawfully sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements, 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: "Two putative class action cases have recently
been filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging that we unlawfully sent
unsolicited facsimile advertisements. On or about March 5, 2014,
Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA") filed a lawsuit, which was
subsequently amended, alleging that we violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and the common law by sending an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement to RWA. RWA seeks recourse on its own behalf as well
as other similarly situated parties that received unsolicited
facsimile advertisements from us. Similarly, on or about April 29,
2014, Stonecrafters, Inc. ("Stonecrafters") filed suit on its own
behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated parties alleging
that we violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited facsimiles to
Stonecrafters and others. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual
damages or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is
determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in
violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up
to three times the amount provided above. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (Lumber Liquidators) is retailer
of hardwood flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and
accessories. The Company offers an assortment of wood flooring,
which includes prefinished domestic and exotic hardwoods,
engineered hardwoods, unfinished hardwoods, bamboo, cork and
laminates, as well as resilient flooring. Its flooring
enhancements and accessories include moldings, noise-reducing
underlay and adhesives. Lumber Liquidators and Bellawood are it
brands. Its hardwood flooring products are available in various
widths and lengths. It offers approximately 350 different flooring
product stock-keeping units. In September 2011, it acquired
certain assets of Sequoia Floorings Inc. (Sequoia) relating to
Sequoia's quality control and assurance, product development and
logistics operations in China. In June 2013, Lumber Liquidators
Holdings Inc announced that the Company has opened its 300th
store, located in Las Vegas, Nevada.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Defendant in Shareholder Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare Incorporated is a defendant in a purported
shareholder class action complaint filed on January 16, 2014,
alleging violations of federal securities laws, 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 16, 2014, a purported shareholder
class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Fernando Rossy, who
claims to be a Merge Healthcare stockholder, against Merge
Healthcare and certain current and former directors and officers
claiming violations of federal securities laws and asserting that
a class of our stockholders suffered damages due to the alleged
dissemination or approval of false and misleading statements by
Merge Healthcare from August 1, 2012 through January 7, 2014
related to falsified subscription backlog figures and a reluctance
amongst large health systems to make enterprise purchases, as well
as a lack of effective controls. Several other putative
shareholder class action complaints alleging materially the same
causes of action were subsequently filed. A hearing was held on
March 26, 2014 before the Court of the Northern District Illinois,
at which time the Court granted the motion of the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System ("ATRS") to consolidate the class action cases
and to appoint ATRS as lead plaintiff. We expect ATRS to file an
amended complaint by the end of May 2014. We intend to file a
motion to dismiss following ATRS's filing of its amended
complaint. The next status hearing before the Court is set for
September 17, 2014. On February 14, 2014, William B. Federman, who
claims to be a Merge Healthcare stockholder, filed a derivative
complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against
certain of our current and former directors and officers,
asserting breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of materially the
same conduct alleged in the securities fraud class action
complaints. Subsequently, other similar derivative complaints have
been filed. Counsel for Federman has agreed to stay any further
proceedings until after the Federal Court rules on the motion to
dismiss in the class action. We are seeking a stay in the other
derivative actions. The plaintiffs in the class action and
derivative cases have not claimed a specific amount of damages.
Merge Healthcare and the other named defendants are actively
considering all possible responses to these complaints. While we
intend to defend the claims vigorously and carry directors and
officers insurance, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a
loss in this matter. At this stage of the proceedings, however, it
is not possible for management to reasonably estimate either the
likelihood of such a loss or its magnitude."

Merge Healthcare Incorporated (Merge) develops software solutions
that facilitate the sharing of images to create an electronic
healthcare experience for patients and physicians. Its solutions
are designed to help solve some of the challenges in health
information exchange, such as the incorporation of medical images
and diagnostic information into broader health information
technology (IT) applications and the interoperability of software
solutions. It provides enterprise imaging solutions for radiology,
cardiology, orthopaedics and eye care; a suite of products for
clinical trials; software for financial and pre-surgical
management, and applications that fuel some of the modality
vendors worldwide. It provides enterprise imaging solutions for
radiology, cardiology, orthopaedics and eye care; a suite of
products for clinical trials; software for financial and pre-
surgical management, and applications. On August 4, 2011, it
acquired Ophthalmic Imaging Systems (OIS).


ML ZAGER: Accused of Using False/Deceptive Method to Collect Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cohen, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. M.L. Zager, P.C., a New Jersey Professional
Corporation; Michael L. Zager, individually and in his official
capacity on behalf of M.L. Zager, P.C.; and John and Jane Does
Numbers 1 through 25, Case No. 2:14-cv-03143-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.,
May 15, 2014) accuses the Defendants of using false, deceptive,
and misleading practices in connection with their attempt to
collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff and others.

M.L. Zager, P.C. is a New Jersey Professional Corporation, whose
principal place of business is located in Monticello, Sullivan
County, New York.  Michael L. Zager is a principal, owner,
director, shareholder or managing partner of Zager Law.  Zager Law
collects, and attempts to collect, debts on behalf of creditors.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are yet
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          THOMASSON LAW, LLC
          101 Hudson Street, 21st Floor
          Jersey City, NJ 07302-3929
          Telephone: (201) 479-9969
          Facsimile: (855) 479-9969
          E-mail: andrew@thomassonllc.com


MOUNT SINAI HOSPITALS: Fails to Billing Workers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Regina Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mount Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
03489 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2014), is a case about a teaching
hospital with annual revenues of well over $1 billion that fails
to pay many of its administrative employees, specifically those
who handle billing and insurance matters, the wages to which they
are entitled by law.

Mt. Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc. is a domestic not-for-profit New
York corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ariel Yigal Graff, Esq.
      Robert Walter Ottinger , Jr, Esq.
      THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
      20 West 55th Street, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 571-2000
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
      E-mail: ari@ottingerlaw.com
              robert@ottingerlaw.com


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: 11th Cir. Reversed Class Certification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., reported that the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order on April 2, 2014,
reversing the district court's ruling on class certification on
the action alleging violations to the Alabama state 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 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County
Greyhound Park, Inc., et al., a civil action, was filed on March
8, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Eastern Division, against the Company and
others. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of
VictoryLand, allege that the Company participated in gambling
operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying to
VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines played
by the plaintiffs and seek recovery of the monies lost on all
electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six months
prior to the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A). The
plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as a
class action. On March 16, 2012, Walter Bussey and two other named
plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed. On March 29, 2013, the
court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On April 12, 2013, the defendants jointly filed a
petition with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking
permission to appeal the court's ruling on class certification. On
June 18, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an
order granting the petition to appeal. Following briefing and oral
argument, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order
on April 2, 2014, reversing the district court's ruling on class
certification and remanding the case to the district court. We
continue to vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent
uncertainties in this litigation, however, we are unable to make
any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. A finding in this case
that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama during the pertinent
time frame could have adverse regulatory consequences for us in
other jurisdictions."

Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. (Multimedia Games) is
engaged in designing, manufacturing and supplying gaming machines
and systems to commercial and Native American casino operators in
North America, as well as, domestic and selected international
lottery operators, and commercial bingo gaming facility operators.
The Company's revenues are generated from the operation of gaming
machines in revenue-sharing arrangements and from the sale of
gaming machines and systems that features licensed game themes.
Multimedia Games places its revenue-sharing machines and sells its
gaming machines and systems in Class II, Class III, video lottery
terminal (VLT) and electronic bingo settings. The Company derives
the majority of its gaming revenues from participation
arrangements or development and placement fee agreements. It
participates in the Class III and Class II gaming machine markets,
as well as the central determinant system market in North America.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Certification Ruling in "Hardy" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., awaits a ruling on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the Ozetta Hardy
civil action, 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: "Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC,
et al., a civil action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center,
LLC (an entity that does not exist), Cornerstone Community
Outreach, Inc., and Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit
Court of Lowndes County, Alabama. On June 3, 2010, the Company and
other manufacturers were added. The plaintiffs, who claim to have
been patrons of White Hall, allege that the Company participated
in gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by
supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic bingo
machines played by the plaintiffs and seek recovery of the monies
lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the
six months prior to the complaint based on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-
150(A). The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the
action as a class action. On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Northern Division. We await a ruling on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which has been fully
briefed and is pending before the court. We continue to vigorously
defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this
litigation, however, we are unable to make any prediction as to
the ultimate outcome. A finding in this case that electronic bingo
was illegal in Alabama during the pertinent time frame could have
adverse regulatory consequences for us in other jurisdictions."

Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. (Multimedia Games) is
engaged in designing, manufacturing and supplying gaming machines
and systems to commercial and Native American casino operators in
North America, as well as, domestic and selected international
lottery operators, and commercial bingo gaming facility operators.
The Company's revenues are generated from the operation of gaming
machines in revenue-sharing arrangements and from the sale of
gaming machines and systems that features licensed game themes.
Multimedia Games places its revenue-sharing machines and sells its
gaming machines and systems in Class II, Class III, video lottery
terminal (VLT) and electronic bingo settings. The Company derives
the majority of its gaming revenues from participation
arrangements or development and placement fee agreements. It
participates in the Class III and Class II gaming machine markets,
as well as the central determinant system market in North America.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Gregory" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martini issued an opinion in the lawsuit
captioned ALBERT GREGORY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a
CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, CIV.
NO. 2:13-6952 (WJM), (D. N.J.).

In this putative class action, Plaintiff Albert Gregory alleges
that Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Champion Mortgage
Company ("Champion"), a debt collector, failed to provide
disclosures required by the Fair Debt Practices Collection Act and
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The Complaint contains two counts. In Count I, Gregory argues that
Champion violated the FDCPA when it failed to include various
disclosures with its November 15, 2012, May 14, 2013, and
September 25, 2013 Letters. In Count II, Gregory argues that
Champion violated RESPA when it failed to provide certain
disclosures in its November 15, 2012 Letter. Champion moved
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss
Count I in part, and it moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss
Count II in its entirety.

Judge Martini granted the motion to dismiss and held that Count I
is dismissed with prejudice to the extent it is based on the
November 15, 2012 and May 14, 2013 Letters. Count I survives to
the degree it is based on the September 25, 2013 Letter. Count II
is dismissed without prejudice. The Court said it will grant
Gregory 30 days leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
addressing only those deficiencies identified in the opinion.

A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/71BY1oat Leagle.com.

ALBERT GREGORY, Plaintiff, represented by:

   JOSEPH K. JONES, Esq.
   LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC,
   375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
   Fairfield, NJ 07004
   Telephone: (973) 227-5900
   Facsimile: (973) 244-0019

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, represented by MARK I.
SCHLESINGER -- mark.schlesinger@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN
SANDERS, LLP.


NITHUN CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luis Tacuri, et al, v. Nithun Construction Company, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-02908 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq.

Nithun Construction Company is based at 475 McDonald Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


NOKIA CORP: "Majad" Case over Investment Plan Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation reported that the Majad v. Nokia case is closed,
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 April 19, 2010 and April 21, 2010, two individuals filed
separate putative class action lawsuits against Nokia Inc. and the
directors and officers of Nokia Inc., and certain other employees
and representatives of the company, claiming to represent all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan") who
participated in the Plan between January 1, 2008 and the present
and whose accounts included investments in Nokia stock. The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to comply with their
statutory and fiduciary duties when they failed to remove Nokia
stock as a plan investment option. The cases were consolidated
into Majad v. Nokia and an amended consolidated complaint was
filed on September 15, 2010. The amended complaint alleges that
the named individuals knew of the matters alleged in the
securities case, that the matters significantly increased the risk
of Nokia stock ownership, and as a result of that knowledge, the
named defendants should have removed Nokia stock as a Plan
investment option. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed in their
entirety on September 5, 2011. On September 13, 2012, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint a
second time and entered judgment in favor of Nokia. On October 23,
2012, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's order
granting judgment in favor of Nokia. On June 21, 2013, the Second
Circuit upheld the earlier decision of the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York from September 13, 2012, to
dismiss all claims made in the ERISA claim filed against
defendants including Nokia Inc. and the Nokia Inc. Retirement Plan
by Javad Majad and Ryan Sharif. The Plaintiff had until September
23, 2013, to appeal the Second Circuit decision by filing a cert
petition to the US Supreme Court. The Plaintiff did not appeal and
the case is closed.

Nokia Corporation (Nokia) has three operating segments: Devices &
Services; NAVTEQ, and Nokia Siemens Networks. Devices & Services
is responsible for developing and managing the Company's portfolio
of mobile products, as well as designing and developing services,
including applications and content. NAVTEQ is a provider of
digital map information and related location-based content and
services for mobile navigation devices, automotive navigation
systems, Internet-based mapping applications, and government and
business solutions. Nokia Siemens Networks provides mobile and
fixed network infrastructure, communications and networks service
platforms, as well as professional services and business
solutions, to operators and service providers. In August 2012, the
Company sold a portfolio consisting of over 500 patents and patent
applications worldwide to Vringo Inc.


NOKIA CORP: "Romero" ERISA Suit Now Closed
------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation reported that the Romero v. Nokia case is
closed, 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 September 19, 2012, a class action based on the US Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") entitled Romero v. Nokia
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint named Nokia Corporation,
certain Nokia Corporation Board members, Fidelity Management Trust
Co., The Nokia Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee and
Linda Fonteneaux, as well as certain individuals from the Nokia
Retirement Savings & Investment Plan Committee whose identity is
not known to the plaintiffs as defendants. The complaint claimed
to represent all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan (the "Plan")
who participated in the Plan between January 19, 2012 and the
present and whose accounts invested in the Nokia Stock Fund ("the
Fund"). The complaint alleged that the named individuals breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, permitting the plan
to offer the Fund as an investment option, permitting the plan to
invest in the Fund and permitting the Fund to invest in and remain
invested in American Depository Receipts of Nokia Corporation when
the defendants allegedly knew the Fund and Nokia's shares were
extremely risky investments. Plaintiff was provided plan documents
and informed that it had incorrectly identified the proper
defendants in its complaint. On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint against all defendants, without
prejudice and indicated it would refile in California where the
Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan is currently
administered.

