CAR_Public/140609.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 113

                             Headlines


AEROPOSTALE INC: Obtains Final Court OK of Securities Suit Deal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Forex Rate Fixing Suit Dismissed
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Affirms Securities Law Claims Dismissal
BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Law Firm Files Class Action
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Subsidiary Faces Whistler Junction Suit

BOULDER NATURAL: Recalls Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts
BRISTOL MYERS: Abilify Co-Pay Assistance Litigation Dismissed
BRISTOL MYERS: Appeals $28-Mil Judgment in AWP Litigation
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Plaintiffs Appeal Tariff Class Action Dismissal
CHESTER MENTAL: "Hughes" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend

CHINA SUNERGY: Insurers Paid $1.1-Mil in Class Action Settlement
CIBER INC: Court Approved Weston Settlement in April 2014
CITIGROUP INC: Settles ERISA Class Action for $8.5 Million
CNINSURE INC: Paid US$6.6-Mil to Settle "Van Dongen" Lawsuit
COLLECTO INC: Court Orders Parties in "Fletcher" to Arbitrate

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Approved TCPA Suit Settlement
DJO FINANCE: Defendant in Canadian Pain Pump Litigation
DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Ex-Workers' Suit
DORAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Puerto Rico
DOW CHEMICAL: Appeals $1.06 Billion Judgment in Urethane Suits

EMCOR GROUP: May Pay Huge Sums if Wage Lawsuit Wins Class Cert.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Remands Complaint for Further Proceedings
FARM CITY MEAT: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
FRESH DEL MONTE: Subsidiary Accrued $2.2-Mil Reserve on Appeal
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Biggs" Suit Over Defective Ignition Switch

GIANT INTERACTIVE: Defendant in Proposed Merger Complaint
GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL: Defendant in Securities Litigation
GREENSMOOTHIEGIRL: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Medical Record Overcharges
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Federal Court Remands Securities Fraud Lawsuit

HIGHER ONE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Connecticut
HONG KONG EXCHANGES: To Contest Class Action Over Zinc Prices
IBM CORP: Defendant in Securities Litigation
K12 INC: Defendant in Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint
KINDER MORGAN: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over CapEx Allocation

KINDER MORGAN: Del. Chancery Court Consolidates Complaints
KINDER MORGAN: Texas Court Stays "Walker" Complaint
KRAFT FOODS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Montgomery" Case
LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in DNA Preservation Complaint in Mass.

LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in TCPA Complaint in Minnesota
LABORATORY CORP: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss "Andres" Lawsuit
LITTLE BIG: Former Employees File Overtime Class Action
MICHAELS STORES: Challenges Class Certification Order
MICHAELS STORES: Defendant in Five Data Security Complaints

MICHAELS STORES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 11
MICHAELS STORES: Final Settlement Hearing in Privacy Suit Held
MICHAELS STORES: Defendant in Pricing & Promotion Complaint
MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Says
MR FLUFFY: Canberra Families Mull Asbestos Class Action

NAVITAS NATURALS: Expands Recall for Organic Sprouted Chia Powder
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Final Submissions Due in Moose Suit
NY 99: New York Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Penalties
OCEAN SPRAY: Recalls Limited Quantity of 8-ounce Greek Yogurt
OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Kirkland Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper

ONTARIO: Ottawa Woman Joins Class Action Over Foster Home Abuse
ONTARIO: Prisoners Lose C$1.25MM Protest T-Shirt Class Action
PANDORA MEDIA: N.D. Calif. Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss Suit
PANDORA MEDIA: No Oral Argument Date Set for Privacy Law Action
PETITE VENICE: Faces "Straw" Action in Fla. Over Unpaid OT

PGG/HSC FEED: Recalls Champion Lamb Texturized Feed B30
PORTLAND GENERAL: $260MM Lawsuits Over Trojan Deal Remain Pending
POWERSECURE INT'L: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
PROSPECT CAPITAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action

QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Response to Securities Litigation
RED ROBIN: Missouri Couple Files Hepatitis A Class Action
RITE AID: Recalls 16 oz. Pints of Mint 'N Chip Thrifty Ice Cream
SAFEWAY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Court Adopts Mag. Judge's Report in RICO Suit

SIBANYE GOLD: Files Notice Opposing Class Certification Request
SILVER AIRWAYS: "McGregor" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
TOWN SPORTS: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Wage Complaint
TOWN SPORTS: "Labbe" Suit Status Hearing Set for June 2014
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Do Thi Tran's Discrmination Suit

UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Sued for Denying Mental Health Claims
VERISK ANALYTICS: Agreed to Settle Complaints for $18,600,000
VERISK ANALYTICS: Can't Estimate Liability in Interthinx Suits
VERISK ANALYTICS: Can't Estimate Insurance Services Liability
VOCUS INC: Defendant in Stockholders Complaint

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Retirees Seek Certification for Pension Suit
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Complaints May Impact Financial Condition
WEATHERFORD INT'L: July 8 Final Hearing on $53 Million Accord

* Greenberg Traurig Sees Trend in Credit Card Suits v. Retailers


                            *********


AEROPOSTALE INC: Obtains Final Court OK of Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Collen McMahon granted final approval of a
settlement, plan of allocation, and attorneys' fees and expenses
in the case captioned THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
AEROPOSTALE, INC., THOMAS P. JOHNSON and MARC D. MILLER,
Defendants, NO. 11 CIV. 7132(CM)(GWG), (S.D.N.Y.).

This Action was commenced on October 11, 2011 by the filing of an
initial complaint alleging that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws.

According to the District Court's May 9, 2014 memorandum opinion
and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/1t0H3M
from Leagle.com, the Court (1) finds that due and adequate notice
was directed to persons and entities who are Class Members,
advising them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right to
object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to
persons and entities who are Class Members to be heard with
respect to the Plan of Allocation.; (2) finds that the formula in
the Plan of Allocation for the calculation of the claims of
Authorized Claimants that is set forth in the Notice of Pendency
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") disseminated to Class Members,
provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the
net settlement proceeds among Class Members; (3) finds that the
Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice is, in all respects,
fair and reasonable; (4) grants final approval of the Plan of
Allocation; (4) authorizes Settlement Class Counsel to make
disbursements to Class members; and (5) awarded attorneys' fees in
the amount of $4,950,000 plus interest at the same rate earned by
the Settlement Fund (or 33% of the Settlement Fund, which includes
interest earned thereon) and payment of litigation expenses in the
amount of $455,506.85, plus interest at the same rate earned by
the Settlement Fund, which sums the Court finds to be fair and
reasonable; and (6) authorizes an award of $11,235.04 to Lead
Plaintiff.

The City of Providence, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Iona Maria May
Evans, Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Matthew Christopher Moehlman,
Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Nicole M. Zeiss, Labaton Sucharow, LLP,
Stephen R. Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (FL), Carol
Cecilia Villegas, Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Daniel E. Bacine,
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow, LLP,
Lisa M. Lamb, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine & Mark S. Goldman, Labaton
Sucharow LLP.

Aeropostale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Allerhand
-- joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP &
Stephen Alan Radin -- stephen.radin@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP.

Thomas P. Johnson, Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Allerhand,
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP & Stephen Alan Radin, Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP.

Marc D. Miller, Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Allerhand,
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP & Stephen Alan Radin, Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP.

Donald Robert Pierson, II, Individual, Objector, represented by
Forrest Scott Turkish, Forrest Scott Turkish, Law Office.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Forex Rate Fixing Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on April 10, 2014, dismissed plaintiffs' claims in a
purported class action complaint, alleging foreign currency
conversion rates conspiracy, and granted judgment in favor of
American Express Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "In July 2004, a purported class action
complaint, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American
Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion
Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that we conspired with
Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign
currency conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration
clauses in certain of their cardholder agreements. The suit seeks
injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as
"all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders
who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American
Express Card Members are not part of the class. The settlement of
the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning
foreign currency conversion rates was approved in 2012. Trial of
the claims asserted by the injunction class concerning cardholder
arbitration clauses concluded in February 2013. On April 10, 2014,
the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and granted judgment in
favor of us."

