CAR_Public/140605.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 111

                             Headlines


AMERICAN EQUITY: Settlement in Suit Over Sales Practices Appealed
APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Files Class Action in Arizona
APPLE INC: June 19 No Poach Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
BABY MATTERS: Sixth Death Related to Nap Nanny Recliner Confirmed
BATS EXCHANGE: Fails to Deliver Promised Market Data, Suit Says

BATS EXCHANGE: Sold Stale Electronic Market Data, Suit Claims
BOS SOLUTIONS: Faces FLSA Violations Class Suit in Pennsylvania
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Marchese" Antitrust Lawsuit in Discovery
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Consumer Suit Expert Discovery Schedule Set
COLLECTO INC: Maryland Court Tosses FDCPA Class Action

CONVERGYS CORP: Sued by Customer Service Reps Over FLSA Violation
CREDIT SERVICE: Faces "Cazarez" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
CUARTO LLC: Faces "Vance" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Arbitration in Video Gamers' Class Action
EMERITUS CORP: Anticipates Consolidation of Lawsuits Over Merger

EMERITUS CORP: Still Faces Suit in Cal. by Community Residents
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lidoderm
FANNIE MAE: Ohio Appellate Court Restores $25MM Class Action
FRED MEYER: Faces "Rozear" Class Suit Alleging ADA Violations
GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Alvarez" Class Suit Transferred to New Jersey

GENERAL MOTORS: Finalizes Number of Vehicles to Recall
GENERAL MOTORS: 74 Crash Deaths Similar to Faulty Switch Accidents
GENERAL MOTORS: Accident Victims Get Vehicle Recall Notices
HERITAGE PARTNERS: "Ruud" Suit Removed to District of Minnesota
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing in Faulty Hip Suit Moved to March 2015

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Woman Sues Over Carcinogen in Talc Powder
JOS A BANK: Removed "Derby" Suit to District of Massachusetts
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Cal. Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
K2NY INC: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages
KAIROS NETWORK: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act

KAWASAKI MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Motor Defect Class Action
KEEPRITE: Settles Class Action Over Groundwater Contamination
KOHL'S CORP: Sued for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act
L&L ENERGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
LCA-VISION INC: Shareholders to Allow Vote on PhotoMedex Merger

LINDE LLC: Removed "Reza" Suit to Central District of California
LITTLE LUKE: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wage and OT Premium
MEDIVATION INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
MIDFIRST BANK: Settles Force-Placed Insurance Class Action
MJCJ INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Pursuant to FLSA

MOBILE MEDICAL: Suit Demands Back Wages, Benefits and Damages
NET 1 UEPS: Still Faces Securities Litigation in New York Court
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Challenged
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Settlement of Calif. Securities Suit Ongoing
NU SKIN: Utah Court Allows Consolidation of Securities Lawsuit

OMNI MANOR: Faces "McGee" Suit Alleging Labor Laws Violations
PATH INC: Judge Dismisses Four Motions in Privacy Class Action
POWERSECURE INT'L: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
REAL TIME: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Ind.
SASKATCHEWAN TELECOMS: Court Uses TELUS Reasoning in Ruling

SHEARER'S FOODS: Sued in Florida Over Product Liability Claims
SPECTRUM HABILITATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Relief
STEEL DYNAMICS: Certification in Antitrust Suit Under Advisement
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Plaintiffs in Collective Suit Abandon Case
TOWER GROUP: Removed "Bekkerman" Merger-Related Suit to S.D.N.Y.

TRIAD SENIOR: Removed "Castro" Suit to S.D. Fla.
VALERUS COMPRESSION: Faces Class Action Over Tax Scheme
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Jetta Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Beck" Securities Suit in Fla. Court
WARRIOR ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid OT Wages

WEIGHT WATCHERS: Continues to Face Securities Suits in New York
WELLS FARGO: Settles Robo-Signing Class Action for $83 Million
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: 15% of Loan Originators Opt in by Jan. 22
WR GRACE: Suits Over 1996 Reorganization Dismissed
YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Calif. Stock Suit on Appeal


                            *********


AMERICAN EQUITY: Settlement in Suit Over Sales Practices Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the class in the settled case In Re: American Equity
Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an appeal against
the approval of the terms of the settlement agreement, according
to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims. The company was a defendant in a purported class
action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Western Division and
Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central
District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and
Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los
Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices
and similar claims.

The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
the company. The allegations generally attacked the suitability of
sales of deferred annuity products to persons over the age of 65.
The plaintiffs sought rescission and injunctive relief including
restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class
members under California Business & Professions Code section 17200
et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;
compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment and
constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages under California
Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions
Codes section 15600 et seq. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement and stipulated to certification of the
case as a class action for settlement purposes only. Notice of the
terms of the settlement was mailed to the members of the class on
October 7, 2013 and settlement claim forms were due from members
of the class on or before December 6, 2013. On January 27, 2014, a
hearing was held regarding the fairness of the settlement. On
January 29, 2014, the District Court signed a final order
approving the settlement and finding the settlement is fair and
represents a complete resolution of all claims asserted on behalf
of the class. On January 30, 2014, a final judgment was entered
dismissing the case on the merits and with prejudice. On February
28, 2014, a member of the class filed an appeal of the District
Court's approval of the terms of the settlement agreement with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While review
of the claim forms has been stayed due to the appeal and it is
difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that will
ultimately result from the completion of the claims process, the
$11.1 million litigation liability represents our best estimate of
probable loss with respect to this litigation.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Files Class Action in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 23 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Apollo Education Group, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Arizona, and docketed under 2:14-at-99904, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities between October
19, 2011 and April 1, 2014, 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 Apollo securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 23, 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.

Apollo is a publicly traded, for-profit education company
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.  Apollo employs approximately
15,000 non-faculty employees, and approximately 29,000 faculty
members, and enrolls over 250,000 students across its online and
in person course offerings.  The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers associate, bachelor, masters and doctorate
degrees to students around the world in over 100 fields.  The
Company's largest reporting segment, The University of Phoenix,
generates more than $4 billion in revenue.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants manipulated federal
student loan and grant programs in order to appear to be in
compliance with new federal regulations enacted in June 2011; (ii)
defendants' predatory and deceptive recruiting and enrollment
practices violated federal regulations enacted beginning in June
2011; and (iii)  the Company engaged in a number of practices,
including loan forbearance programs, in order to create the
appearance that the Company was in compliance with relevant
government regulations.

On July 30, 2012, Senator Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, completed a two-year
investigation of the for-profit college industry, and issued a
report (the, "Harkin Report") containing troubling statistics and
findings regarding the for profit college industry, and
specifically about Apollo.

After the Harkin Report was published, the Company's shares fell
4.1% or $1.17, to close at $27.22 on July 30, 2012.

On April 1, 2014, the Company disclosed that the Department of
Education was conducting an investigation into the company, and
that the department had subpoenaed documents and communications
related to student recruitment, attendance, completion, placement,
defaults on loans, along with information on other corporate and
financial matters.

On this news, Apollo shares declined $3.10 per share, or over
8.8%, to close at $32.06 per share on April 2, 2014.

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.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


APPLE INC: June 19 No Poach Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Liedtke, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
nearly 60,000 high-tech workers are likely to receive an average
of $4,000 apiece in a settlement of a class-action lawsuit
alleging Apple and Google conspired in an illegal cartel of
Silicon Valley employers that secretly refused to recruit each
other's engineers.

The estimate is based upon an analysis of court documents in the
case, including the terms of a $324.5 million settlement outlined
for the first time in a filing made late on May 22.  The final
amounts paid to each of the eligible workers will vary depending
on their salaries during the four-year period covered by the
lawsuit.

A federal judge still must approve the settlement, which is
already facing resistance from one of the workers representing the
entire class.  A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for
June 19 in a San Jose, California, federal court.

The $324.5 million settlement will be paid by Apple, Google and
two other Silicon Valley companies, Intel and Adobe Systems,
accused of colluding to corral their top technology workers.

The 3-year-old lawsuit, triggered by an earlier U.S. Department of
Justice investigation, uncovered evidence that former Apple CEO
Steve Jobs, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and top executives from
the other companies in the case had reached "no-poaching" pacts
prohibiting each other from trying to lure away each other's top
workers with offers of higher-paying jobs.

Three other companies, Intuit Inc., Pixar Animation and Lucasfilm,
named in the lawsuit reached a separate $20 million settlement
that already has been approved by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh.
Intuit paid $11 million of that settlement, with Pixar and
Lucasfilm -- both now owned by Walt Disney Co. -- covering the
remainder.

No breakdown has been provided yet how Apple, Google, Intel and
Adobe will divvy up the $324.5 million bill for their settlement.
The lawsuit depicted Apple and Google as the ringleaders of the
alleged misconduct.  The settlement represents a pittance for
Apple and Google, which held a combined $210 billion in their bank
accounts through March.

It is also a fraction of the $3 billion that the class-action
attorneys had been seeking in the case.  Because the complaint
raised antitrust violations, the damages could have been tripled
to $9 billion had the companies been found liable in a trial.

A $3 billion to $9 billion award would have translated into
average payments of $50,000 to $150,000 for the affected workers.

Programmers, software developers and computer scientists make an
average of $80,000 to $110,000 annually, depending on their
specific duties, according to the latest wage data from the U.S.
Department of Labor.

The gulf between the potential damages and the current settlement
has sparked a protest from Michael Devine, a lead worker in the
case who called the terms "unfair and unjust" in a May 11 letter
to Judge Koh.

"I respectfully ask that you reject this settlement so that we may
have our day in court and have a real shot at justice," wrote
Mr. Devine, a former computer scientist at Adobe.

In court papers, the class-action lawyers argued the settlement
falls into the "range of reasonableness" and avoids the
uncertainty of a trial.  The attorneys cited other antitrust cases
that resulted in verdicts awarding small fractions of the amounts
originally targeted in the case.

The class action represents 64,600 technology workers employed at
some point from 2005 through 2009 at the companies targeted in the
lawsuit.

About 5,000 of the workers, or 8 percent of the class, were
covered by the $20 settlement paid by Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm,
according to court documents.

That means about 59,400 employees will be eligible for a piece of
the $324.5 million settlement from Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe.

The workers' lawyers though intend to seek up to one-fourth, or
about $81 million, of the settlement amount plus $1.2 million to
reimburse their expenses, according to the May 22 filing.  The
attorneys took $5 million, or one-fourth, of the $20 million
settlement with Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm.

If the lawyers receive their requested reimbursement in addition
to one-fourth of the settlement with Apple, Google, Intel and
Adobe, that will leave the workers represented in the lawsuit with
$242 million, or about $4,000 per person.


BABY MATTERS: Sixth Death Related to Nap Nanny Recliner Confirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashlee Kieler, writing for Consumerist, reports that the tragic
saga of the recalled Nap Nanny Infant Recliner continued last week
as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission confirms a sixth
baby has died while in the product.

The latest death, which occurred in Hopatcong, NJ, involved an 8-
month-old girl who was secured by the seat's belt and found partly
hanging over the side of the Nap Nanny recliner, trapped between
the product and a crib bumper.

"Our Safe to Sleep experts urge all parents and caregivers who own
a Nap Nanny or Nap Nanny Chill recliner to stop using it
immediately," officials with CPSC say in a news release.  "We do
not want any other family to suffer the loss of their child or
experience serious injury to their child."