Romero filed a new complaint on December 10, 2012, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming as defendants Nokia Inc., the Nokia Retirement Savings and
Investment Plan Committee, and several individuals alleged to be
plan fiduciaries, claiming to represent all persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia Retirement Savings
and Investment Plan (the "Plan") who participated in the Plan
between January 19, 2012, and the present and whose accounts
invested in the Nokia Stock Fund (the "Fund"). The complaint
alleges that named individuals breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, permitting the plan to offer the Fund as an
investment option, permitting the plan to invest in the Fund and
permitting the Fund to invest in and remain invested in American
Depository Receipts of Nokia Corporation when the defendants
allegedly knew the Fund and Nokia's shares were extremely risky
investments. On May 15, 2013, Nokia and the Named Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss all claims against the defendants and are
awaiting the Court's decision. On October 15, 2013, the court
granted Nokia and the Named Defendants motion to dismiss all
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff did not appeal and this matter is
closed.

Nokia Corporation (Nokia) has three operating segments: Devices &
Services; NAVTEQ, and Nokia Siemens Networks. Devices & Services
is responsible for developing and managing the Company's portfolio
of mobile products, as well as designing and developing services,
including applications and content. NAVTEQ is a provider of
digital map information and related location-based content and
services for mobile navigation devices, automotive navigation
systems, Internet-based mapping applications, and government and
business solutions. Nokia Siemens Networks provides mobile and
fixed network infrastructure, communications and networks service
platforms, as well as professional services and business
solutions, to operators and service providers. In August 2012, the
Company sold a portfolio consisting of over 500 patents and patent
applications worldwide to Vringo Inc.


O'REILLY AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class Actions News reports that plaintiff Raphael Saye of
California has brought a class action complaint against O'Reilly
Auto Parts alleging the company obtained and used information from
background reports in its hiring processes without obeying state
and federal mandates.

To follow state and federal mandates during the job hiring
process, several disclosures must be presented to potential hires.
A pre-authorization disclosure must be presented as a stand-alone
document to inform the applicant a report may be obtained for
employment purposes.  An adverse action disclosure must be used to
provide the consumer report to any prospective or current employee
who will be fired or not hired.

O'Reilly Auto Parts failed to provide proper pre-authorization
disclosures and adverse action disclosures.  The class action
alleges that as a result, Plaintiff Raphael Saye and others have
had their privacy and statutory rights violated.

The Class Action Complaint states that O'Reilly Auto Parts
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, violated the Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and violated the California
Business and Professions Code.

On July 19, 2013, plaintiff Raphael Saye applied for a job at
O'Reilly Auto Parts by completing an online employment
application.  The online application consisted of various sections
and topics for an applicant to click through and fill out.

Under the "Terms and Conditions" subsection of the "Criminal"
section, was checkbox to stating "I accept the Background Terms
and Conditions."  Mr. Saye clicked on the hyperlink in "Terms and
Conditions" that explained a background report may be obtained in
connection to their employment.  He clicked the checkbox that he
accepted the terms and another checkbox requesting a copy of any
criminal background report procured.

Mr. Saye was offered a position with O'Reilly Auto Parts.  On
August 9, 2013, the District Manager approved the employment
offer.  On September 10, 2013, Mr. Saye was terminated after
O'Reilly Auto Parts obtained his background report.

The lawsuit argues O'Reilly Auto Parts terminated Mr. Saye based
in part on information contained in his background report.  They
never provided Mr. Saye with a copy of the report or a summary of
his rights even though he asked for them in his online
application.  Further, O'Reilly Auto Parts never sent Mr. Saye a
post-adverse action notice to inform him of the consumer reporting
agency that conducted his background check.

The class action alleges that O'Reilly Auto Parts' disclosures
were not presented in a clear stand-alone document, but rather as
a hyperlink on a webpage full of additional content.  O'Reilly
also failed to provide the proper documentation to Saye detailing
his termination based off of his background report.  Because of
these violations, Mr. Saye, and others not only had their privacy
rights violated, but also incurred financial expenses including
attorney's fees.


OCWEN LOAN: Sued for Not Timely Presenting Proof to County Clerks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Dempsey, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02824-RBS
(E.D. Pa., May 15, 2014) seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged
systematic failure to timely present to the county clerks proof
that mortgages have been satisfied.

Headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida, Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC, a subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation, is a mortgage
bank and home mortgage loan servicer, servicing mortgages on
behalf of lenders and investors, including pooled mortgage-backed
securities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4613
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net

               - and -

          Ann Miller, Esq.
          ANN MILLER, LLC
          261 Old York Road, Suite 524
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 238-0468
          Facsimile: (215) 405-2653
          E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com


ONEWEST BANK: Sued Over Force-Placed Insurance-Related Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melodie Meyer on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. OneWest Bank, FSB; American Security Insurance
Company; and Does 1-100, Case No. 3:14-cv-02259-VC (N.D. Cal., May
15, 2014) seeks damages and other relief against the Defendants
for their alleged wrongful and collusive business practices
relating to force-placed insurance.

OneWest Bank, FSB, is a national federal savings bank with its
principal place of business located in Pasadena, California.
OneWest originates and services loans throughout California and in
the Northern District of California.  OneWest Bank is the
successor-in-interest to Independent National Mortgage
Corporation, which it or its holding company purchased from the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 2009.

American Security Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with
a principal address in Atlanta, Georgia, and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Assurant, Inc.  ASIC writes force-placed insurance
policies in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown to the Plaintiff at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sheri L. Kelly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY
          31 E. Julian St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 287-7712
          Facsimile: (408) 583-4249
          E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com

               - and -

          Barry Himmelstein, Esq.
          HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK
          2000 Powell St., Suite 1605
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (510) 450-0782
          Facsimile: (510) 924-0403
          E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Owings, Esq.
          Alexander P. Owings, Esq.
          OWINGS LAW FIRM
          1400 Brookwood Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 661-9999
          Facsimile: (501) 661-8393
          E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com
                  apowings@owingslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brent Walker, Esq.
          WALKER LAW PLLC
          502 Dogwood Meadows
          Austin, AR 72007
          Telephone: (501) 605-8595
          Facsimile: (888) 571-0319
          E-mail: bwalker@walkerlawplc.com

               - and -

          Jack Wagoner, Esq.
          Angela Mann, Esq.
          WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1320 Brookwood, Suite E
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 663-5225
          Facsimile: (501) 660-4030
          E-mail: jack@wagonerlawfirm.com
                  angela@wagonerlawfirm.com

Defendant American Security Insurance Company is represented by:

          Frank G. Burt, Esq.
          William Glenn Merten, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 400 East
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8100
          Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
          E-mail: fburt@cfjblaw.com
                  gmerten@cfjblaw.com

               - and -

          Dawn B. Williams, Esq.
          JORDEN BURT LLP
          1025 Thomas Jefferson St NW, Suite 400 East Lobby
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8100
          Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
          E-mail: dbw@jordenusa.com


ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: June 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If You Were a Stockholder of The Orchard Enterprises, Inc.
Between March 15, 2010 and July 29, 2010, You could get a payment
from a class action settlement.

A court authorized this notice.  This is only a summary.  More
information is available at www.orchardstockholderlitigation.com
or by calling 1-877-797-5688

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about the
price stockholders received when Dimensional Associates LLC
purchased The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. on July 29, 2010.  The
settlement provides for $10.725 million to be paid to stockholders
who held shares at the time of the Cash-Out Merger.  If you held
Eligible Shares you may qualify for a cash payment by sending in a
claim form.  "Eligible Shares" means shares of The Orchard
Enterprises, Inc. common stock held as of July 29, 2010.  You can
also comment on the settlement.

Who is in the Class?