American Express Company (American Express) is a global service
company. Its principal products and services are charge and credit
payment card products and travel-related services offered to
consumers and businesses worldwide. The Company operates in four
segments: U.S. Card Services, International Card Services, Global
Commercial Services (GCS) and Global Network & Merchant Services
(GNMS). Corporate functions and auxiliary businesses, including
the Company's Enterprise Growth Group, publishing business and
other company operations, are included in Corporate & Other.
American Express and its principal operating subsidiary, American
Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), are bank
holding companies. During 2011, American Express completed the
integration of Accertify Inc. Effective March 20, 2014, American
Express Co acquired an undisclosed minority stake in Ezetap Mobile
Solutions Pvt Ltd.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Affirms Securities Law Claims Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April
23, 2014, affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' state and
federal securities law claims and the unjust enrichment claim in a
class action filed against Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., according
to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 23, 2014, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2014.

On April 23, 2014, the Second Circuit entered a summary order in
the consolidated class action referred to in the Company's prior
filings as the In re Apple REITs Litigation matter. In the summary
order, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the
"District Court") of the plaintiffs' state and federal securities
law claims and the unjust enrichment claim. The Second Circuit
also noted that the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
remaining state common law claims based on its finding that the
complaint did not allege any losses suffered by the plaintiff
class, and held that, to the extent that the District Court relied
on this rationale, its dismissal of the plaintiffs' state law
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty, and negligence claims is vacated and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with the summary order. The Company
will defend against the claims remanded to the District Court
vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict
the outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate
of the possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if
any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. (formerly Apple REIT Nine, Inc.) is a
public, non-listed real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on
the acquisition and ownership of income-producing real estate that
generates attractive returns for shareholders.  The hotels operate
under the Courtyard(R) by Marriott(R), Fairfield Inn(R) by
Marriott(R), Fairfield Inn & Suites(R) by Marriott(R),
Renaissance(R) Hotels, Residence Inn(R) by Marriott(R), SpringHill
Suites(R) by Marriott(R), TownePlace Suites(R) by Marriott(R),
Marriott(R), Embassy Suites Hotels(R), Homewood Suites by
Hilton(R), Home2 Suites by Hilton(R), Hilton Garden Inn(R),
Hampton Inn(R), Hampton Inn & Suites(R) and Hilton(R) brands. As
of the completion of the mergers of Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and
Apple REIT Eight, Inc. into Apple REIT Nine, on March 1, 2014, the
portfolio consisted of 188 hotels with 23,490 guestrooms in 33
states.


BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Peiffer Rosca law firm on May 24 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased the common stock of Biozoom, Inc. from KCG
Americas, LLC between May 16, 2013 and June 25, 2013, inclusive.

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

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

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

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve
as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.  If you wish to
learn more about this action, or have any questions about this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to this
matter, please contact Alan Rosca or Joe Peiffer at the Peiffer
Rosca Law Firm, at 888-998-0520 or arosca@praclawfirm.com
Case: Corso v. KCG Americas LLC, 14-cv-01087, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D.
Ohio (May, 2014)