The Nap Nanny, which was manufactured by now defunct Baby Matters
LLC, has been at the center of a massive recall and lawsuit,
beginning in 2010, after five infant deaths were attributed to the
product.

The CPSC reports that the six infant deaths linked to the recliner
occurred in either two ways:

The baby partly falls or hangs over the side of a Nap Nanny and
gets trapped between the product and crib bumpers;

The baby suffocates on the inside of the Nap Nanny.

While the product was first recalled in 2010 and is no longer sold
at stores, CPSC officials urge families with the products to
dispose of them immediately and to stay away from the products at
garage sales.

In December 2012, the CPSC took the unusual step of filing a
lawsuit against the company when investigators felt the company
did not do enough to make its product safe for small children.
The lawsuit was only the third in 11 years that the agency had
filed related to a recall.

At the time, the agency said it attempted to work with Baby
Matters to come up with a voluntary recall plan "that would
address the hazard posed by consumer use of the product in a crib
or without the harness straps being securely fastened."

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Baby Matters fought back
asking the court to dismiss the case.  All legal proceedings were
stopped when the agency and company reached a settlement for a
voluntary recall in June 2013.


BATS EXCHANGE: Fails to Deliver Promised Market Data, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harold R. Lanier, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BATS Exchange, Inc.,
Box Options Exchange, LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., International Securities
Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, The
NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE MKT, LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03866 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants failed to live up to their promise (to their
subscribers like the Plaintiff) to be fair by:

   (1) providing the market data service in a non-discriminatory
       manner; and

   (2) providing the Subscribers with "valid" data (i.e., the
       actual data that is accurate and not stale).

The Defendants are national securities exchanges that disseminate
electronic market data to a Processor for distribution to
Subscribers through the SIP/Subscriber Feed.  The Defendants also
enter into arrangements to provide advance access to this same
data to the Preferred Data Customers.  The primary market for both
the Subscriber Feeds and Private Feeds is New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Preminger, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          770 Broadway, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (646)495-6198
          Facsimile: (646)495-6197
          E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Woerner, Esq.
          Tana Lin, Esq.
          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com
                  tlin@kellerrohrback.com
                  lgerber@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Michael Brickman, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          174 East Bay Street
          P.O. Box 879
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 727-6520
          Facsimile: (843) 727-3103
          E-mail: mbrickman@rpwb.com

               - and -

          James C. Bradley, Esq.
          Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
          Kimberly Keevers Palmer, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd.
          Post Office Box 1007
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          Facsimile: (843) 881-6183
          E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com
                  nfields@rpwb.com
                  kkeevers@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Lewis, Esq.
          Pauline Shuler Lewis, Esq.
          LEWIS & LEWIS ATTORNEYS
          P.O. Drawer 2430
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 232-8886
          Facsimile: (662) 232-8636
          E-mail: llmtl@bellsouth.net
                  pauline@lewisattorneys.com

               - and -

          Mercer Bullard, Esq.
          300 Country Club Road
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 915-6835
          E-mail: mbullard9@gmail.com

               - and -

          Stuart McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 2294
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662)550-4511
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          1919 Oxmoor Road, No. 213
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 138-6757
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com


BATS EXCHANGE: Sold Stale Electronic Market Data, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harold R. Lanier, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BATS Exchange, Inc.,
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange,
Inc., International Securities Exchange, LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, National Stock
Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange, LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and
NYSE MKT, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03865 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2014)
arises from the Defendants' alleged broken promises relating to
electronic market data services the Defendants offered.

Mr. Lanier contends that the Defendants failed to live up to their
promise to provide subscribers like him with "valid" data, and
with market data in a non-discriminatory manner.  He asserts that
he was given stale data.

The Defendants are national securities exchanges that disseminate
electronic market data to a processor for distribution to
subscribers like the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 2294
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 550-4511
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          1919 Oxmoor Road, No. 213
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 138-6757
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com


BOS SOLUTIONS: Faces FLSA Violations Class Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Hall, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. BOS Solutions Ltd. and BOS Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00701-DSC (W.D. Pa., May 30, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Marchese" Antitrust Lawsuit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the suit Marchese, et al. v.
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, according
to Cablevision Systems Corporation's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.  On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the
District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the
Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying
claim and related state common law claims to proceed.
Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on
February 13, 2012.  Discovery is proceeding.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Consumer Suit Expert Discovery Schedule Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
directed that expert discovery in In re Cablevision Consumer
Litigation proceed with a completion date of September 30, 2014,
according to Cablevision Systems Corporation's May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.  On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.  Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.  On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the
Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to
plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard
to the remaining claims, which were dismissed.  On April 16, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which
asserts a claim only for breach of contract.  The Company's answer
was filed on May 2, 2012.  On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion
for partial summary judgment.  In April 2013, the Court deferred
further fact and expert discovery, if any, until it had ruled on
the pending motions.  On March 31, 2014, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without
prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  The parties
have 60 days within which to submit to the Court a proposed class
notice.  On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert discovery
proceed with a completion date of September 30, 2014.


COLLECTO INC: Maryland Court Tosses FDCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
John Bedard, writing for insideARM.com, reports that on May 9,
2014, the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland in the case of Grant-Fletcher v. Collecto, Inc., d/b/a/
EOS CCA (Case No. 13-1505) handed the collection industry a major
victory by rejecting an FDCPA class action suit filed on behalf of
consumers in nineteen (19) states.

Luciena Grant-Fletcher, a repeat FDCPA Plaintiff, sued a third
party collection agency for allegedly attempting to collect
amounts not permitted by her cell phone service agreement with
AT&T Wireless.

After Ms. Grant-Fletcher failed to pay her phone charges, AT&T
sold the account to a third party debt purchaser, which in turn
referred the defaulted account to the defendant collection agency,
Collecto.  Shortly thereafter, Grant-Fletcher filed a lawsuit
claiming violations of the FDCPA.

Collecto responded to the suit by filing a motion to compel
arbitration, contending that the terms of the Plaintiff's contract
with AT&T contained an enforceable Arbitration Clause.  The agency
argued that the arbitration provision which included AT&T's
"agents" and "assigns" as parties subject to the arbitration
provision required the Court to reject the class action suit in
favor of the binding arbitration.

The Court agreed, and relying on Fourth Circuit authority, held
that even though Collecto did not sign the original contract, the
arbitration provision inured to its benefit because the Plaintiff
relied on the AT&T contract in alleging that the agency added late
fees and interest not permitted by the AT&T contract.  The Court
ruling also required that the arbitration proceed on an individual
basis in light of the class action waiver clause contained in the
AT&T agreement.

This decision emphasizes the need for all industry members facing
consumer protection claims to diligently scrutinize the contract
documents creating the debt obligation and to consult with
experienced defense counsel to determine if class action or
individual consumer protection suits can be defeated on the basis
of enforceable class action waivers and moved away from the Court
system into the less expensive and time consuming arbitration
process.


CONVERGYS CORP: Sued by Customer Service Reps Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Matthews, Lisa Worrills, and Gary Cosby, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Convergys Corporation,
and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00125-MOC-DLH (W.D.N.C, May 16, 2014) arises from the Defendants'
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiffs are current or former home-based customer service
representatives, who worked for the Defendants on an hourly basis.

The Defendants provide customer management services to numerous
large corporations spanning multiple industries, including
communications, cable and satellite, financial services,
technology, healthcare, travel and hospitality, retail, and
automotive.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles G. Monnett, III, Esq.
          CHARLES G. MONNETT III & ASSOCIATES
          6842 Morrison Blvd., Suite 100
          Charlotte, NC 28211
          Telephone: (704) 376-1911
          Facsimile: (704) 376-1921
          E-mail: cmonnett@carolinalaw.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 746-4001
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Becker
          Jacob R. Rusch
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


CREDIT SERVICE: Faces "Cazarez" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Cazarez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Credit Service Company Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01182-DGC (D. Ariz., May 30, 2014) alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265-3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com


CUARTO LLC: Faces "Vance" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corbyn Vance, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. Cuarto LLC, and Oregon limited liability
company, Case No. 6:14-cv-00777 (D. Or. May 12, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and Oregon Wage and
Hour Laws, ORS Chapters 652 and 653.

Cuarto, LLC, is an Oregon limited liability company doing business
in Portland and Eugene, Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
      Drew G. Johnson, Esq.
      LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC
      44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
      Eugene, OR 97440
      Telephone: (541) 345-2376
      Facsimile: (541) 345-2377
      E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com
              drew@leimanlaw.com

           - and -

      Andrew S. Lewinter, Esq.
      ANDREW LEWINTER, ATTORNEY P.C.
      101 E. Broadway, Suite 220
      Eugene, OR 97401
      Telephone: (541) 686-4900
      Facsimile: (541) 686-1300
      E-mail: andrewlewinter@yahoo.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Arbitration in Video Gamers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report
that Electronic Arts Inc. on May 23 asked a federal judge to toss
a proposed class action filed by a group of video gamers who
alleged the company falsely represents its online play features,
saying the dispute should be arbitrated.

Plaintiff Justin T. Bassett alleges that Microsoft Inc.'s "Xbox
Live" logo, which is on the front of EA's sports console game
boxes, falsely represents that EA will continue to make optional
online game features available "indefinitely" or at least for a
"reasonable" amount of time after launch.  Microsoft is not a
party to the suit.

"He asserts this theory notwithstanding the clear statement,
printed prominently and in bold on back of the box, that 'EA can
retire online features after 30 days' notice,'" EA's motion to
dismiss said.  "Regardless, however, an arbitrator must determine
whether plaintiff's claims have merit because plaintiff has
contractually agreed to arbitrate this dispute."

Prior to filing suit, the company said Mr. Bassett twice assented
to identical arbitration provisions that covered "any and all
disputes" with EA. It said the broad arbitration provision that he
agreed to is "expressly retroactive," and applies not only to his
claims in the suit but also to claims that arose before he signed
the agreement that contained the provision.

In a memorandum in opposition to EA's motion, Bassett said the
company is trying to enforce a contract provision that is unknown
to the consumer until after he or she actually opens the case that
contains the game disc.

"Nowhere on or within the packaging of the products does EA
disclose that EA considers any complaint that a consumer might
have against it regarding the products to be subject to
arbitration," the memorandum said.

Mr. Bassett also said that for the vast majority of the class
period, those terms of service did not contemplate arbitration, as
EA did not add an arbitration provision until relatively recently.

EA said in its motion that even if the arbitration clause doesn't
apply, the case must be transferred from the Eastern District of
New York to the Northern District of California, as stipulated in
the terms of service.

But Mr. Bassett said EA doesn't state anywhere on or within the
games' packaging that EA considers that any complaint against it
must be heard in California.

"EA conceals this expectation from consumers despite the fact that
most consumers, like Mr. Bassett, do not reside in California and
would face hardship if required to travel to California to bring a
claim against EA," the memorandum said.

In his complaint, Mr. Bassett alleged that when he and others in
the putative class bought video games made by EA -- including
games in the popular franchises "The Sims," "Madden NFL" and "FIFA
Soccer" -- the company advertised prominently that the games would
be available for online play, allowing users to interact with one
another over the Internet.

But EA retired the support for online play in some games after
releasing newer versions, Bassett said in the complaint, cheating
users who paid a premium for the online access, the complaint
said.