You are a Class Member if You held Orchard stock between March 15,
2010 and July 29, 2010.  Defendants, or an affiliate or relative
of Defendants, and senior executives of Orchard while it
considered the Cash-Out Merger are not Class Members.

What is this About?

The Court in charge of the case is the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, and the case is called In re Orchard
Enterprises, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No.7840-VCL.  The lawsuit claimed the former Board of Directors of
Orchard and Dimensional breached their duties to Orchard
stockholders in connection with the Cash-Out Merger.

The lawsuit claimed that Dimensional, Orchard's controlling
stockholder, and Orchard's Board of Directors, engaged in an
unfair process in approving and recommending the Cash-Out Merger,
and effectuated the Cash-Out Merger at an unfairly low price.  The
alleged unfair dealing included several alleged inaccurate
disclosures, including as to whether Dimensional was entitled to a
$25 million liquidation preference in the Cash-Out Merger unless
Orchard's Certificate of Designations was amended to permit the
Cash-Out Merger to occur.  The lawsuit also alleged that
Dimensional got a credit that it was not entitled to in connection
with the Cash-Out Merger and therefore that the cash payment of
$2.05 per share provided to stockholders in the Cash-Out Merger
was not adequate.  Defendants vigorously deny each of these
allegations and all liability and damages.

What does the Settlement Provide?

In consideration for the full and final settlement, and the
release by the Class Members of any and all Released Claims,
Defendants have agreed to create a $10.725 million fund to be
divided among all Class Members who owned Eligible Shares and who
send in a valid claim form.

How do I ask for a Payment?

A detailed notice and claim form contains the information you will
need to request a payment.  To qualify for a payment you must
submit a claim form.  Claim Forms must be filed by August 12,
2014.  To get a detailed notice and claim form visit the website
or call the number below.

What are my Other Options?

You can comment or object to the settlement if you choose.  Or you
can hire your own lawyer, at your own cost, to comment on the
settlement for you.  If the settlement is approved you will not be
able to sue the Defendants about the Cash-Out Merger ever again.

You are not required to hire your own attorney.  The Court
appointed lawyers to represent you.  These lawyers will seek
approval for a payment of fees and expenses from the Settlement
Fund.  You will not be responsible for paying these lawyers.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 2:00 PM on June 30,
2014, at the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801.  The Court will consider whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  If there are
objections, the Court will consider them.  The Court will also
decide how much to pay to Class Counsel.

For more information visit: www.orchardstockholderlitigation.com
or call 1-877-797-5688


PANHANDLE AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Pass-Through Fee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Olwell, writing for The News Herald, reports that a Panama
City car sales company will mail checks to more than 4,000
customers after settling a class action lawsuit alleging it
engaged in "deceptive" practices by imposing a pass-through fee
that wasn't properly explained in the sales paperwork.

Circuit Court Judge Timothy McFarland recently approved a final
settlement in the lawsuit filed in 2011 against Panhandle
Automotive Inc., the corporation doing business as Bay Lincoln
Hyundai Mitsubishi, which is owned by Bay County Commissioner
George Gainer.

Jesse Page, a Franklin County resident who represented the class,
brought the suit against the dealership in 2011 after purchasing
two vehicles there, according to court records.  Each time Page
was charged an electronic filing fee of $49 and a delivery fee of
$489.

Panhandle paid $12 of the electronic filing fee to a third-party
that performed the electronic filing and kept the rest, according
to court records.  The electronic filing fee later increased to
$147. The delivery fee was pure profit to the dealership, records
show.

Bill Bielecky, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the fees are
common among Florida car dealerships but he called them "bogus"
because he said they provide little or no additional value to
consumers.

But the purchase agreements Page signed contained what Mr. Gainer
called an error.  Language that explained the dealer would profit
from the delivery fee and the electronic filing fee was
inadvertently dropped from the documents used between roughly
August 2010 and May 2012, and without that language, the
plaintiffs contended, the fees were not allowed under Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act.

Panhandle Automotive admitted to no wrongdoing as part of the
settlement, and Mr. Gainer said the suit was settled to avoid
costly litigation in the future.

In approving the settlement, the judge wrote that both sides had
an argument to make.

"Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of settlement because it
is unclear which party will prevail at trial," the judge wrote.

Every member of the class who paid the $49 electronic filing fee
will get a check in the mail for $20, and those who paid the $147
fee will receive a check for $60.

Everyone who paid the delivery fee will receive a check for $40
and 13 separate vouchers worth $25 each that "they can use for an
oil change to a new car and anything in between," at one of
Panhandle Automotive's dealerships, Mr. Bielecky said.  The
vouchers will be valid for two years.

The settlement requires Panhandle Automotive to pay the
plaintiff's attorneys $395,000, and it also awards a $12,000
incentive award to Page "for his contribution to the litigation."
A woman who answered Page's phone said he would have no comment on
the settlement.

The purchase agreement documents have been amended, Mr. Gainer
said, so the fees are lawful.  Letters informing class members
have already been sent, and the checks will be sent in June,
Mr. Gainer said.


PFIZER INC: Two Former Execs Can't Escape Celebrex Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ivers, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on May 22 declined to free two former Pfizer Inc. executives
from a long-running securities class action accusing the
pharmaceutical giant of concealing serious health risks associated
with blockbuster painkillers Celebrex and Bextra.

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain said that former CEO
Hank McKinnell and ex-vice chairman and President of Human Health
Karen Katen were "belated" in posing arguments that the plaintiffs
had failed to establish enough grounds to hold them liable in the
case.

"Defendants have proffered no good cause for their belated third
attack on the Section 20A claims.  The arguments could have been
raised in the timely summary judgment motion practice, and the
case is now proceeding toward a scheduled trial," the order said.

Mr. McKinnell and Ms. Katen had contended that the claims in which
they could have been held personally liable for violating
securities regulations had recently been dismissed.  But Judge
Swain said to weigh those matters now could threaten to delay an
upcoming trial, and they could be taken up once plaintiffs'
attorneys had outlined their arguments in court.

Pfizer has been attempting to fend off the lawsuit since 2006,
when investors accused the pharmaceutical giant of violating
securities law by making public statements that concealed
information in three medical studies that suggested an increased
cardiovascular risk.

It alleged that Pfizer officials were aware of the results of
several studies conducted between 1998 and 2004 that indicated the
two medications were associated with increased cardiovascular
risks, but went on to make dozens of statements touting the safety
of the drugs.

In 2005, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Pfizer to
pull Bextra from the market and instructed the company to put a
warning label on Celebrex's packaging.

Pfizer has contended certain risks were truthfully disclosed and
others were not known until 2004, according to court documents.

In a statement, the company noted that the court had struck the
plaintiffs a blow on May 21 when it opted to exclude plaintiffs'
loss causation and damages.

"As a result, plaintiffs have no proof of essential elements of
their case.  Pfizer looks forward to the opportunity extended by
the court on May 22 to move for summary judgment dismissing this
case in its entirety on this basis," it said.

The case is scheduled for a final pretrial conference July 12
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman, according to court
records, unless the parties are able to work out a settlement
beforehand.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jay W. Eisenhofer, Richard S.
Schiffrin -- rschiffrin@gelaw.com -- James J. Sabella --
jsabella@gelaw.com -- Mary S. Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com --
Charles T. Caliendo -- ccaliendo@gelaw.com -- and Brenda F. Szydlo
-- bszydlo@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer PA; Andrew L. Zivitz
-- azivitz@ktmc.com -- and Michelle M. Newcomer --
mnewcomer@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; and
Christopher A. Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- and David R.
Buchanan -- dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss LLP.