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


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Subsidiary Faces Whistler Junction Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP's Gulf South subsidiary is one of
the defendants in a purported class action suit in which
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for personal injury and
property damage related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the
Whistler Junction facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Partnership's Gulf South subsidiary and several other
defendants, including Mobile Gas Service Corporation (MGSC), have
been named as defendants in nine lawsuits, including one purported
class action suit, commenced by multiple plaintiffs in the Circuit
Court of Mobile County, Alabama. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages for personal injury and property damage related to an
alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities
in Eight Mile, Alabama. Gulf South delivers natural gas to MGSC,
the local distribution company for that region, at Whistler
Junction where MGSC odorizes the gas prior to delivery to end user
customers by injecting mercaptan into the gas stream, as required
by law. The cases are: Parker, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp,
et al. (Case No. CV-12-900711), Crum, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service
Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901057), Austin, et al. v. Mobile Gas
Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901133), Moore, et al. v.
Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et
al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901490),
Joel G. Reed, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No.
CV-2013-922265), The Housing Authority of the City of Prichard,
Alabama v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., et al. (Case No. CV-2013-
901002), Robert Evans, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-
902627), and Devin Nobles, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-
2013-902786). Gulf South has denied liability. Gulf South has
demanded that MGSC indemnify Gulf South against all liability
related to these matters pursuant to a right-of-way agreement
between Gulf South and MGSC, and has filed cross-claims against
MGSC for any such liability. MGSC has also filed cross-claims
against Gulf South seeking indemnity and other relief from Gulf
South.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is a limited partnership company.
The Company owns and operates three interstate natural gas
pipeline systems including integrated storage facilities. Its
business is conducted by its primary subsidiary, Boardwalk
Pipelines, LP (Boardwalk Pipelines) and its subsidiaries, Gulf
Crossing Pipeline Company LLC (Gulf Crossing), Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP (Gulf South) and Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas
Gas) (together, the operating subsidiaries), which consist of
integrated natural gas pipeline and storage systems.


BOULDER NATURAL: Recalls Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts
----------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Natural Meats, a Denver, Colo., establishment, is
recalling approximately 363 pounds of Boneless Skinless Chicken
Breasts due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The product
was formulated with wheat, which is declared on the product label,
so all allergens are properly identified.  However, the front
label states the product is gluten free.  Products with a gluten
free claim may not contain wheat.

The following product is subject to recall:

    1 to 1.5-lbs. vacuum sealed packages of "Boneless Skinless
Chicken Breasts brushed with Teriyaki Seasoning"

The product was produced May 13 and 14, 2014, and has a freeze by
date of 05.24.14 or 05.25.14.  The product bears the establishment
number "P18852" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The product
was sold to retail establishments in Colorado.

The problem was discovered by a retailer, which notified the
company. After an investigation, it was determined that the front
label was mislabeled "gluten free," because an older label was
mistakenly used.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of the product. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Heather Crane at (303) 301-5293.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


BRISTOL MYERS: Abilify Co-Pay Assistance Litigation Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a putative class action filed against Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company challenging the legality of the Abilify* co-pay
assistance program, voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

In March 2012, the Company and its partner Otsuka were named as
co-defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed by union
health and welfare funds in the SDNY. Plaintiffs challenged the
legality of the Abilify* co-pay assistance program under various
theories. The Company and Otsuka filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In April 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
case with prejudice against the Company, which concludes the
matter.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) is engaged in the discovery,
development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of biopharmaceutical products on a global basis.  Its
products are sold worldwide, primarily to wholesalers, retail
pharmacies, hospitals, government entities and the medical
profession. It manufactures products in the United States (U.S.),
Puerto Rico and in 6 foreign countries. In April 2014, the Company
acquired iPierian Inc.


BRISTOL MYERS: Appeals $28-Mil Judgment in AWP Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company has appealed the court decision
finding the Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the
Company from contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs. The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys
general suits pending in state courts in Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant
in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth
Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September
2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the
Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge issued a
decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not
go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and
enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs. The Company appealed the decision to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court and oral argument took place in May
2013.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) is engaged in the discovery,
development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of biopharmaceutical products on a global basis.  Its
products are sold worldwide, primarily to wholesalers, retail
pharmacies, hospitals, government entities and the medical
profession. It manufactures products in the United States (U.S.),
Puerto Rico and in 6 foreign countries.  In April 2014, the
Company acquired iPierian Inc.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Plaintiffs Appeal Tariff Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on May 28 disclosed that further to the
Company's report of the dismissal with prejudice of a purported
class action against the Company reported on November 2011, an
appeal was filed by the plaintiffs challenging the dismissal.  The
purported class action alleged that the Company raised tariffs for
business customers unlawfully and in violation of its agreements
with them.  If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the
total amount claimed from the Company is estimated by the
plaintiffs to be at least hundreds of millions of NIS.