Mr. Bassett is represented by Susan M. Coler --
coler@halunenlaw.com -- Melissa W. Wolchansky --
wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- and Clayton Halunen --
halunen@halunenlaw.com -- of Halunen & Associates and Michael
Robert Reese and Kim Richman of Reese Richman LLP.

EA is represented by Kenneth M. Dreifach -- ken@zwillgen.com -- of
Zwillgen PLLC.

The case is Justin T. Bassett v. Electronic Arts Inc., case No.
1:13-cv-04208, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.


EMERITUS CORP: Anticipates Consolidation of Lawsuits Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emeritus Corporation anticipates that three pending cases filed
against it over its merger will be consolidated and proceed as a
single, consolidated case, according to the company's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In connection with the Merger, three purported class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Emeritus shareholders in the
Superior Court of King County, Washington: Tampa Maritime
Association/International Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund
v. Emeritus Corp., et al., Case No. 14-2-06385-7-SEA, filed
February 28, 2014; Sciabacucchi v. Emeritus Corp., et al., Case
No. 14-2-06946-4-SEA, filed March 6, 2014; and Ellerson v.
Emeritus Corp., et al., Case No. 14-2-07502-2-SEA, filed March 14,
2014. It is possible that other related suits could subsequently
be filed. Emeritus anticipates that the three pending cases and
any related cases that are subsequently filed will be consolidated
and proceed as a single, consolidated case.
The allegations in the three lawsuits are similar. They purport to
be brought as class actions on behalf of all shareholders of
Emeritus. The complaints name as defendants Emeritus, the Emeritus
Board of Directors, Brookdale and Merger Sub. The complaints
allege that the Emeritus Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties to Emeritus shareholders by, among other things, failing to
maximize shareholder value in connection with the Merger or to
engage in a fair sale process before approving
the Merger. Specifically, the complaints allege that the Emeritus
Board of Directors undervalued Emeritus in connection with the
Merger and that the Emeritus Board of Directors agreed to certain
deal protection mechanisms that precluded Emeritus from obtaining
competing offers. The Sciabacucchi complaint also alleges that the
Emeritus Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose all material information concerning the Merger
to Emeritus' shareholders. The three complaints also allege that
Brookdale, Emeritus and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Emeritus
Board of Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief, including
rescission of the Merger, and damages, including counsel fees and
expenses.


EMERITUS CORP: Still Faces Suit in Cal. by Community Residents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emeritus Corporation continues to face a suit filed by residents
of its California assisted living communities that is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 29, 2013, a claim alleging the failure to provide certain
services at our California assisted living communities was filed
against the Company in the Alameda County Superior Court and
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. In this case, the plaintiff is
seeking to represent a class of residents at such California
communities during the period beginning July 29, 2009.  The
plaintiff alleges violations of certain laws, including
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law
and Financial Elder Abuse statute.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lidoderm
--------------------------------------------------------
Government Employees Health Association, on behalf of itself and
on all others similarly situated, v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02180 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2014), accuses
the Defendants of unlawfully entering into an agreement that
prevents less expensive, competitively priced genetic versions of
Lidoderm from becoming available in the United States.  The suit
alleges that agreement has caused and continues to cause the
Plaintiff and the Class to pay inflated prices for Lidoderm.

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a Delaware company engaged in the
research, development, sale and marketing of prescription
pharmaceuticals used primarily to treat and manage pain.  It is
located at 100 Endo Boulevard, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania 19317.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Anthony Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com


FANNIE MAE: Ohio Appellate Court Restores $25MM Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, reports that the Ohio Court
of Appeals on May 22 restored a $25 million class action alleging
that Fannie Mae failed to properly file documents showing
mortgagors had fully paid off their loan debt, overturning a lower
court decision dismissing the lawsuit.

In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge appellate panel in Cuyahoga
County ruled that an Ohio district court improperly determined
that a September 2010 consent order from the federal agency
overseeing Fannie Mae that barred it from paying state-issued
penalties and fines also applied to verdicts in private
litigation.  In light of that error, the suit should be allowed to
move forward, the opinion said.

"Fannie Mae has cited no authority establishing the basis of the
[Federal Housing Finance Agency's] authority to infinitely
immunize Fannie Mae from paying any amounts stemming from any
actions," the opinion, written by Judge Sean J. Gallagher, said.

The suit, filed in 2003 by Ohio homeowner Rebekah R. Radatz,
alleged that Fannie Mae failed to file a satisfaction of a
residential mortgage within 90 days after she had finished paying
off her home loan.  A satisfaction of a residential mortgage is a
document that creditors are required to present to borrowers to
show they have paid off a mortgage.

Ms. Radatz asked for a reimbursement of $250 to cover the costs of
Fannie Mae's failure to file the necessary document as required
under Ohio law, and discovery in the case revealed that as many as
100,000 other homeowners had also not properly received notice of
their repayment, according to the May 22 opinion.

But Fannie Mae argued that a September 2010 consent order with the
FHFA, the federal agency that has served as conservator for the
mortgage giant and its sister firm Freddie Mac since 2008, barred
it from paying any penalties or fines, according to the opinion.

Because of that order, the lower court had no authority to hear
the case, Fannie Mae argued, according to the opinion.

The district court agreed with Fannie Mae's interpretation,
dismissing the case soon after the company's motion.

The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that the district court acted
improperly, saying the FHFA consent order does not remove a trial
court's ability to hear a case against Fannie Mae.

"The only order that would affect the consent order would be an
order forcing Fannie Mae to pay any amount in the nature of a
penalty or fine stemming from this particular case.  The
prohibition against assessing penalties or fines against the FHFA
or Fannie Mae, however, is not grounds to divest the court of
jurisdiction," the opinion said.

The ruling means that the case can move forward, and each of the
plaintiffs can collect the $250 they are entitled to under Ohio
law.  The Ohio Supreme Court had previously determined that such a
payment did not constitute a fine or penalty.

"It was not surprising that the court saw through the scam that
was put forward by defense counsel and the defendant," said
Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- a partner with
Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA representing the plaintiffs.

Fannie Mae declined to comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick J. Perotti of Dworken &
Bernstein Co. LPA and Brian J. Ruschel.

Fannie Mae is represented by J. Philip Calabrese and Richard
Gurbst -- richard.gurbst@squiresanders.com -- of Squire Sanders
(US) LLP and Jeffrey Kilduff -- jkilduff@omm.com -- of O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.

The case is Radatz et al. v. Federal National Mortgage
Association, case number 2014-Ohio-2179, in the Court of Appeals
of Ohio.


FRED MEYER: Faces "Rozear" Class Suit Alleging ADA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debra L. Rozear, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fred Meyer Jewelers d/b/a Littman Jewelers,
Case No. 5:14-cv-03092-JLS (E.D. Pa., June 2, 2014) alleges
violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD.
          115 Federal Plaza, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Alvarez" Class Suit Transferred to New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alvarez, et al. v. General
Electric Company, Case No. 0:13-cv-62333, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden).  The
New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03134-
JEI-KMW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
          ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
          7805 SW 6th Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 472-0002
          Facsimile: (954) 472-0052
          E-mail: soloffpa@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Alan Eichenbaum, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF ALAN EICHENBAUM, P.A.
          10059 NW 1st Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
          E-mail: alanlaw@bellsouth.net


GENERAL MOTORS: Finalizes Number of Vehicles to Recall
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Klayman, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors Co
on June 2 finalized the number of newer-model large pickup trucks
and sport utility vehicles it is recalling because the air bags
may not deploy, lowering the number of affected vehicles.

The No. 1 U.S. automaker, which is dealing with the recall of 2.6
million cars with defective ignition switches linked to at least
13 deaths, said it was recalling 344 of the trucks in North
America, most in the United States.

On May 23, GM said it was recalling about 500 of the 2014 and 2015
pickups and SUVs due to a possible faulty part in the air bag
sensing and diagnostic module, and had told dealers not to sell
the vehicles until repairs were made.  GM said at the time that a
final number would be released later.

The affected models include 2014 and 2015 Chevrolet Silverado and
GMC Sierra pickups, and 2015 Chevy Suburban and Tahoe, GMC Yukon
and Cadillac Escalade SUVs.

GM said on June 2 it was still analyzing the cause of the defect
and the affected vehicles, including 334 in the United States,
cannot be sold until the repairs are completed.

Earlier this year, GM recalled 2.6 million older model cars,
including Chevy Cobalt and Saturn Ion, to replace defective
switches that can cause engines to shut off while driving, leading
to a sudden loss of power steering, power brakes and the failure
of air bags to deploy in a crash.  GM has announced 30 recalls so
far this year, costing it $1.7 billion.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fined the
company a record $35 million for its delay in handling the faulty
part, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Congress and the
Securities and Exchange Commission have their own investigations.
GM is expected to release results of its internal probe on the
issue this week.


GENERAL MOTORS: 74 Crash Deaths Similar to Faulty Switch Accidents
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Mcneill, Paul Lienert and Marilyn Thompson, writing for
Reuters, report that at least 74 people have died in General
Motors cars in accidents with some key similarities to those that
GM has linked to 13 deaths involving defective ignition switches.
A Reuters analysis of government fatal-crash data showed that such
accidents also occurred at a higher rate in the GM cars than in
top competitors' models.

Reuters searched the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a
national database of crash information submitted by local law-
enforcement agencies, for single-car frontal collisions where no
front air bags deployed and the driver or front-seat passenger was
killed.

The news agency compared the incidence of this kind of deadly
accident in the Chevrolet Cobalt and the Saturn Ion, the highest-
profile cars in GM's recall of 2.6 million cars with defective
switches, against the records of three popular small-car
competitors: Ford Focus, Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla.

The analysis found that the frequency of such accidents in the Ion
was nearly six times that of the Corolla and twice that of the
Focus.  The Ion had 5.9 such fatal crashes per 100,000 cars sold,
followed by the Cobalt, with 4.1, the Ford Focus with 2.9, the
Civic with 1.6, and the Corolla with 1.0.

It is not clear how many of the deadly accidents identified by
Reuters involved defective ignition switches, because crash
reports typically do not include that data.  That leaves open the
possibility that air bags may have failed to deploy in some of the
GM crashes for reasons other than faulty switches.

GM, which has offered few details of the fatal crashes related to
faulty switches, told Reuters it derived the tally of 13 deaths
from claims and lawsuits filed against the automaker.  GM checked
those claims and lawsuits against other sources available to it,
including vehicle data recorders recovered from some crashes.

The Reuters analysis relied on the FARS database, which
encompasses a much wider universe of accidents.  GM declined to
say whether it had used information from the federal database.

Reuters disclosed its findings in detail to GM and federal
regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA).

GM declined to comment on Reuters' findings or methodology,
responding only that: "Our focus is on doing the right thing for
customers -- fixing the recalled vehicles as quickly as possible,
addressing our civic and legal responsibilities and setting a new
industry standard for safety."

NHTSA Acting Administrator David Friedman told Reuters: "The final
death toll associated with this safety defect is not known to
NHTSA, but we believe it's likely that more than 13 lives were
lost."

Toyota and Honda declined to comment.  Ford said it took issue
with the Reuters findings concerning the Focus, but didn't specify
its reasons.

GM engineers first encountered problems with the switches in 2001,
a year before the first Ion went into production.  The faulty GM
ignition switches could cause engines to shut off while driving,
leading to a sudden loss of power steering and power brakes, and
the failure of air bags to deploy in a crash.

Managers subsequently considered, then rejected several proposals
to repair or replace the switches because of the extra cost, GM
told NHTSA and congressional investigators.