Mr. McKinnell and Ms. Katen are represented by Michael D. Hynes --
michael.hynes@dlapiper.com -- Rachel Stevens --
rachel.stevens@dlapiper.com -- Cara Dyonne Edwards and Loren H.
Brown -- loren.brown@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper; George S. Wang
and Lynn Katherine Neuner -- lneuner@stblaw.com -- of Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP; and Jason Michael Halper --
jason.halper@cwt.com -- of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP.

Mr. McKinell is also represented by Michele Antoinette Roberts --
michele.roberts@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom LLP.

Ms. Katen is also represented by Michael Calhoon --
michael.calhoon@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts LLP.

The case is In re: Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation, case number
1:04-cv-09866, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


POOL CORP: Court Rules on Motions in Antitrust Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Pool Corporation stated that on December 18, 2013, a court granted
in part and denied in part motions in the anti-trust class action
suits filed by indirect purchaser plaintiffs and direct purchaser
plaintiffs, 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: "a number of purported anti-trust class action
suits were filed against us in various United States District
Courts in 2012. The cases were transferred and consolidated before
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No.
2328, and are presently pending in the Eastern District of
Louisiana. The plaintiffs include indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
purporting to represent indirect purchasers of swimming pool
products in Arizona, California, Florida and Missouri, and direct
purchaser plaintiffs, who are current or former customers. On
April 11, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' antitrust
claim. On May 24, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
antitrust claims. Both direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
amended their complaints, and defendants moved to dismiss certain
of the direct purchasers' claims. On December 18, 2013, the Court
granted in part and denied in part those motions."

Pool Corporation is a wholesale distributor of swimming pool
supplies, equipment and related leisure products. The Company is a
distributor of irrigation and landscape products in the United
States. As of December 31, 2013, it operated 321 sales centers in
North America, Europe and South America through its three
distribution networks: SCP Distributors LLC, Superior Pool
Products, and Horizon Distributors, Inc. It has over 400 product
lines and over 50 product categories. The Company primarily serves
five types of customers swimming pool remodelers and builders;
specialty retailers that sell swimming pool supplies; swimming
pool repair and service businesses; landscape construction and
maintenance contractors, and government, golf courses and like
commercial customers. The Company serves approximately 80,000
customers.


PORTUGAL TELECOM: Oi Posted R$11.2-Mil for Customer Service Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A., recorded provisions in the amount of R$11.2 million as of
December 31, 2013, for claims relating to 65 civil class actions
demanding the re-opening of customer service centers, according to
Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A.'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.

Oi S.A., is a defendant in 65 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain
consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service
centers. The lower courts have rendered decisions in all of these
proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to the Company.
All of these proceedings are currently under appeal. As of
December 31, 2013, Oi had recorded provisions in the amount of
R$11.2 million for those claims in respect of which it deemed the
risk of loss as probable.

Portugal Telecom SGPS SA (Portugal Telecom) is a Portugal-based
holding company primarily engaged in the telecommunications
sector. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides a
range of telecommunications and multimedia services, such as fixed
line and mobile telecommunication, pay television (TV)
distribution, Internet Service Provider (ISP) services and data
transmission. Additionally, it is active in the operation of call
centers, telemarketing services, as well as provision of
information technology (IT) systems and services. Together with
its subsidiaries, the Company is active in Portugal, Brazil and
several other countries in Africa and Asia. The Company operates
through a numerous subsidiaries, including Africatel Holdings BV,
Portugal Telecom Brasil SA, PT CENTRO CORPORATIVO SA, Portugal
Telecom International Finance BV and Portugal Telecom Europa SPRL,
among others.


PORTUGAL TELECOM: Oi Awaits Decision in TNL's R$300-Mil Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A., is awaiting the court's initial decision in TNL's R$300
million civil class action lawsuit, according to Portugal Telecom,
SGPS, S.A.'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.

Oi S.A., is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed by
the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal)
seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by
TNL's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service (Servico de
Atendimento ao Consumidor - SAC) regulations established by the
Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica). TNL presented its
defense and asked for a change of venue to federal court in Rio de
Janeiro, where Oi is headquartered. Other defendants have been
named and await service of process. The amount involved in this
action is R$300 million. As a result of the corporate
reorganization of Oi, Oi has succeeded to TNL's position as a
defendant in this action. As of December 31, 2013, Oi deemed the
risk of loss as possible with respect to these lawsuits and had
not made any provisions with respect to this action because it was
awaiting the court's initial decision.

Portugal Telecom SGPS SA (Portugal Telecom) is a Portugal-based
holding company primarily engaged in the telecommunications
sector. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides a
range of telecommunications and multimedia services, such as fixed
line and mobile telecommunication, pay television (TV)
distribution, Internet Service Provider (ISP) services and data
transmission. Additionally, it is active in the operation of call
centers, telemarketing services, as well as provision of
information technology (IT) systems and services. Together with
its subsidiaries, the Company is active in Portugal, Brazil and
several other countries in Africa and Asia. The Company operates
through a numerous subsidiaries, including Africatel Holdings BV,
Portugal Telecom Brasil SA, PT CENTRO CORPORATIVO SA, Portugal
Telecom International Finance BV and Portugal Telecom Europa SPRL,
among others.


ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: Lloyds Banking to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters, citing the Herald Scotland newspaper, reports that Lloyds
Banking Group is joining a class-action lawsuit against
government-owned Royal Bank of Scotland, seeking GBP420 million
(Dh2.6 billion, $709 million) over the bank's handling of its
GBP12-billion rights issue.

The Scottish daily said on May 21 that Lloyds is suing RBS through
nine of its pensions and investment management subsidiaries along
with 40,000 individual and institutional investors already seeking
redress from RBS.  Hundreds of investors had previously joined an
unprecedented group legal action against RBS, alleging they were
misled during an emergency cash call in 2008, and claiming damages
of about GBP4 billion ($6.7 billion).

RBoS Action Group, which represents the largest group of
shareholders, filed claims and said it would lodge more.

"The management in the relevant insurance businesses gave careful
consideration as to whether it was in the interests of
policyholders to join the legal proceedings and decided it was in
their best interests," the Herald Scotland cited a spokesman for
Lloyds insurance arm, Scottish Widows, as saying.

                           Anniversary

The newspaper counted Lloyds entities that filed papers to sue RBS
as Scottish Widows Plc, Scottish Widows Unit Fund Ltd., Pensions
Management Ltd., Scottish Widows Unit Trust Managers Ltd.,
Clerical Medical Investments Group, Halifax Life, Clerical Medical
Management Fund Ltd., HBOS Investment Fund Managers Ltd and St
Andrews Life Assurance.

May 15 marked the six-year anniversary of when the shares RBS sold
in its emergency rights issue began trading and could be the cut-
off point under British law after which damage claims can no
longer be accepted.

RBS rejects allegations that its former directors misled investors
or acted illegally.

"These things will be set out in court rather than in an early
settlement, we have a good defense on this," RBS Chief Executive
Ross McEwan said in April.


SAFEWAY INC: Faces 12 Class Action Albertsons Merger Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Inc., is a defendant in 12 purported class action
complaints relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Albertsons, according to the Company's in Form 10-Q filed on April
30, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 22, 2014.