                       About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is the largest Israeli
cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.049
million subscribers (as at March 31, 2014) with a broad range of
value added services including cellular and landline telephony,
roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers
abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video,
mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically
advanced infrastructure.


CHESTER MENTAL: "Hughes" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Reagan dismissed without prejudice the
lawsuit captioned MATTHEW R. HUGHES, No. R42460, Plaintiff, v.
PATRICK J. QUINN, LISA M. MADIGAN, DIANE L. SALTOUN, LAURA MILLER,
JOHN H. WANK, EVELYN DIAZ, and UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendants, CASE NO.
14-CV-00426-MJR, (S.D. Ill.).

Matthew R. Hughes is an inmate in Hill Correctional Center.  He
brought this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, based on events that occurred
at Chester Mental Health Center between September and November
2013.

Judge Reagan held that the Plaintiff only offers his conclusion
that all of the wrongs he has witnessed occurring to others were
due to a cover up by the defendant Illinois officials. "[P]ersonal
involvement by each named defendant and causation are required for
Section 1983 liability," he said.

Judge Reagan granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint on or before June 6, 2014. Any amended complaint will
undergo preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.

Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal
of this action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court
order and failure to prosecute this action, he said.

"Finally, Plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in
writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of this action for want of prosecution," added Judge
Reagan.

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

Matthew R. Hughes, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CHINA SUNERGY: Insurers Paid $1.1-Mil in Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Sunergy Co., Ltd., reported that all payments of $1.1
million pursuant to the settlement of three purported class
actions have been made by its insurers, according to the Company's
Form 20-F filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a named defendant in three purported
class actions currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York -- Brown v. China
Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-07895 (DAB), Sheshtawy v.
China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-08656 (DAB), and
Giombetti v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-09689
(DAB). On September 29, 2008, the District Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and consolidated the three cases. The lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on December 8, 2008.

"The consolidated amended complaint purports to state class action
claims against us in connection with our initial public offering
and seeks unspecified damages. Specifically, the lead plaintiff
alleges that we made false and misleading statements in our
initial public offering registration statement and prospectus
regarding, among other things, the procurement of polysilicon.

"Several of our directors and officers, along with the investment
banks that underwrote our initial public offering, are also named
defendants in the cases. On January 26, 2009, the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Briefing
on the motion was completed on May 1, 2009. Defendants' motion
remained outstanding when, on July 14, 2009, the parties reached
an agreement in principle to settle the dispute in its entirety.
On May 12, 2011, the Court held a final hearing and issued a final
judgment for each of the three filed cases, dismissing each case
with prejudice and approving the settlement and plan of
allocation. On May 13, 2011, the Court issued its final order and
the case was closed. All payments of $1.1 million pursuant to the
settlement have been made by our insurers."

China Sunergy Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells solar cell and
solar module products that convert sunlight into electricity for a
variety of uses. The Company also invests in, develop and operate
solar power projects.


CIBER INC: Court Approved Weston Settlement in April 2014
---------------------------------------------------------
A court in April 2014, issued final approval of the settlement
between CIBER, Inc., and plaintiffs in the putative securities
class action lawsuit -- Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "In October 2011, a putative securities class
action lawsuit, Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado against
Ciber and several of its current and former officers. In November
2013, we entered into a settlement among the lead plaintiff and
the defendants that involved funds paid by our insurers being
placed into a settlement fund for the benefit of the class. We
have not made any admission of liability or wrongdoing by entering
into this settlement. The Court issued final approval of the
settlement in April 2014, dismissing the claims of the class with
prejudice, and terminating the litigation."

CIBER, Inc. provides information technology (IT), business
consulting and outsourcing services. The Company is engaged in
solving complex IT and business issues across industries, such as
energy and utilities, telecommunications, retail, healthcare,
financial services, entertainment and manufacturing. The Company
operates in three segments: International, North America and IT
Outsourcing. Its offerings are focused around a set of core
competencies which include Application Development and Management
(ADM), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Customer Relationship
Management, Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing, Managed
Services, Testing and Quality Assurance, Mobility Services and
Digital Marketing. On March 9, 2012, the Company sold its Federal
division to CRGT, Inc.