The automaker did not begin recalling the cars until February
2014, after a two-and-a-half-year internal investigation.
Eventually, GM recalled every Ion and Cobalt built from model
years 2003 to 2010. Reuters used those model years for its
analysis.

Using the FARS database of crashes reported to U.S. safety
regulators between 2003 and 2012, Reuters identified 45 front-seat
fatalities in the Cobalt and 29 in the Ion.  In similar crashes,
there were 44 fatalities in the Ford Focus, 41 in the Honda Civic
and 24 in the Toyota Corolla.

Reuters found the Focus had 43 fatal accidents, the Cobalt had 42,
the Civic had 39, the Ion had 28 and the Corolla had 24.  While
the raw crash numbers appear comparable, the rate of deadly
crashes was higher in the two GM models, as the Ford, Honda and
Toyota models sold in substantially greater numbers.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a non-profit safety
research group connected with the U.S. insurance industry,
reviewed the Reuters analysis.

David Zuby, executive vice president and chief research officer,
said: "Your crash rates suggest that Cobalt and Ion are less
crashworthy than the other models for which you've computed
similar statistics," and are similar to those in a 2011 IIHS
analysis.

Mr. Zuby added that there were several limitations to the
analysis, noting that "while your analysis does focus on
circumstances that are similar to the cases involving GM air bags
that failed to deploy because of the ignition switch problem, it
cannot be said definitively that the ignition switch problem"
caused 74 deaths.

It is possible, Mr. Zuby said, that limitations in the data
examined by Reuters may overstate the number of deaths
attributable to air bag non-deployment in the car models examined.

Those limitations include the fact that there are other reasons
why air bags may not deploy in a frontal crash, such as a car
sliding under a truck.

Air bag defects unrelated to the ignition switch could cause a
failure to deploy, he said, and air bags are designed not to
deploy in some situations, such as where the passenger is a child.
Mr. Zuby also noted that an Insurance Institute study showed the
FARS database overstated the problem of air bag non-deployments.

That means the number of fatalities from the Reuters analysis is
probably inflated, he said. However, the problems would not affect
one model more than another, he added.

At the same time, there are other ways in which the Reuters tally
may undercount switch-related fatalities in the GM models. The
FARS crash data runs only through 2012, and Reuters did not
include two fatalities of backseat passengers.

The fatalities entered in the FARS database and reviewed by
Reuters do not include at least five of the 13 deaths acknowledged
by GM. One died in 2013, past the range of the current FARS data,
and two died in a multi-car accident.

Another, Amber Marie Rose, was killed in the July 2005 single-car
crash of her 2005 Cobalt in Maryland.  GM has confirmed that Rose
is among the 13 victims, and investigators hired by NHTSA said her
air bag did not deploy. But the FARS data indicates that the air
bag did deploy and her death isn't included in the Reuters count.


GENERAL MOTORS: Accident Victims Get Vehicle Recall Notices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Thompson and Paul Lienert, writing for Reuters, report
that General Motors on June 3 apologized to families of accident
victims who have been notified to bring in cars for replacement of
defective ignition switches.

"We are deeply sorry to those families who received a recall
notice," said GM spokesman Greg Martin in response to questions
from Reuters.

GM has recalled 2.6 million of its most popular models to replace
a defective switch that it has linked to 13 fatalities.  Some
families who lost loved ones in fatal crashes have complained that
GM should not have sent them notices to bring in cars for repairs.

Terri DiBattista, who lost her 16-year-old daughter Amber Marie
Rose in a 2005 Maryland accident involving a Chevrolet Cobalt,
told Reuters she received two recall notices from GM last week
asking her to bring in the vehicle to fix the ignition switch and
power steering.  The car was destroyed when Rose crashed into a
tree.

The postcards were mailed to the family at its new address in
South Carolina, where Ms. DiBattista said they moved to recover
from the loss.  Sent by a local GM dealer, the cards detailed
three different recalls GM has issued involving the Cobalt in
recent months.

Ms. DiBattista said GM could have identified the destroyed car
through a simple check of Vehicle Identification Numbers.

Ms. Rose has been identified as one of the 13 victims GM links to
the faulty switch.

Federal regulators now say they believe that GM's death toll is an
undercount.  A Reuters analysis of federal crash data found at
least 74 people have died in General Motors cars in accidents with
some key similarities to those that GM has linked to the defective
switches.

Mr. Martin said in an email that GM "continues to look into all
claims we are made aware of in the recall population."

Some families say they are still seeking answers on whether fatal
accidents could be linked to the switch.

Kim Pierce, who lost her 17-year-old son, Austin Sloat, in a crash
in Maine involving a 2004 Saturn Ion, said she learned about GM's
problems with a defective switch from news reports early this
year.  She then obtained a police accident report that showed the
driver's side air bag did not deploy when he crashed at high
speeds into a tree.  Another teenage driver was charged in the
accident, which involved racing.

Ms. Pierce has hired an attorney and contacted the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the
incident that led to her son's death.

Mr. Martin declined comment on whether GM was reviewing Sloat's
case.

"Out of respect for their privacy, we do not discuss private
conversations we may have had with family members or their legal
representation," he said.

Ms. Pierce and other victims' families have asked the NHTSA, which
regulates GM, to give them more information about the fatal
accidents.

The NHTSA has said they are helping families to get answers from
GM by asking the car maker to provide additional information on
its vehicles.


HERITAGE PARTNERS: "Ruud" Suit Removed to District of Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Ruud, et al. v.
Friendshuh, et al., Case No. 27-CV-14-444, was removed from the
Hennepin County Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-
01735-DWF-LIB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities and Exchange Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA
          17 Washington Ave. N, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2048
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                  kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          33 S 6th St., Suite 4530
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: mjohnson@johnsonbecker.com

Defendants Heritage Partners LLC and Anthony John Friendshuh are
represented by:

          Anthony John Friendshuh, Esq.
          ANTHONY J. FRIENDSHUH, LLC
          5200 Shady Island Circle
          Shorewood, MN 55364
          Telephone: (612) 719-2626

               - and -

          Mark E. Czuchry, Esq.
          CZUCHRY LAW FIRM, LLC
          1750 Tower Blvd., Suite 209
          PO Box 73
          Victoria, MN 55386
          Telephone: (952) 443-4004
          Facsimile: (952) 443-4004
          E-mail: mark@meclawfirm.com

Defendant PHL Variable Insurance Company, doing business as
Phoenix, is represented by:

          Henry M. Helgen, III, Esq.
          ANDERSON, HELGEN, DAVIS & NISSEN, LLC
          333 South 7th Street, Suite 310
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 435-6342
          Facsimile: (612) 435-6379
          E-mail: hmh@andersonhelgen.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing in Faulty Hip Suit Moved to March 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Crouch, writing for The Advertiser, reports that a major
court case pitching hundreds of South Australians against an
American multinational corporation has been put back for months
after healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson lodged thousands of pages
of documents.

The case involving allegedly faulty hip replacements was due to be
heard in the Federal Court in Sydney on June 2 but this has been
put back to March next year.

About 3000 Australians, including about 450 in South Australia,
are suing over faulty hip implants.  The case has been delayed
after Johnson & Johnson lodged 3000 pages of affidavits and almost
20,000 pages of annexures.

Victims complain it is "delay by avalanche", however, their
lawyers concede the case is so complex such a response, and
consequent delay, is hard to avoid.  The metal ball-and-socket
Articular Surface Replacement was taken off the market in 2010
after eight years and has been implanted into more than 90,000
people worldwide.

Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay US$2.5 billion -- about US$250,000
per patient -- to settle thousands of lawsuits in the US, however,
no such offer is on the table in Australia.

In South Australia, law firms Shine Lawyers, Maurice Blackburn,
Duncan Basheer Hannon and Lemprier Abbott McLeod represent about
450 people.

Maurice Blackburn managing principal Ben Slade called on Johnson &
Johnson to settle the class action with an offer similar to the
one made in the US.  "The discovery process alone saw 1.8 million
documents and we have had a team of 30 lawyers and paralegals
working on it," he said.

"It is enormously complicated and I can't blame them for
introducing these documents. It is unfortunate that it has been
put back this long."

The case is expected to take at least four weeks once it commences
in March.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Woman Sues Over Carcinogen in Talc Powder
------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a woman says her ovarian
cancer was caused by her years of daily use of Johnson and Johnson
products.  The products allegedly contained talc powder, a known
carcinogen.

Lynne Cebulske filed a lawsuit May 14 in the St. Clair County
Circuit Court against Johnson and Johnson, Johnson and Johnson
Consumer Companies, Imerys Talc America and Personal Care Products
Council.

Ms. Cebulske claims she has been using Johnson's Baby Powder and
Shower to Shower since 1992 as a form of feminine hygiene.
However, she did not know that the products could cause the
ovarian cancer with which she was diagnosed with May 14, 2012,
according to the complaint.

The products contain a talc powder that is a known carcinogen, the
suit claims.  The first evidence of the link between cancer and
the powder was discovered in a 1971 study.  A subsequent 1982
study found a 92 percent increased risk in ovarian cancer with
women who reported genital talc use, the complaint says.

The study's author later met with a Johnson and Johnson
representative, advising the company to place a warning label on
its talcum powders about the risks of ovarian cancer, according to
the complaint.  Since then, the company has received other advice
to cease the use of talc in its products, but has refused to do
so, the suit states.

Ms. Cebulske contends she never would have used the products had
she known the dangers associated with them.  Because of her
ovarian cancer, Ms. Cebulske incurred medical costs, lost wages
and experienced pain and suffering, the complaint says.  She
alleges failure to warn, negligence, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty and civil conspiracy against the
defendants.

The plaintiff is seeking a judgment of more than $350,000, plus
costs and other relief the court deems just.

She is being represented by James G. Onder, Mark R. Niemeyer,
Michael S. Kruse and Stephanie L. Rados of Onder, Shelton, O'Leary
and Peterson in St. Louis.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 14-L-331.


JOS A BANK: Removed "Derby" Suit to District of Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Derby v. Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers, Inc., Case No. 14-01512, was removed from the Suffolk
Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-12347 to the proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin M. McGinty, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC
          One Financial Center, 42nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 542-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
          E-mail: kmcginty@mintz.com


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Cal. Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California entered an order dismissing the securities suit Warren
Avery v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-3733-WHO,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On August 12, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Warren Avery v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
13-cv-3733-WHO, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California naming the Company and certain
of its officers and directors as defendants. The complaint alleged
that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's revenues, business practices, and internal controls.
The complaint purported to assert claims for violations of
Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased Juniper
Networks' securities between April 24, 2012 and August 8, 2013,
inclusive. Plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class. On November 12, 2013,
the court issued an order appointing Warren Avery as lead
plaintiff. On January 9, 2014, lead plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On January,
23, 2014, the court entered an order of dismissal without
prejudice.


K2NY INC: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Andrade, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. K2NY Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02979 (E.D.N.Y.
May 12, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants full payment
of all unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation and liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).

K2NY Inc., is an unlicensed business in the State of New York,
located at 5-17 College Point Boulevard, Flushing, New York 11356.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      Jeffrey Robert Maguire, 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
              jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


KAIROS NETWORK: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdinan T. Balla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Kairos Network Veterans Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-
cv-01150 (M.D. Tenn. May 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
have violated the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the
Fair Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 206-207.