On March 6, 2014, Safeway entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), with AB Acquisition LLC ("AB
Acquisition"), Albertson's Holdings LLC ("Albertsons Holdings"), a
subsidiary of AB Acquisition, Albertson's LLC ("Albertson's LLC"),
a subsidiary of Albertsons Holdings, and Saturn Acquisition Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub" and together with AB Acquisition,
Albertsons Holdings and Albertson's LLC, "Albertsons"), a
subsidiary of Albertsons Holdings, pursuant to which the parties
agreed that, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
in the Merger Agreement, Albertsons Holdings will acquire Safeway.

Since the announcement of the Merger, 12 purported class action
complaints were filed by alleged stockholders of the Company
against the Company, the individual directors of the Company, and
against Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., AB Acquisition,
Albertsons Holdings, Albertson's LLC and/or Merger Sub. Seven
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
Barnhard v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9445-VCL (March 13,
2014); Morales v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9455-VCL (March
18, 2014); Ogurkiewicz v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9454-VCL
(March 18, 2014); Pipefitters Local 636 Defined Benefit Fund and
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Safeway
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9461-VCL (March 20, 2014); Cleveland Bakers
and Teamsters Pension and Health & Welfare Funds v. Safeway Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 9466-VCL (March 24, 2014); KBC Asset Management
NV, Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, and Bristol County
Retirement System v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9492-VCL
(March 31, 2014); and The City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9495-VCL (April 1, 2014),
which have been consolidated by order of the Court as In Re
Safeway Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL.

Safeway Inc. (Safeway) is a food and drug retailer in North
America. In support of its retail operations, the Company has a
network of distribution, manufacturing and food-processing
facilities. Safeway owns and operates GroceryWorks.com Operating
Company, LLC (GroceryWorks), an online grocery channel doing
business under the names Safeway.com and Vons.com (collectively
Safeway.com). Safeway also has a 49% interest in Casa Ley, S.A. de
C.V. (Casa Ley), which operates 195 food and general merchandise
stores in Western Mexico. Blackhawk Network, Inc. (Blackhawk), a
subsidiary of Safeway, provides gift cards, prepaid products and
payment services to consumers through a network of retail store
locations and various online channels. In February 2014, Whole
Foods Market Inc acquired leases from Safeway Inc for seven
locations formerly operated as Dominick's stores. In April 2014,
Safeway Inc completed the sale of its Class B Common shares in
Blackhawk Network Holdings Inc.


SM ENERGY: Sold Assets Subject to Chieftain Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SM Energy Co., sold on December 30, 2013, a substantial portion of
the assets that are subject to the Chieftain Royalty Company class
action petition and the buyer assumed any such liabilities related
to such properties, 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 January 27, 2011, Chieftain filed a Class Action Petition
against the Company in the District Court of Beaver County,
Oklahoma, claiming damages related to royalty valuation on all of
the Company's Oklahoma wells. These claims include breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment,
tortious breach of contract, conspiracy, and conversion, based
generally on asserted improper deduction of post-production costs.
The Company removed this lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on February 22, 2011.
The Company responded to the petition and denied the allegations.
The district court did not rule on Chieftain's motion to certify
the putative class, and stayed all proceedings until the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its rulings
on class certification in two similar royalty class action
lawsuits. On July 9, 2013, the Tenth Circuit issued its opinions,
reversing the trial courts' grant of class certification and
remanding the matters to the trial courts for those cases. The
district court presiding over the Company's case subsequently
lifted its stay, and the Company expects Chieftain to file a new
motion for class certification in the first half of 2015.

This case involves complex legal issues and uncertainties; a
potentially large class of plaintiffs, and a large number of
related producing properties, lease agreements and wells; and an
alleged class period commencing in 1988 and spanning the entire
producing life of the wells. Because the proceedings are in the
early stages, with discovery yet to be completed, the Company is
unable to estimate what impact, if any, the action will have on
its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The
Company is still evaluating the claims, but believes that it has
properly paid royalties under Oklahoma law and has and will
continue to vigorously defend this case. On December 30, 2013, the
Company sold a substantial portion of the assets that are subject
to this matter and the buyer assumed any such liabilities related
to such properties.

SM Energy Company (SM Energy) is an independent energy company.
The Company is engaged in the acquisition, exploration,
development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural
gas liquids (referred to as oil, gas, and NGLs) in onshore North
America. The Company's operations are focused on five operating
areas in the onshore United States. In December 2011, the Company
closed on its acquisition and development agreement with Mitsui
E&P Texas LP (Mitsui), an indirect subsidiary of Mitsui & Co.
Ltd., which transferred 12.5% of its working interest in certain
non-operated oil and gas assets in South Texas. In December 2013,
SM Energy Co announced that it had closed its previously announced
Anadarko Basin divestiture package.


TELEXFREE INC: Faces "Cellucci" Adversary/Class Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cellucci, Jamilly Lake, and Gerivaldo Pacheco -- Putative
Class Representatives and Those Similarly Situated v. Telexfree,
Inc., f/k/a Common Cents Communications, Inc. et al., Case No.
4:14-ap-04057 (Bankr. D. Mass., May 15, 2014) is brought over
violations of securities laws.

The lawsuit is filed as an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy
case of Telexfree, LLC, Case No. 14-40987, in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The Plaintiffs seek compensation for economic loss sustained as a
result of the Defendants' alleged conduct in carrying out an
unlawful Ponzi pyramid scheme that included the Defendants'
fraudulent unregistered offer and sale of securities in the form
of unregistered investment contracts constituting securities.

The Defendants are Telexfree, Inc., f/k/a Common Cents
Communications, Inc.; Telexfree, LLC; Telexfree Financial, Inc.;
Telexelectric, LLLP; Telex Mobile Holdings, Inc.; James M.
Merrill; Carlos N. Wanzeler; Steven M. Labriola; Joseph H. Craft,
a/k/a Joe H. Craft; Craft Financial Solutions, LLC; Carlos Costa;
Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos; WWW Global Business, Inc.;
Santiago de la Rosa; Randy N. Crosby; Faith R. Sloan; Gerald P.
Nehra, individually and doing business as Law Offices of Nerha and
Waak; Gerald P. Nehra Attorney at Law, PLLC; Richard W. Waak,
individually and doing business as Law Offices of Nerha and Waak;
Richard W. Waak, Attorney at Law, PLLC; Bank of America
Corporation, Bank of America, NA; TD Bank, NA; Citizens Financial
Group, Inc.; Citizens Bank of Massachusetts; Fidelity Co-operative
Bank, doing business as Fidelity Bank; Middlesex Savings Bank;
Wells Fargo & Company; Wells Fargo Bank, NA; FMR, LLC, also known
as Fidelity Investments; Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc.; Waddell &
Reed, Inc.; Global Payroll Gateway Inc.; International Payout
Systems, Inc.; Propay, Inc., doing business as Propay.com; Base
Commerce, LLC, doing business as Phoenix Payments; Vantage
Payments, LLC; Doe Insider Promoters; Doe Professional Services
Providers; Doe Banks; Doe Investment Services Providers; Doe
Payment Processors; and Paralegal Doe.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Martin B. Dropkin, Esq.
          DROPKIN & LEAVITT, PA
          424 Broadway
          Somerville, MA 02145
          Telephone: (617) 623-4600
          Facsimile: (617) 625-7315
          E-mail: mdropkin@dropkinmatza.com


TELEXFREE LLC: Facing "Griffith" Suit Over Sale of Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel E. Griffith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. James M. Merril, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-
12058 (D. Mass., May 8, 2014), arises from the alleged
unregistered securities, called "memberships", marketed and sold
by the Defendants that falsely promised returns in excess of 200%
per year.