CITIGROUP INC: Settles ERISA Class Action for $8.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that an $8.5 million settlement
has been reached in a securities class action lawsuit pending
against Citigroup, brought by employee shareholders who alleged
the company concealed its exposure to subprime mortgages prior to
its stock price dropping.

The settlement class includes over 7,000 Citigroup employees who
acquired securities between November 2006 and June 2009.

Under the terms of the agreement a $2.3 million settlement fund
will be established, to include six payments of approximately
$50,000 each to the six lead plaintiffs, as an incentive award for
their service to the case.  The Erisa lawsuit was brought in 2009
by former Citigroup employees who alleged the company prevented
employees who had purchased the bank's stock from obtaining
information about subprime losses by means of a series of
materially misleading statements and omissions concerning its
subprime exposure, overall business outlook and financial results.

The lawsuit was originally filed in California, but was later
consolidated into a multidistrict securities litigation against
Citigroup through New York.


CNINSURE INC: Paid US$6.6-Mil to Settle "Van Dongen" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
CNinsure Inc., agreed to pay US$6.6 million to settle a class
action filed by Pieter Van Dongen alleging that the Company made a
series of false or misleading statements or omissions regarding
its business, prospects and operations, according to the Company's
Form 20-F filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "On October 17, 2011, Pieter Van Dongen,
individually and on behalf of an alleged class of similarly
situated holders of our ADSs, filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against us and  three of our then executive officers. The
complaint alleges that we made a series of false or misleading
statements or omissions regarding our business, prospects and
operations. The compliant principally alleges that we improperly
accounted for the compensation that we paid to our insurance
agents, thereby understating our expenses and overstating our net
income. The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

"On December 6, 2011, we and van Dongen, entered into a
stipulation providing that within forty-five days after the
court's entry of an order appointing a lead plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the lead plaintiff must
either file a consolidated complaint or give notice of its intent
not to do so (and therefore proceed on its initial complaint). On
December 16, 2011, Jeff and Linda Schram, two other alleged
purchasers of our ADRs, who are represented by the same law firm
that represents van Dongen, moved for appointment as lead
plaintiffs. In an order dated June 26, 2012, the Court granted the
Schrams' motion, appointing them as lead plaintiffs and approving
the selection of Robbins Geller as lead counsel.

"On August 13, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. We (which is the only defendant that has been served so
far) filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 1,
2012. On November 28, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a brief in
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on January 10, 2013, we
filed our reply. On June 24, 2013, the Court denied our motion to
dismiss, except that it summarily dismissed the claim under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants. The litigation thus proceeded to discovery.

"On March 19, 2014, we signed a settlement agreement with the
plaintiff, to settle the lawsuit at US$6.6 million (approximately
RMB40.1 million), to be paid as consideration for full and
complete settlement of all the released claims, within thirty
calendar days after the entry of an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement. On April 7, 2014, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily
approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing on July 9, 2014 to
determine whether such settlement should be granted final
approval. On April 23, 2013, we and the individual defendants
executed an agreement with XL Insurance Company PLC (Singapore
Branch), or XL Insurance, in which, inter alia, XL Insurance
agreed to pay the settlement amount of US$6.6 million pursuant to
the Directors and Officers and Company Reimbursement Insurance
policy purchased by us, and the parties exchanged certain
releases.

"Accordingly, we have recorded a contingent liability in the
amount of US$6.6 million (RMB40.1 million) and other receivable in
the amount of US$6.6 million (RMB40.1 million) on the consolidated
balance sheets. The retention fee to be paid by us under the
insurance policy has been partially settled as legal expenses
during the past fiscal years with the remaining RMB3.1 million
(US$0.5 million) recorded as other payables and accrued expenses
as of December 31, 2013."