Kairos Network Veterans Services, LLC, is a Tennessee limited
liability company located at 369 Huntington Ridge Drive,
Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, 37211-5978.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Monroe Scurlock, Esq.
      WALLACE, MARTIN, DUKE & RUSSELL, PLLC
      1st Floor, Centre Place, 212 Center Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      E-mail: jms@wallacelawfirm.com


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Motor Defect Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney and Andrew McIntyre, writing for Law360, report
that Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA urged a Missouri federal court on
May 22 to toss a suit alleging one of its motorcycles has defects
that create a dangerous heat issue, saying the plaintiff can't
represent a nationwide class because he fails to make claims under
the laws of many states.

Missouri resident Bert Napier failed to properly state claims for
himself for breach of implied warranty, negligent design and
failure to warn under Missouri law, but even if the class claims
were considered separately, "the law of the 50 states governing
those claims similarly requires dismissal," Kawasaki's motion to
dismiss said.

Mr. Napier's complaint claims that heat escaping from the motor
due to a defect in Mr. Napier's Vulcan 1700 series motorcycle,
which he bought in October 2011, made the vehicle nearly
undrivable from the time of purchase and made it almost valueless.

But Kawasaki argues that Mr. Napier's tort-based claims for
negligent design and failure to warn of the dangers of the heat
condition should be dismissed because under Missouri law, along
with that of 45 other states, the economic loss doctrine requires
that tort claims assert damage to property or personal injury.

"Plaintiff's claimed damages consist solely of alleged economic
loss as to the value of the motorcycle itself," the motion said.

Carl J. Pesce -- cpesce@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn
LLP, an attorney for Kawasaki, said on May 23 that the plaintiffs'
complaint fails to state a claim on behalf of the plaintiff and
the class members.

Mr. Napier could make a contract-based claim under Missouri law
for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Kawasaki
says.  But 18 other state laws require privity of contract,
meaning Mr. Napier must have purchased his motorcycle directly
from Kawasaki Motors Corp., according to the motion.

There was no privity of contract in this case because Mr. Napier
bought his motorcycle from a Kawasaki dealership, not directly
from Kawasaki Motors Corp., which is a wholesaler, the motion
says.

And even under Missouri law, Mr. Napier's implied warranty claim
should be tossed because he failed to allege grounds to invalidate
Kawasaki's express disclaimer of implied warranties, according to
the motion.  Mr. Napier also never gave notice to Kawasaki of the
alleged defect in his motorcycle, as required for an implied
warranty claim under Missouri law and the laws of 41 other states,
the motion says.

The proposed class includes individuals who purchased a Vulcan
1700 and experienced "intolerable levels of heat while operating
said motorcycle under normal conditions," according to Napier's
complaint.  The class comprises hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of
individuals, the complaint says.

Mr. Napier didn't specify what was happening with his motorcycle
besides regular engine heat, and it's unclear how a judge or jury
could figure out what should be considered excessive heat,
Kawasaki argues.

"Presumably, some temperatures might be considered to be
acceptable in Alaska but might not be acceptable in Arizona," the
motion states.

Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp. USA, which had also been named
as defendant in the suit, was voluntarily dismissed from the case
by Napier on May 12, the filing says. That company manufactures
some Kawasaki products, but not the Vulcan 1700 motorcycle,
according to the motion.

The plaintiff is represented by Alvin C. Paulson of Becker Paulson
Hoerner & Thompson PC.

Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA is represented by Richard A. Mueller --
rmueller@thompsoncoburn.co -- Carl J. Pesce and Paul D. Lawrence -
- PLawrence@ThompsonCoburn.com of Thompson Coburn LLP.

The case is Napier v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA, case number 4:14-
cv-00508, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.


KEEPRITE: Settles Class Action Over Groundwater Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Ball, writing for Brantford Expositor, reports that some
residents of a Brantford neighborhood could be eligible for
compensation under a proposed class action settlement reached with
the owners of the former KeepRite factory on Elgin Street.

The proposed settlement, which still requires court approval,
includes $1.4 million in compensation for some residents of a
section of East Ward who can show they were affected by news that
the groundwater in their neighborhood was contaminated with
trichloroethylene.

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, of Toronto, and Roberts Law, of Dundas,
reached the settlement on behalf of George and Alma Takacs and
Andrew Little.  But the settlement includes other residents of the
affected area of East Ward who can show they were affected by the
problem. The settlement is scheduled to be taken for approval to
the Ontario Superior Court on July 21, 2014.

"This settlement does two things," Malcolm Ruby, of Gowling
Lafleur Henderson, said.  "It provides compensation to those whose
property values were affected by the public announcement of
groundwater contamination and it provides compensation to those
who can prove out-of-pocket losses."

There are about 300 residents who are eligible to apply for
compensation relating to a small decline in the value of their
homes.  Those residents live in an area bounded by Alice Street to
the north, Nelson Street to the south, Rawdon Street to the east,
and Cowan Street to the west.

Those residents can apply for compensation from a $1 million fund
created by the proposed settlement.  They are eligible to apply
for compensation from the fund because their properties were over
the plume of contamination and therefore most adversely affected.

To qualify for compensation from the $1 million fund, residents
must have owned a home in that area on Feb. 14, 2002.  They can
qualify if they continue to own their home or sold it after Feb.
14, 2002.

Other residents -- those who live outside the plume in the larger
area south of Alice Street, north of Colborne Street, east of
Rawdon Street, and west of Clarence -- can apply for out of pocket
losses relating to publicity about the groundwater contamination.
A $400,000 fund has been set up under the settlement for persons
in the larger area who can prove actual losses.

Someone who had a rental property in the larger area but couldn't
find a tenant because of the publicity surrounding the groundwater
contamination is one example of a person who could be eligible for
compensation from the $400,000 fund, Catherine Roberts, of Roberts
Law, said.

Residents in the larger area aren't eligible to apply for
compensation from the $1 million fund because subsequent studies
and analysis of the area found no actual contamination under their
homes.

The lawsuit and settlement stem from a widely-publicized
environmental problem that was revealed by public health and city
officials in Feb. 2002 when they announced that the former
KeepRite Factory on Elgin Street had been contaminated with
trichloroethylene.  They also said the contamination had spread
throughout East Ward.

United Technologies Canada acquired the site when it purchased
International Comfort Products in 1999, well after the factory had
closed and operations at the plant had ceased.

Although UTC never operated at the site, the company was upfront
about the environmental problems and took steps to address
problems associated with the property.

At one time, the factory at 44 Elgin Street was the largest
manufacturer of air conditioners in Canada.  Trichloroethylene was
used as a degreaser at the plant for years.  It is known to cause
dizziness and inhaling large amounts can be fatal.

Following the announcement in February 2002, public meetings were
held and air-quality and groundwater quality testing done to
address fears that vapours from the chemical may have seeped into
homes.  But by December 2005, public officials announced that test
results showed no health risks associated with the contamination.

In early 2002, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation stopped
providing mortgage insurance for homes in the area because of
potential environmental problems but by November 2004, CMHC had
changed its position and started considering applications for
homes being purchased in the neighborhood.

To learn more about the settlement and how to apply for
compensation go to www.gowlings.com/Little or contact Catherine
Roberts at 905-627-3500 or by e-mail at
catherine.roberts@roberts-law.ca or Malcolm Ruby at 416-862-4314
or by e-mail at malcolm.ruby@gowlings.com


KOHL'S CORP: Sued for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Ineman, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Kohl's Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-00398 (W.D. Wis.,
June 2, 2014) arises from the Company's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Ian Cuthbertson, Esq.
          Jonathan David Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: Dcuthbertson@lchb.com
                  jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Lester A. Pines, Esq.
          Tamara Beth Packard, Esq.
          CULLEN WESTON PINES & BACH LLP
          122 W. Washington Ave., Suite 900
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 251-0101
          Facsimile: (608) 251-2883
          E-mail: Pines@cwpb.com
                  Packard@cwpb.com

               - and -

          Matthew Ryan Wilson, Esq.
          Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6600
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com


L&L ENERGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated litigation captioned In re L&L Energy Inc
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:11-cv-01423, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03860-ER to the proceeding.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
of those who acquired the common stock of L&L between August 13,
2009, through August 2, 2011.  The Plaintiffs contend that during
the Class Period, L&L concealed that it did not own many of the
coal mines it claimed it did.

L&L is a Nevada Corporation headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
L&L purports, through its subsidiaries, to engage in coal mining,
clean coal washing, coal coking, and coal wholesaling businesses
in China.  The company's coal products include washed coal and
metallurgical coke used primarily for steel manufacturing.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Smith, Esq.
          Knoll Lowney, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
          2317 E. John St.
          Telephone: (206) 860-2883
          Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
          E-mail: rasmithwa@igc.org
                  knoll@igc.org

Movant Mark Stites is represented by:

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq.
          627 208th Avenue SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Telephone: (425) 868-7813
          Facsimile: (425) 868-7870
          E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

Movants L&L Energy Investor Group, Sheng-Jiuan Chou & Henry A.
Sanderson are represented by:

          Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652-8660
          Facsimile: (206) 652-8290
          E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

Movant Aleksandar Krstevski is represented by:

          William R. Spurr, Esq.
          1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 682-2692
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2692
          E-mail: bill@williamrspurr.com

Movant The Evaldez Family is represented by:

          Juli E. Farris, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: jfarris@KellerRohrback.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas W. Greene, Esq.
          Erin M. Wilson, Esq.
          Larry S. Gangnes, Esq.
          Ryan P. McBride, Esq.
          LANE POWELL PC
          1420 Fifth Ave., Suite 4200
          PO Box 91302
          Seattle, WA 98111
          Telephone: (206) 223-6103
          Facsimile: (206) 223-7107
          E-mail: greened@lanepowell.com
                  wilsonem@lanepowell.com
                  gangnesl@lanepowell.com
                  mcbrider@lanepowell.com

               - and -

          Russell M. Aoki, Esq.
          AOKI LAW PLLC
          720 Olive Way, Suite 1525
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 624-1900
          E-mail: russ@aokilaw.com


LCA-VISION INC: Shareholders to Allow Vote on PhotoMedex Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for LCA-Vision Inc. stockholders who are suing the company
in the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas over a merger
agreement, agreed to withdraw their motion for a preliminary
injunction against a stockholder vote and, together with counsel
in the case in the Chancery Court of Delaware, agreed not to seek
to enjoin the stockholder vote or the consummation of the merger,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Six putative class action lawsuits (four in the Hamilton County
(Ohio) Court of Common Pleas and two in the Chancery Court of
Delaware) challenging the proposed merger with PhotoMedex Inc.
have been filed on behalf of all LCA-Vision Inc. stockholders
against our directors, our chief executive officer, our company
and PhotoMedex. The lawsuits allege that our directors breached
their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by engaging in a flawed
process for selling LCA-Vision Inc., by agreeing to sell LCA-
Vision Inc. for inadequate consideration and permitting the merger
agreement to contain improper deal protection terms, and that
management's proxy statement soliciting votes in favor of the
merger misstated or omitted material information. In addition, the
lawsuits allege that the corporate defendants aided and abetted
these breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits sought, among other
things, an injunction barring the stockholder vote scheduled for
May 7, 2014 and the consummation of the merger and attorneys'
fees. The lawsuits were later consolidated into two actions, one
in Ohio and one in Delaware.