James M. Merrill is a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.  He is the co-owner of TelexFree, Inc. and
TelexFree, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOMY GROUP: Fails to Pay Federally Mandated Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Robinson and Normanz Robinson, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Tomy Group Atlanta LLC and Tamer
Nabil, Case No. 1:14-cv-01467-AT (N.D. Ga., May 15, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of failure to pay federally mandated wages to the
Plaintiffs, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Tomy Group Atlanta LLC is a Georgia corporation.  The Company
operates the Fairview Inn hotel in Atlanta, Georgia.  Tamer Nabil
is the chief executive officer of Tomy Group.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
          THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
          11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
          Alpharetta, GA 30022
          Telephone: (678) 242-5297
          Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
          E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com


TWIN AMERICA: Settles Monopoly Class Action for $19 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Skinner, writing for Reuters, reports that riders of two
New York City tour bus companies have proposed a $19 million
settlement to end a class-action lawsuit that claimed the
businesses joined forces to run an illegal monopoly, court
documents showed.

Twin America LLC -- a joint venture of former rivals Coach USA Inc
and CitySights LLC, formed in March 2009 -- was accused by riders
of overcharging its passengers, according to the proposed
settlement filed in Manhattan federal court late on May 20.  The
suit said the company was able to fix prices as much as 17 percent
above the prior market rate after partnering, overcharging
passengers by $5 or more.  The U.S. Department of Justice and the
New York State Attorney General have also filed lawsuits against
the companies.

"Since entering the agreement and ceasing to compete nearly
four years ago, defendants have successfully fixed the price of
'hop-on, hop-off' bus tours in New York City," the complaint said.

A spokesman for Twin America confirmed the company had reached the
settlement and that it had not admitted any wrongdoing, but
declined further comment.

Coach USA and City Sights both run open-topped, double-decker
buses that take tourists to more than 40 stops, including Times
Square, the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center site.

The proposed settlement estimated that the class included roughly
3.9 million people, a number it said could grow.  The New York
State Attorney General estimated that the market for hop-on, hop-
off bus tours was worth $100 million in the city, with some 2
million visitors riding the buses each year.


UNION CENTRAL: September 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you are a fiduciary of a 401(k) or 401(a) ERISA plan that has
contracted with The Union Central Life Insurance Co. and/or
Ameritas Life Insurance Corp., you should be aware of a class
action settlement.

This is a summary. Please read the full class notice for more
details.

What is this about?

In a lawsuit in federal court in Ohio, the plaintiffs, Butler
National Corp., C3 Capital, LLC and Rifkind Law Group, have
alleged that The Union Central Life Insurance Co. and Ameritas
Life Insurance Corp. violated ERISA by receiving payments from
mutual fund companies whose funds are offered as investment
options to 401(k) and 401(a) retirement plans.  The Court has not
made any rulings about whether Union Central and Ameritas did
anything wrong, and Union Central and Ameritas deny all claims in
the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have agreed to settle the case because
they believe that the settlement provides substantial and
meaningful relief to the members of the settlement classes that
relates directly to the allegations in Plaintiffs' case, and in
light of the potential risks of further litigation.  Union Central
and Ameritas have agreed to settle to avoid the expense and
distraction of further litigation.

What does the settlement provide?

Retirement plans that have contracts with Union Central or
Ameritas or have contracted with Union Central and/or Ameritas
since March 1, 2006 can receive a payment from a settlement fund
of $2,250,000.  Union Central and Ameritas have also agreed to
make a number of changes in their business practices for the next
five years.

Who represents me?

The Court has appointed lawyers to represent two classes of
retirement plans at no cost to class members.  These attorneys
will ask the Court to award up to one-third of the Settlement Fund
for their fees, and expenses up to $100,000, and the Court will
determine the reasonable fees and expenses to be paid.  You may
hire your own attorney if you wish, but at your own cost.

What are my rights?

To receive money, your plan must submit a completed Instruction
Form by September 25, 2014.  If you do nothing, you will remain in
the class but your plan will receive no money. You do not need to
do anything for your plan to receive the benefit of the new
business practices.

You may exclude yourself from the class that can receive money by
sending a letter to the addresses listed in the full class notice
and it must be received no later than July 25, 2014.  Your plan
will not receive any money if you do so. You cannot exclude
yourself from the structural changes class that includes in-force
contracts and contracts that are purchased in the future.

You may object to the settlement by filing an objection with the
Court, Class Counsel and Counsel for the Defendants no later than
July 25, 2014 as detailed in the full class notice.

If the settlement is approved by the Court, class members who do
not opt out will give up any claims covered by the settlement and
will be bound by the Court's orders in the case.

The Court will hold a hearing on September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
in Courtroom 117 to consider whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

To request a copy of the full class notice or an Instruction Form,
or for further information:

Call: 1 866-274-4004
Visit: www.revenuesharingsettlement.com
Write: Settlement Administrator
Strategic Claims Services
Attn: Butler v. Union Central Settlement
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
Media, PA 19063


UNITED HEALTH: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lily Narvaez and Aldean Isaac, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. United Health Group Inc., and United
Healthcare Services, Inc., and Angelo Zuffante, in his
professional and individual capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-03025
(E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2014), brings this action for damages and other
legal and equitable relief against the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

United Health Group Inc., is a Minnesota corporation located at
9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, Minnesota, 55343.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      Bradley Lee Wilson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11201
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              blw@employmentlawyernewyork.com


URBAN DECAY: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Deceptive Product Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raisbel Pena, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. Urban Decay Cosmetics, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03353
(S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendants'
deceptive practices in marketing, advertising and promotion of
Urban Decay Lush Lash System.

Urban Decay Cosmetics, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
corporation located at 833 W. 16th Street, Newport Beach, CA
92663.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action in New York Over Delivery Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney and Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, report that
Whole Foods Market Group Inc. was slapped with a proposed class
action in New York state court on May 21 alleging the company
deprived its delivery staff of tips in violation of state labor
law.

Alberto Rivera claims the grocery store chain led customers to
believe that a "delivery charge" it automatically tacked on when
dropping off food was going to its delivery people, when all such
charges actually went to the company.  Whole Foods customers
tipped infrequently "because they reasonably believed the delivery
personnel were receiving the mandatory delivery charges as
gratuity," the complaint states.

Mr. Rivera, who worked as a delivery man for the Whole Foods store
located in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan from February
through July 2011, claims that due to the customer confusion, the
company took tips that are guaranteed to its delivery people under
the New York Labor Law.  Whole Foods didn't explain to customers
what the delivery charge was for or that it was keeping any of it,
the complaint says.

Whole Foods customers who want delivery service fill out a slip
that includes their name, address, phone number and other
information but doesn't allow the customer to write down a tip for
the delivery person, according to the complaint.  When delivery
customers pay by credit card, they also can't add a tip, the
complaint alleges.