CNinsure Inc. (CNinsure) is an independent insurance intermediary
company operating in China. The Company had 47,312 sales
professionals, 1,258 claims adjustors and 481 sales and service
outlets operating in 27 provinces as of March 31, 2013. The
Company distributes to customers in China a variety of property,
casualty and life insurance products underwritten by domestic and
foreign insurance companies operating in China and provides
insurance claims adjusting services, such as damage assessment,
survey, authentication and loss estimation. The Company also
provides certain value-added services, such as round the clock
emergency services in select cities and assistance with claim
settlement, to its customers-individuals and institutions that
purchase insurance products through the Company.


COLLECTO INC: Court Orders Parties in "Fletcher" to Arbitrate
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett granted a motion for arbitration
in the case captioned in the lawsuit captioned LUCIENA S. GRANT-
FLETCHER, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION
NO. RDB-13-3505, (D. Md.).

In this case, the Plaintiff Luciena S. Grant-Fletcher, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, sued the Defendant
Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, at
seq., and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code,
Com. Law Section 14-201, et seq.  The Defendant filed a motion to
compel arbitration and stay further proceedings.

A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2014 memorandum opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/iedU7Pfrom Leagle.com.

Luciena S. Grant-Fletcher, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Joseph
Minton -- tminton@charmcitylegal.com -- Goldman and Minton PC.

Collecto, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald S Canter --
rcanter@roncanterllc.com -- The Law Offices of Ronald S Canter
LLC.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Approved TCPA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on March 31, 2014, granted final approval of the
settlement between Discover Financial Services and plaintiffs in
two class actions cases in relation to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company has been subject to two class action cases in relation
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The cases were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 30, 2011 (Walter Bradley et al. v. Discover
Financial Services) and on March 6, 2012 (Andrew Steinfeld v.
Discover Financial Services, DFS Services LLC and Discover Bank).
The plaintiff in each case alleges that the Company contacted him,
and members of the class he seeks to represent, on their cellular
telephones without their express consent in violation of the TCPA.
The plaintiff in each case seeks statutory damages for alleged
negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful
violations). The Company and class counsel entered into a
preliminary settlement of both pending class actions. On September
10, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. On March 31, 2014, the court granted final approval of
the settlement.

Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment
services company. The Company is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company. The Company offer credit cards, student
loans, personal loans and deposit products through its Discover
Bank subsidiary and home loans through its Discover Home Loans,
Inc. subsidiary (Discover Home Loans). The Company operates the
Discover Network, its credit card payments network; the PULSE
network (PULSE), its automated teller machine (ATM), debit and
electronic funds transfer network, and Diners Club International
(Diners Club), its global payments network. The Company operates
in two segments: Direct Banking and Payment Services. In June
2012, Tree.Com Inc sold the operating assets of its Home Loan
Center, Inc. business to a wholly owned subsidiary of Discover
Financial Services.


DJO FINANCE: Defendant in Canadian Pain Pump Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in Canada
relating to its prior distribution of a disposable drug infusion
pump product, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April
29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2014, the Company has accrued
$1.1 million as of March 29, 2014, for unpaid settlements in 22
cases, all of which will be paid by its product liability
carriers.

The Company states: "Over the past 6 years, we have been named in
numerous product liability lawsuits involving our prior
distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain
pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was
distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently
are a defendant in approximately five U.S. cases and a lawsuit in
Canada which has been granted class action status for a class of
approximately 45 claimants. We discontinued our sale of these
products in the second quarter of 2009. These cases have been
brought against the manufacturers and certain distributors of
these pumps. All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these
pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged periods after certain
shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted
in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. In the past three years, we
have entered into settlements with plaintiffs in approximately 130
pain pump lawsuits. Except for the payment by the Company of
policy deductibles or self-insured retentions, our products
liability carriers in three policy periods have paid the defense
costs and settlements related to these claims, subject to
reservation of rights to deny coverage for customary matters,
including punitive damages and off-label promotion. The range of
potential loss for these claims is not estimable, although we
believe we have adequate insurance coverage for such claims. As of
March 29, 2014, we have accrued $1.1 million for unpaid
settlements in 22 cases, all of which will be paid by our product
liability carriers."