On April 29, 2014, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Ohio case
agreed to withdraw their motion for a preliminary injunction
against the stockholder vote and, together with counsel in the
Delaware case, agreed not to seek to enjoin the stockholder vote
or the consummation of the merger, in return for our agreement to
make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. The
agreement will not affect the amount of merger consideration that
LCA stockholders will be entitled to receive in the merger or any
other terms of the merger agreement.


LINDE LLC: Removed "Reza" Suit to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Fernando Reza v. Linde LLC, et
al., Case No. BC542681, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
03804-PSG-PLA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Autumn E. Love, Esq.
          Joseph Cho, Esq.
          Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
          AEQUITAS LAW GROUP APLC
          500 South Grant Avenue, Suite 1310
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 223-7144
          Facsimile: (213) 223-7098
          E-mail: alove@aequitaslawgroup.com
                  jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com
                  rbae@aequitaslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas A. Wickham, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (310) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (310) 443-4299
          E-mail: dwickham@littler.com

               - and -

          David Steven Maoz, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON APC
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: dmaoz@littler.com


LITTLE LUKE: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wage and OT Premium
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar G. Mercado Mendoza, Franklin Ortiz, and Nohvis Reyes,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Little Luke, Inc., d/b/a Pedestals Florist; and Philip Sammut;
jointly and severally; Case No. 2:14-cv-03416 (E.D.N.Y., May 30,
2014) accuses the Defendants of willfully failing to pay the
Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage and proper overtime
premium.

Little Luke, Inc., is a New York business corporation with its
office in Nassau County.  Philip Sammut is an owner, shareholder,
officer, or manager of the Company.  The Defendants' business is a
florist doing business as Pedestals Florist and located in Garden
City Park, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


MEDIVATION INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to dismiss first and second amended securities
complaints against Medivation, Inc., according to the company's
May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In March 2010, the first of several putative securities class
action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers. The lawsuits are largely identical
and allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The actions were consolidated in September 2010 and, in
April 2011 the court entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund,
L.P. and its attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. In
March 2012, after the court dismissed with prejudice the lead
plaintiff's first and second amended complaints with prejudice,
the court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Lead plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in April 2012. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on
March 7, 2014.


MIDFIRST BANK: Settles Force-Placed Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
yet another force-placed insurance lawsuit accusing a major bank
of forcing unnecessary flood insurance onto the backs of
homeowners at inflated rates and profiting from the forced
placement has settled for $2.7 million.

The lender insurance class-action lawsuit, which involved Midfirst
Bank in a consolidated action that also had Citigroup Inc. in its
sights, involved hundreds of thousands of consumers.  Lead
plaintiffs Gordon Casey, Duane Skinner and Celeste Coonan claimed
in their class action that the defendants forced them to purchase
excess flood insurance on their properties that wasn't necessary
-- only to profit needlessly from a product that historically
carries higher rates for the consumer, often with less coverage
than standard insurance products.

The higher rates are due in part, or so it is alleged, to the
presence of kickbacks and other payments between banks and
insurance carriers.

Force-Place Insurance is a necessary evil in the lending business.
When banks and lending institutions offer mortgages to homeowners,
the mortgage is set against the real property -- and that property
is an investment for the lender that requires protection.  It is
customarily the homeowner's responsibility to carry adequate
property insurance, together with flood insurance if the property
is situated in a flood plain or flood-prone area.

Were a homeowner to drop the ball in this responsibility, the
mortgage holder has the right to place additional insurance on the
property to ensure it is adequately covered, and pass those costs
onto the consumer.

Where banks and insurance companies have gotten themselves into
trouble, however, is the placement of expensive and unnecessary
insurance that plaintiffs allege is undertaken out of simple
greed.

Various states have been pushing back against such forced-placed
insurance terms, and plaintiffs have been joining the fight by
launching Forced-Placed Insurance Lawsuits.  This latest volley of
litigation saw Citigroup agree to a $110 million settlement,
announced this past February, that would return 12.5 percent of
premiums paid to class members.  That percentage, broken out,
represents the vast majority of allegedly unlawful commissions
Citi earned from Force-Place Insurance.

15,000 class members in this deal

The Midfirst deal affects up to 15,000 class members and will pay
them 20 percent of the total amount paid by affected homeowners
for the time during which Midfirst was accused of overcharging
them.  The deal is described in favorable terms, in that the
refund is calculated against the entire amount paid, rather than
that paid just for the excessive coverage.

"Notably, these refund percentages will be applied to the entire
amount that was charged for [insurance] during the class period
and not just the allegedly inflated or excessive amount that was
charged," the parties wrote in the settlement documents.  "As a
result, the actual recovery percentage is higher than the refund
percentage."

The Force-Place Insurance class action still requires judicial
approval.  However, it suggests the continuation of a trend that
sees individual states, together with plaintiffs, pushing back
against big banks and insurance carriers entering into alleged
collusion in an effort to line their pockets on the backs of well-
meaning homeowners.

Various plaintiffs have complained that while they do not argue
against the right for a mortgage holder to force-place lenders
insurance when a homeowner's own policy is allowed to lapse --
either out of poor management or financial hardship -- they do
argue that forced-placed insurance terms should be similar to
those of traditional insurance policies.

Instead, banks and their insurance partners are alleged to have
force-placed insurance products that carry fewer benefits, but
with higher premiums than traditional insurance.  In some cases,
plaintiffs allege that banks have placed lender insurance when it
hasn't been at all necessary.

The resulting Forced-Placed Insurance Lawsuits are a means for
homeowners to push back against unjust and unnecessary greed.  The
case is Gordon Casey et al. v. Citibank NA et al., Case No. 5:08-
cv-00820, in the US District Court for the Northern District of
New York.


MJCJ INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Pursuant to FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Reyes, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MJCJ Inc., d/b/a Morning Star Cleaners, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01301 (S.D. Tex. May 12, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid wages owed to the Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated employees, current and former, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

MJCJ Inc., d/b/a Morning Star Cleaners is a Texas corporation
located at 15730 West Hardy Road, Suite 320A, Houston Texas 77060.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Todd Slobin, Esq.
      Ricardo J Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
              rprieto@eeoc.net


MOBILE MEDICAL: Suit Demands Back Wages, Benefits and Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Kirsch v. Mobile Medical Associates, PL, Case No. 2:14-cv-
14202-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2014) demands judgment against the
Defendant for back wages, benefits and damages, including lost
promotional opportunities, raises, health benefits and other
relief.

Mobile Medical is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation
headquartered in Stuart, Florida, in Martin County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Address, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. ADDRESS, P.A.
          611 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite A
          Stuart, FL 34994
          Telephone: (772) 781-8003
          Facsimile: (772) 781-8005
          E-mail: stuart@stuartaddresslaw.com


NET 1 UEPS: Still Faces Securities Litigation in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. continues to face a securities
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On December 24, 2013, Net1, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.

The lawsuit alleges that Net1 made materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and compliance policies in its
SEC filings and other public disclosures. The lawsuit was brought
on behalf of a purported shareholder of Net1 and all other
similarly situated shareholders who purchased its securities
between August 27, 2009 and November 27, 2013. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages. The Company believes this lawsuit has no
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Challenged
----------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit against NovaStar Mortgage
Funding Corporation in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of their
claims, according to Novation Companies, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated
defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16,
2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated
sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and
the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court
granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company
again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court
dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice
and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to
sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had
not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to
the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the
plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a
reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as
to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Settlement of Calif. Securities Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc. is in the process of settling a
consolidated securities lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California for $6 million in
cash, $5 million in the Company's common stock and a $5 million
secured promissory note, according to the company's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of alleged stockholders of the Company. On December 11, 2008,
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action and in May
2010, the consolidated lawsuits were captioned the case In re
Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation (the "Litigation"). The
Litigation is being pursued on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15,
2008. As previously disclosed, on December 6, 2013, to avoid the
costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, legal
counsel for the defendants entered into a binding Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with legal counsel for the lead plaintiffs,
reflecting a proposed agreement to settle the Litigation. The
proposed agreement did not admit any liability and the Company and
the individual defendants continue to deny any and all liability.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company would pay
$6 million in cash, $5 million in the Company's common stock and a
$5 million secured promissory note, to resolve all claims asserted
in the Litigation on behalf of class members. A portion of the $6
million in cash would be funded by insurers for the Company. The
$5 million in shares of the Company's common stock would be
unrestricted and freely tradable shares and either registered or
exempt from registration at the time of issuance and distribution
to class members, which would occur within 10 business days after
the entry of a final order of approval by the Court. The $5
million secured note, with a 5% interest rate, would have a 30
month maturity and be secured by the Company's accounts
receivables. The Company has the right, at its sole option, to
substitute cash for the note prior to the entry of final approval
by the Court. The settlement is subject to the following
conditions: (1) the funding by the Company of the settlement; (2)
the Company's right to terminate the settlement if an agreed upon
portion of the class members deliver timely and valid requests for
exclusion from the class; (3) entry of final judgment by the Court
approving the settlement; and (4) satisfaction of waiver of all
covenants in the MOU.


NU SKIN: Utah Court Allows Consolidation of Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah handling
the securities suit Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., granted the
following stipulation: consolidation of various purported class
actions, appointment of State-Boston Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, and appointment of the law firm Labaton Sucharow as
lead counsel, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah:  Freedman v. Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., et al.; Bennett v.
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., et al., which the plaintiff
subsequently dismissed voluntarily; Zapata v. Nu Skin Enterprises,
Inc., et al., which was also voluntarily dismissed; Siesser v. Nu
Skin Enterprises, Inc., et al.; Granzow v. Nu Skin Enterprises,
Inc., et al.; and State-Boston Retirement System v. Nu Skin
Enterprises, Inc., et al. (collectively, the "Class Action
Complaints").  The Class Action Complaints purport to assert
claims on behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M.
Truman Hunt and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt.
The Class Action Complaints allege that, inter alia, the company
made materially false and misleading statements regarding our
sales operations in and financial results derived from Mainland
China, including purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on
illegal multi-level marketing activities.  On April 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion requesting that the court
consolidate the various purported class actions, appoint State-
Boston Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the consolidated
action, and appoint the law firm Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel
for the purported class in the consolidated action.  On May 1,
2014, that stipulated motion was granted.  A consolidated
complaint has not been filed.  The company expects that the
amended complaint will be filed in the next few weeks. The cases
are all in their early stages, and the company has not yet filed a
response.


OMNI MANOR: Faces "McGee" Suit Alleging Labor Laws Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marla McGee, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, v. Omni Manor, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-
01026 (N.D. Ohio May 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, O.R.C. 4111 et seq., the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, O.R.C. Section
4113.15 and the Ohio Constitution, Oh. Const. Art. II, Section
34a.

Omni Manor, Inc., is an Ohio corporation located at 101 W. Liberty
Street, Girard, Ohio 44420.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose , II, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ
      10th Floor, 250 East Broad Street
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

           - and -

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER
      Ste. 201, 4580 Stephen Circle, NW
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 354-8967
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


PATH INC: Judge Dismisses Four Motions in Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine R. H. Gasztonyi, Esq. -- kgasztonyi@cov.com -- at
Covington & Burling LLP reports that on May 14, a judge in the
Northern District of California granted in part and dismissed in
part four motions to dismiss filed by defendants in the
consolidated class action, Opperman v. Path (No. 3:13-CV-00453-
JST).  The plaintiffs alleged that apps offered by a number of
developers ("App Defendants") accessed and uploaded information
from plaintiffs' mobile devices -- including contact information -
- without plaintiffs' knowledge or consent.  The plaintiffs
further alleged that, among other things, Apple had control over
these apps, failed to exclude the apps from its App Store, and
misrepresented that private information could not be accessed by
third-party apps without the user's express consent.  The FTC made
similar allegations last year when it claiming that Path deceived
customers by collecting contact information from users' mobile
address books without notice and consent. Path settled these
charges by entering into a consent decree in February 2013.