Whole Foods doesn't pay tips to delivery personnel in its 12
stores in the state of New York as a matter of uniform policy, the
complaint says.

The proposed class comprises all delivery personnel for Whole
Foods in New York since May 21, 2008, who were non-exempt
employees and whose tips and gratuities were unlawfully retained
by Whole Foods, the complaint states. Whole Foods employs about 40
people to deliver groceries at any given time in its New York
stores, the complaint says.

Mr. Rivera seeks an award of the gratuities allegedly retained by
Whole Foods and an injunction against the company.

A Whole Foods representative told Law360 on May 22 that the
company hasn't received the complaint and is unable to comment.

Douglas Lipsky, an attorney for the plaintiff, told Law360 on
May 22 that Whole Foods' alleged failure to properly explain the
purpose of the delivery charge meant delivery people who were
"financially sensitive were not receiving the tips they would have
ordinarily received."

The Whole Foods delivery employees were not allowed to ask for
tips when making deliveries, Mr. Lipsky said.

In March, four former drivers for Fresh Direct LLC filed a class
action in New York federal court accusing the grocery delivery
company of withholding more than $23 million in overtime wages and
tips per year from drivers.  The ex-drivers claimed the company's
delivery charge is a gratuity under New York labor law and drivers
are entitled to it.

The plaintiff is represented by Douglas Lipsky of Bronson Lipsky
LLP and Jeffrey M. Gottlieb and Dana L. Gottlieb --
dl@bronsonlipsky.com -- of Gottlieb & Associates.

The case is Alberto Rivera v. Whole Foods Market Group Inc., case
number 651559/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.


WPX ENERGY: No Conflict Between New Mex. and Col. Law, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN J. ABRAHAM, and H LIMITED PARTNERSHIP on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.WPX Energy Production, LLC f/k/a WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY,
LLC, WILLIAMS FOUR CORNERS, LLC and WILLIAMS ENERGY RESOURCES,
LLC, Defendants, NO. CIV 12-0917 JB/ACT, (D. N.M.) is before the
Court on Williams Four Corners, LLC's and Williams Energy
Resources LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Claim for
Relief, filed October 30, 2012. The Court held a hearing on May 1,
2013. The primary issues are: (i) whether, following New Mexico's
"actual conflict" doctrine, there is a conflict between New Mexico
and Colorado law, as applied in this case; and (ii) whether, under
New Mexico and Colorado law, when a plaintiff has asserted a
breach-of-contract claim against one defendant, that plaintiff may
also assert an unjust enrichment claim for the same subject matter
against a third party with whom the plaintiff does not have a
contract.

District Judge James O. Browning, in a memorandum opinion dated
May 9, 2014, a copy of which is is available at
http://is.gd/0S8nyYfrom Leagle.com, concluded that although the
parties did not raise the choice-of-law issues, but discussed only
New Mexico law, there is no actual conflict between New Mexico and
Colorado law, because the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims
fail under both New Mexico and Colorado law.

Thus, the Court will apply New Mexico law as the forum law and
dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims against WFC/WER,
because the Plaintiffs have not alleged that their contract claim
against WPX Energy is not viable, ruled Judge Brown.

Williams Four Corners, LLC's and Williams Energy Resources LLC's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Claim for Relief, filed
October 30, 2012, is granted.

Jake Eugene Gallegos, Michael J. Condon, Gallegos Law Firm, P.C.,
Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Sarah Gillett, Dustin L. Perry, Hall Estill Hardwick, P.C., Tulsa,
Oklahoma, and Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver,
Colorado, and Mark F. Sheridan, Bradford C. Berge, Robert J.
Sutphin, Elisa C. Dimas, John C. Anderson, Holland & Hart LLP,
Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants.


ZAPPOS.COM INC: Court Issues Ruling in Security Breach Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke issued an order on May 9, 2014,
in IN RE ZAPPOS SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-0325-
RCJ, (D. Nev.).

At the April 21, 2014, case management conference, the court
directed plaintiffs and defendant Zappos.com, Inc. to submit a
proposed letter to be sent to customers who previously complained
about the January 2012, cyber-attack that Zappos suffered.  The
parties jointly submitted a supplemental case management report in
response, and this order followed.

Judge Cooke's order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/mQlturfrom Leagle.com, directed that the third and
final communication to the limited group of Zappos' customers be
sent by regular mail, and ordered the parties to revise Exhibit 2
to the supplemental case management report.

Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, In Re,
represented by Brian C. Frontino, Julia B Strickland, Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, Raleigh C. Thompson, Morris Law Group, Robert
R. McCoy, Morris Law Group & Stephen J. Newman, Stroock & Stroock
& Lavan LLP.

Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and
Carson.

Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by David C OMara, The OMara Law
Firm, P.C.

Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson,
Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C.

Robert Ree, D.Nev Case 3:12-cv-00072, Plaintiff, represented by
Jon A Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group, P.C.

Robert Ree, Plaintiff, represented by Kara M Wolke, Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP &
William M. O'Mara, The O'Mara Law Firm, PC.

Stephanie Priera, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner
and Carson.

Stephanie Priera, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson,
Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C.

Stephanie Priera, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Godino, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas,
Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A, Robert A Winner, Winner &
Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Shari Simon, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and
Carson, Douglas G Blankinship, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman,
Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., Marc L. Godino, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas,
Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A, Robert A Winner, Winner &
Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Kathryn Vorhoff, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner
and Carson, Douglas G Blankinship, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson,
Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., Marc L. Godino,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio,
Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A, Robert A Winner, Winner
& Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Ms. Dahlia Habashy, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei-
Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., Brent A
Carson, Winner and Carson, Douglas G Blankinship, Marc L. Godino,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Shin Young Hahn, Meiselman, Packman,
Nealon, Scialabba & Baker P.C. & David C OMara, The OMara Law
Firm, P.C.

Theresa D. Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Edward K Wood, Wood
Law Firm, LLC, Lance A Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Ben
Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich Schork, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Mark Gray, Gray & White & Richard L. Coffman,
The Coffman Law Firm.

Stacy Penson, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C.

Stacy Penson, Kentucky Western; 3:12-cv-00036, Plaintiff,
represented by Charles T. Lester, Jr..

Stacy Penson, Plaintiff, represented by Howard M Bushman, Harke
Clasby & Bushman LLP, Lance A Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP &
Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm.

Tara J. Elliott, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lawrence Lee
Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law
Firm.

Brooke C. Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lawrence Lee
Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law
Firm.

Christa Seal, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., Edward K Wood, Wood Law Firm, LLC, Lawrence Lee
Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law
Firm.

Zetha Nobles, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and
Carson, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton
& Eberz P.C., Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
Reginald V. Terrell, The Terrell Law Group & David C OMara, The
OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Patti Hasner, Plaintiff, represented by Brent A Carson, Winner and
Carson, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton
& Eberz P.C., Marc L. Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter
Mougey, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor,
P.A, Robert A Winner, Winner & Carson, P.C. & David C OMara, The
OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Denise Relethford, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow
and Associates, P.C.

Emily E. Braxton, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C.

Amazon.com, Inc., dba Zappos.com, Defendant, represented by Brian
C. Frontino, Christine R Fitzgerald, Belcher, Starr & Fitzgerald,
LLP, Jeffrey B Bell, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia B
Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Raleigh C. Thompson,
Morris Law Group, Robert R. McCoy, Morris Law Group & Stephen J.
Newman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.


                             *********

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  * * *