The Opperman plaintiffs asserted violation of several common law
claims as well as eleven statutory claims -- among them, violation
of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act
("CDAFA"), California's Wiretap / Invasion of Privacy Act, the
federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA").

The court found that, as a threshold matter, plaintiffs had
standing to bring claims against the defendants in federal court
because plaintiffs pled violations of statutes that authorized
private rights of action.

Having established plaintiffs' standing to sue, the court went on
to discuss the plaintiffs' individual claims.  Among them were
allegations that the defendants violated the CDAFA, which imposes
liability on any person who knowingly accesses a computer,
computer system, or computer network "without consent." Plaintiffs
argued that, even though they voluntarily downloaded the apps,
defendants' access was "without consent" and therefore in
violation of the CDAFA because plaintiffs "did not know that the
apps contained the malicious code at issue."  The court rejected
this argument, noting that the question was not whether plaintiffs
"grant[ed] permission" to the apps to copy their address books;
instead, it was whether the apps overcame "technical or code based
barriers" in order to access the information.  Because plaintiffs
voluntarily installed the applications and there was no allegation
that the apps overcame technical or code based barriers, the court
found that plaintiffs failed to allege the access was "without
consent" and dismissed plaintiffs' claims under the CDAFA.  The
court also dismissed plaintiffs' CFAA claims against the App
Developers on the same grounds.

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' claim that the App Defendants
violated Title I of ECPA (i.e., the Wiretap Act), which generally
prohibits the intentional interception of electronic
communications.  According to the court, ECPA requires that the
interception of communications be contemporaneous with the
transmission.  Plaintiffs alleged that they met the
contemporaneous interception requirement because the apps caused
the devices to "send information from the user's Contacts from the
iDevice's storage memory to processors and active memory being
used by the app" and then "simultaneously intercept[ed] that
transmission." The court disagreed with what it called a
"tortured" argument, and dismissed the ECPA claims.  The court
also dismissed plaintiffs' claims under the Texas Wiretap Acts and
the California Invasion of Privacy Act on the same grounds.


POWERSECURE INT'L: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on May 23 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against PowerSecure International, Inc. common
stock, and two of its senior officers, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of PowerSecure common
stock on the open market during the period March 10, 2014 through
May 7, 2014, and were damaged thereby.  This action alleges claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than July 22, 2014 to be appointed the lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased PowerSecure common stock during the Class Period and
suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their
rights.

The Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
certain adverse facts, including that PowerSecure lacked the
experience and internal controls necessary to expand its
distributed generation business into larger contracts.

On May 7, 2014, PowerSecure reported its first quarter 2014
financial results, including an adjusted loss of ($0.17) per share
compared to analysts' earnings estimate of $0.02 per share.
PowerSecure disclosed that it "mis-timed actions to shift
resources to more profitable customers, as revenues from those new
customers were not adequate to sustain our margins," resulting in
gross margins to decrease to 20.9% in the first quarter from 30.6%
a year earlier.  Thus, PowerSecure admitted contrary to
representations as recently as March 10, 2014 that PowerSecure's
gross margins would remain "in the mid to upper 20%-range."

On this news, PowerSecure shares declined $11.60 per share or 62%,
to close at $7.00 per share on May 8, 2014.

Wolf Popper has successfully recovered billions of dollars for
defrauded investors.  The firm's reputation and expertise have
been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed the
firm to major positions in securities litigation.

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel: (212) 759-4600 or 877-370-7703 (toll free)
Fax: (212) 486-2093 or 877-370-7704 (toll free)
Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


REAL TIME: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Donadio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., a Texas corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00800-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., May 16, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS AND PHLIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60467
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: angiekrobertson@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  davephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven James Halbert, Esq.
          11805 N. Pennsylvania Street
          Americenters Building
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 706-6762
          Facsimile: (317) 706-6763
          E-mail: shalbertlaw@aol.com


SASKATCHEWAN TELECOMS: Court Uses TELUS Reasoning in Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dylan R. Snowdon, Esq. -- dsnowdon@mccarthy.ca -- and Allyson
Hopkins, Esq. -- ahopkins@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy Tetrault LLP
report that the recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in
Chatfiled v Saskatchewan Telecommunications has emphasized the
need for corporations entering into consumer contracts to be
mindful of provincial legislation affecting the enforceability of
arbitration clauses.

In Chatfield, the Court followed the Supreme Court of Canada's
reasoning in Seidal v TELUS Communications Inc., which held that
some claims of class members bound by an arbitration clause were
excluded from a class action. Despite following the Supreme Court
of Canada's reasoning, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal arrived at
a different result.  In TELUS, the arbitration clause could not
prohibit a class action relating to particular provisions of
British Colombia's Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act,
which provisions were interpreted as preventing consumers from
waiving their rights to legal remedies including class actions.
In Saskatchewan, where no such consumer protection legislation
exists, the Court upheld the arbitration clause.

The regime differences in British Colombia and Saskatchewan are
reflective of the broader Canadian landscape surrounding whether
arbitration clauses may prohibit class actions.

Just prior to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Dell
Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs, which allowed an
arbitration clause to be enforced, Quebec amended its Consumer
Protection Act to better protect consumers in this regard.  Under
section 11.1 of this Act, arbitration clauses that restrict a
consumer's right to bring or participate in a class action, are
prohibited.

In Ontario, the Consumer Protections Act prohibits arbitration
clauses in consumer contracts which would otherwise act to bar
class actions.  This protection was demonstrated in the case of
Smith Estate v National Money Mart Company where an arbitration
clause prohibiting class actions was held to be invalid.

Alberta straddles the line between the broad consumer protections
afforded in Ontario, and the lack of protections seen in
Saskatchewan.  In Alberta, the Fair Trading Act prevents consumers
from suing in court to enforce their rights under the Fair Trading
Act only if they have contracted into an arbitration clause and
the arbitration agreement has been approved by the Minister
responsible for the Act.

Conclusion

Each province has its own unique legislative regime affecting the
interaction between an arbitration clause and a class action.
Knowledge of the different statutory regimes is important to deal
with any disputes that may arise regarding the contract.


SHEARER'S FOODS: Sued in Florida Over Product Liability Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Bohlke, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Shearer's Foods, LLC, f/k/a Shearer's Foods,
Inc., an Ohio limited liability company, Case No. 9:14-cv-80727-
DMM (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2014) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

               - and -

          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1920 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 1
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 634-4355
          Facsimile: (954) 634-4342
          E-mail: JEggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com


SPECTRUM HABILITATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Relief
---------------------------------------------------------------
Desirae Hall, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
v. Spectrum Habilitation Services, Inc., a Georgia profit
corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00078 (N.D. Ga. May 12, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Spectrum Habilitation Services, Inc., is a Georgia Profit
Corporation that operates and conducts business in Fayetteville,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      P.O. Box 4979
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


STEEL DYNAMICS: Certification in Antitrust Suit Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
At the conclusion of a certification hearing in an antitrust suit
against Steel Dynamics, Inc. by steel product purchasers, the
court took the class certification issue under advisement,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

The company is involved, along with other steel manufacturing
companies, in a class action antitrust complaint filed in federal
court in Chicago, Illinois in September 2008, which alleges a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at
which steel products were sold in the United States during a
period between 2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the
supply of such steel products. All but one of the complaints were
brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct
purchasers of steel products.  The other complaint was brought on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers
of steel products within the same time period.  A ninth complaint,
in December 2010, was brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
steel products in Tennessee and has been consolidated with the
original complaints.  All complaints seek treble damages and
costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief.  Following a period of discovery
relating to class certification matters, plaintiffs' motion for
class action certification filed in 2012, and briefing by both
sides, the court, on March 5 to 7 and April 11, 2014, held a class
certification hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
took the class certification issue under advisement.


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Plaintiffs in Collective Suit Abandon Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. disclosed at its May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 29, 2014 that on February 4, 2014, the
plaintiffs in a previously reported putative class action (in
which no class was ever certified) filed a voluntary dismissal
with prejudice of all remaining claims, terminating such action.


TOWER GROUP: Removed "Bekkerman" Merger-Related Suit to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Group, Inc., et al., removed the class action lawsuit
captioned Bekkerman, et al. v. Lee, et al., Case No. 650936/2014,
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
03553-UA to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts various claims against Tower Group
International, Ltd., Tower's current and former directors and
officers, and Tower Group, Inc., principally arising from a
proposed merger transaction between Tower and ACP Re, Ltd.

Two other purported shareholder class actions asserting
substantially similar claims are currently pending in the District
Court: Raul v. Tower Grp. Int'l, Ltd., Case No. l:14-cv-001387-HB,
and Wilson v. Tower Grp Int'l, Ltd., Case No. l:14-cv-00254-HB.
On May 12, 2014, the District Court entered an order consolidating
Wilson and Raul cases, and designating the consolidated action In
re Tower Group International, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, Lead
C.A. No. l:14-cv-00254-HB.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
          E-mail: ScottH@johnsonandweaver.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mary Jane Eaton, Esq.
          Zheyao Li, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP (NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 728-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com
                  zli@willkie.com

               - and -

          John Louis Hardiman, Esq.
          William Brian Monahan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP (NYC)
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4070
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: hardimanj@sullcrom.com
                  monahanw@sullcrom.com


TRIAD SENIOR: Removed "Castro" Suit to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Castro v. Triad Senior
Living-Florida, Inc., Case No. 14-006919 CACE, was removed from
the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft.
Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-
61156-WJZ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Daniel A. Palugyai, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  dap@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Jay Thornton, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
          401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1850
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761-8111
          Facsimile: (954) 761-8112
          E-mail: jay.thornton@gray-robinson.com

               - and -

          Anastasia Protopapadakis, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 913-6786
          Facsimile: (305) 416-6887
          E-mail: anastasia@jambg.com


VALERUS COMPRESSION: Faces Class Action Over Tax Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that oil and gas service
company Valerus Compression Services LP was hit on May 23 in Texas
state court with a proposed shareholder class action accusing it
of making phantom income payments to partners after a $500 million
purchase agreement with TPG Capital LLC subsidiaries.

Plaintiffs allege that Valerus, TPG and others committed breach of
contract and fiduciary duty by manipulating tax allocations and
failing to make required tax distributions, at the minority
shareholders' expense.  The minority shareholders say they and
other limited partners of Valerus received Internal Revenue
Service forms in 2010 and 2011, when Valerus reported losses of
$74 million and $95 million, reflecting an increase in income to
be reported on their personal returns.

"Defendants' harsh and wrongful conduct also constitutes a lack of
fair dealing with respect to the minority shareholder plaintiffs,
as well as a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing
and a violation of fair play on which plaintiffs are entitled to
rely," the proposed class action states.

The suit was filed by plaintiffs James J. Woodcock, a Texas
investor who owns at least 50,000 partnership interests in
Valerus, and C&J Industries Inc. Defined Benefit Trust, which owns
roughly 225,000 partnership interests.  The proposed class is
believed to involve hundreds of members, they say.

In late October 2009, TPG affiliates TPG V VE LP and TPG VI VE
entered into a purchase agreement in which it bought a majority 76
percent stake in Valerus for $500 million in debt and equity,
court filings said.  The affiliates were specifically created to
fund and oversee TPG Capital's investment in Valerus.

The putative class action accused Valerus, TPG, Valerus tax
consultant Deloitte Tax LLP and others of using values in its
Internal Revenue Service calculations that are favorable to TPG
and its affiliates, and detrimental to plaintiffs and class
members.

"They are not only losing depreciation but are recognizing income,
in favor of TPG and to their detriment," the suit says.  "The
calculation is not being adjusted for assets disposed after the
TPG acquisition . . . tax allocations are being shifted among the
partners to substantially reduce the present value of the
aggregate tax liability."

Valerus is required annually to make pro rate distributions of
cash flow, according to the May 23 suit.  But Valerus allegedly
didn't make tax distributions to the petitioners in the four years
after the purchase agreement was established and only recently
said it made a distribution in February as a result of an
investigation.

Plaintiffs, who say the distribution was insufficient and
inaccurate, claim they sent Valerus a request for books and
records in October but that the company has refused to provide an
unredacted copy of the purchase agreement, a financial balance
sheet and other documents.

The suit also alleges minority shareholder oppression and civil
conspiracy claims.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael K. Hurst --
mhurst@ghjhlaw.com -- A. Shonn Brown -- sbrown@ghjhlaw.com -- and
Jonathan R. Childers -- jchilders@ghjhlaw.com -- of Gruber Hurst
Johansen Hail Shank LLP and Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D.
King of Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer LLP.

The case is James J. Woodcock et al. v. Valerus Compression
Services LP n/k/a Axip Energy Services et al., case number not yet
assigned, in the District Court for Harris County, Texas.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Jetta Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal judge on May 22 gave preliminary approval to an
approximately $43 million settlement in a proposed class action
over an alleged defect in Jettas made by Volkswagen Group of
America Inc.

U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan ruled that the deal was
"fair, adequate and reasonable" in his order approving the
settlement, which includes a reimbursement amount of $345 for an
alleged door control wiring defect that affected around 125,000
class members, the judge said.

"Given the nature of the defect, expense of continued litigation
and the fact that recovery is far from certain, the court finds
the settlement agreement 'within the range of possible approval,'"
Reagan said.

Jemeliah Sade Smith alleged in the suit that Volkswagen knowingly
manufactured Jetta A5 model vehicles in 2005 and 2006 with driver
side front door wiring harnesses that were too short -- which
could lead to the loss of controls located on the door such as
power window controls and the trunk release, according to the
complaint.

The alleged defect in the cars was not a safety issue, but one of
customer satisfaction, the judge said in the approval order.

The settlement also provides for an extended warranty to cover
repair or replacement of the harness for 8 1/2 years or 100,000
miles following the in-service date of the vehicle.

Judge Reagan, though, reserved ruling on the attorneys' fees and
costs and the incentive awards in order to allow the class an
opportunity to object.  Judge Lloyd Cueto, who was appointed as
special master for the settlement negotiations in February,
submitted a report in April recommending that attorneys' fees of
$1.75 million and $2,000 for each of the four class
representatives should be approved, the order stated.

The parties sought preliminary approval of the settlement in
February, and a final fairness hearing in the case is scheduled
for Sept. 19, the judge said.

A Volkwagen representative told Law360 on May 23 that the company
couldn't comment as the final hearing in the case is still
pending.

The plaintiffs are represented by John R. Climaco, John A. Peca,
and Patrick G. Warner of Climaco Wilcox Peca Tarantino & Garofoli
Co. LPA; Mark J. Geragos of Geragos & Geragos; D. Todd Mathews of
Gori Julian & Associates PC; Eric D. Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- Gerard B. Schneller --
gschneller@allfela.com -- and R. Seth Crompton --
scrompton@allfela.com -- of Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC;
Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- and Brian F. Fox -
- BFox@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman; Richard
J. Arsenault -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- of Neblett Beard &
Arsenault; and Jordan L. Chaikin of Parker Waichman LLP.

Volkswagen is represented by Jeffrey L. Chase --
JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Michael B. Gallub --
MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com -- and Daniel V. Gsovski --
DGsovski@herzfeld-rubin.com -- of Herzfeld & Rubin PC, and Garrett
L. Boehm Jr. -- boehmg@jbltd.com -- and James K. Toohey --
tooheyj@jbltd.com -- of Johnson & Bell Ltd.

The case is Smith v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., case number
3:13-cv-00370, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Beck" Securities Suit in Fla. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. faces a securities lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). The complaint asserts federal securities law claims
against the Company and the individual defendants under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges
that between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014 the Company and the
individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions
relating to the Company's internal controls and financial
reporting, the liabilities associated with the Company's
acquisition of RMS, RMS's internal controls, and certain of the
Company's business practices that are being reviewed by the FTC
and the CFPB. The complaint seeks class certification and an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and
February 26, 2014.


WARRIOR ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Cerini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Warrior Energy Services, Inc.; and, IPS, INC., Case
No. 2:14-cv-00637-MRH (W.D. Pa., May 16, 2014) is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act to recover damages for non-payment of overtime
wages for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

Warrior Energy Services Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Superior Energy Services, maintains its headquarters in Columbus,
Mississippi.  IPS, a wholly owned subsidiary of Superior Energy
Services, maintains its headquarters in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Continues to Face Securities Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. continues to face two
securities lawsuits in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

In March 2014, two substantially identical purported class action
complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were
filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were
filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock,
no par value per share, between February 14, 2012 and October 30,
2013, inclusive (the "Class"). The complaints allege that, during
that period, the defendants disseminated materially false and
misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts. The
complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on
behalf of the Class.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Robo-Signing Class Action for $83 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bjorhus, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Wells
Fargo & Co. is spending at least $83 million to settle class
action claims that it engaged in robo-signing of foreclosure
documents.  The settlement relates to lawsuits that shareholders
filed in 2011 against the San Francisco-based lender and its board
of directors, claiming they breached their fiduciary duty to
shareholders.  The cases were consolidated and given class action
status.

In a government filing on May 23, the bank said it denies the
claims of wrongdoing and liability and is settling to avoid
further litigation.  The bank said it will spend at least $36.5
million toward a new down-payment assistance program for first-
time home buyers in select cities hit hard by the foreclosure
crisis, such as Detroit and St. Louis.  The Twin Cities, where
Wells Fargo is the largest bank by deposits, is not included in
the group.

At least $6 million will go toward counseling Wells Fargo
borrowers who are delinquent on their mortgages.

The bank will also spend at least $24.5 million integrating
various computer systems for servicing home loans into a unified
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage servicing platform.  The platform should
be up and running by the end of 2015, it said.  It also agreed to
pay the plaintiffs' lawyers $16 million in fees and expenses.

In an e-mailed statement, Wells Fargo said the bank and its
directors are "pleased to have resolved the matter."

"We remain committed to our efforts to assist borrowers facing
financial challenges and believe this settlement benefits the
company, our customers and our shareholders," the statement said.

Revelations that banks engaged in mass robo-signing of
foreclosure-related paperwork without checking for accuracy rocked
the nation and were the focus of a landmark $25 billion national
mortgage settlement in 2012 between the country's top five
mortgage servicers and state and federal authorities.

Wells Fargo still faces considerable litigation related to its
mortgage servicing and foreclosure activities.

The latest swirl of controversy involves allegations that it
developed a sort of how-to manual for generating bogus documents
to justify foreclosing on homes.  A bankruptcy lawyer for two
separate homeowners, each suing Wells Fargo in federal court in
the Southern District of New York, claims the 150-page guide gives
step by step instructions for lawyers the bank hires to get
after-the-fact paperwork, or endorsements, to show loans were
signed over to the bank.

Judges in both cases have ruled that Wells Fargo cannot keep its
home mortgage foreclosure attorney procedure manual out of court
and will have to answer questions about it, said bankruptcy lawyer
Linda Tirelli, who represents both homeowners.

Wells Fargo has denied any wrongdoing.

A hearing to finalize Wells Fargo's shareholder settlement is
scheduled for July 25 in U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of California.


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: 15% of Loan Originators Opt in by Jan. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a lawsuit against Wintrust Financial Corporation alleging Fair
Labor Standards Act by a former mortgage loan originator,
approximately 15% of the notice recipients joined the class prior
to the opt-in deadline of January 22, 2014, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by
Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its
subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a Fair
Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "FLSA
Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company
violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and challenges the
manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company classified its loan
originators and compensated them for their work. The suit also
seeks to assert these claims as a class. On September 30, 2013,
the Court entered an order conditionally certifying an "opt-in"
class in this case. Notice to the potential class members was sent
on or about October 22, 2013, primarily informing the putative
class of the right to opt-into the class and setting a deadline
for same. Approximately 15% of the notice recipients joined the
class prior to the opt-in deadline of January 22, 2014. However,
the Company anticipates that about half of these new class members
will ultimately be excluded from the class. The Company has
reserved an amount for the FLSA Litigation that is immaterial to
its results of operations or financial condition.


WR GRACE: Suits Over 1996 Reorganization Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Under the terms of the Joint Plan of Reorganization of W. R. Grace
& Co. and the settlement agreements, the class action lawsuits
over a 1996 reorganization involving a predecessor of Grace have
been dismissed with prejudice, according to the company's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

In September 2000, Grace was named in a purported class action
suit filed in California Superior Court for the County of San
Francisco alleging that the 1996 reorganization involving a
predecessor of Grace and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and
the 1998 reorganization involving a predecessor of Grace and
Sealed Air Corporation were fraudulent transfers (Abner, et al.,
v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al.). The suit is alleged to have been
brought on behalf of all individuals who then had lawsuits on file
asserting personal injury or wrongful death claims against any of
the defendants. After Abner, and prior to the Chapter 11 filing,
two other similar class actions were filed. These lawsuits had
been stayed as a result of Grace's Chapter 11 filing. The
Bankruptcy Court authorized the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants and the Official Committee of Asbestos
Property Damage Claimants to proceed with claims against Sealed
Air and Fresenius on behalf of Grace's bankruptcy estate. In
November 2002, Sealed Air and Fresenius each announced that they
had reached agreements in principle with these committees to
settle asbestos, successor liability and fraudulent transfer
claims related to such transactions. On the Effective Date, under
the terms of the Joint Plan and the Fresenius settlement and the
Sealed Air settlement, Fresenius and Cryovac, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Sealed Air, made payments to the asbestos trusts to
the Consolidated Financial Statements. Under the terms of the
Joint Plan and the settlement agreements, the class action
lawsuits have been dismissed with prejudice.


YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of Consolidated Calif. Stock Suit on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation are
appealing the dismissal of the case, according to the company's
May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain officers and directors
of the Company by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin Cities Pipe
Trades Pension Trust. In October 2011, the District Court
consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc.
Securities Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. In a consolidated amended
complaint filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff purports to
represent a class of investors who purchased the Company's common
stock between April 19, 2011 and July 29, 2011, and alleges that
during that class period, defendants issued statements that were
materially false or misleading because they did not disclose
information relating to Alibaba Group's restructuring of Alipay.
The complaint purports to assert claims for relief for violation
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks
unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, fees, and
costs. On August 10, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs have
appealed.


                             *********

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  * * *