DJO Finance LLC is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of DJO
Global, Inc., is a global developer, manufacturer and distributor
of medical devices that provide solutions for musculoskeletal
health, vascular health and pain management. Substantially all
business activities of DJO are conducted by DJOFL and its wholly
owned subsidiaries.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Ex-Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the Court in the case captioned STEPHANIE N.
PAULINO, Individually and as Class Representative, Plaintiff, v.
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, and DOLGENCORP,
LLC, a foreign corporation, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-
75, (N.D. W.Va.), are Defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge
Seibert's "Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion for
Rule 23 Class Certification be Granted."  Defendants raised seven
objections to Magistrate Judge Seibert's findings and conclusions.

On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff moved for class certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff
argued that the class is comprised of former employees of Dollar
General who worked in West Virginia and who were, according to
company records, "involuntarily terminated" within the five years
prior to filing of this lawsuit to the present.  On January 14,
2014, Magistrate Judge Seibert held an evidentiary hearing on
Plaintiff's "Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification."
Subsequently, on February 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge Seibert
issued a report and recommended that Plaintiff's motion to certify
the class be granted.

District Judge Gina M. Groh, in a memorandum opinion and order
dated May 9, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/RPLgvzfrom Leagle.com, sustained the Defendants'
objection to Magistrate Judge Seibert's Report and Recommendation
saying the class is an impermissible fail safe class; the class
does not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2); the
class does not satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule
23(a)(3); and the class does not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance and superiority requirements.

Judge Groh denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification, and directed the Clerk of Court to lift the stay in
the matter.

Stephanie Paulino, Individually and as Class Representative,
Plaintiff, represented by David M. Hammer --
dhammer@hfslawyers.com -- Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni & Harry P.
Waddell -- hwad50@aol.com -- Law Office of Harry P. Waddell.

Dollar General Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendant,
represented by August W. Heckman, III -- aheckman@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joel S. Allen --
joel.allen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Brockius, LLP, Larry
J. Rector -- larry.rector@steptoe-johnson.com -- Steptoe & Johnson
PLLC & Michelle Lee Dougherty -- michelle.dougherty@steptoe-
johnson.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC.

Dolgencorp, LLC, a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented by
August W. Heckman, III, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joel S.
Allen, Morgan Lewis & Brockius, LLP, Larry J. Rector, Steptoe &
Johnson PLLC & Michelle Lee Dougherty, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Puerto Rico
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Sykes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Doral Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-
cv-01391 (D.P.R., May 13, 2014), is a class action that seeks to
pursue remedies against the Defendants and certain of its most
senior executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Doral Financial Corporation, headquartered in San Juan, Puerto
Rico, operates as the bank holding for Doral Bank, which provides
retail banking services to the general public and institutions,
primarily in Puerto Rico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andres W. Lopez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C.
      PO Box 13909
      San Juan, PR 00908
      Telephone: (787) 294-9508
      Telephone: (787) 406-9075
      Facsimile: (787) 294-9519
      E-mail: andreswlopez@yahoo.com


DOW CHEMICAL: Appeals $1.06 Billion Judgment in Urethane Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company is appealing a $1.06 billion judgment
against it in connection with multiple civil class action lawsuits
alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane
chemical products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the DOJ antitrust investigation.
These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled.
On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of
purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999
through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases were
filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are
substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded
the time period to include 1994 through 1998. In January 2013, the
class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with the
Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants
having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the jury in the
matter returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million
against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the District
Court under applicable antitrust laws -- less offsets from other
settling defendants -- resulting in a judgment entered in July
2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company is appealing this
judgment on numerous grounds.

In addition, there are two separate but inter-related matters in
Ontario and Quebec, Canada, both of which are pending a decision
on class certification.

The Dow Chemical Company combines the power of science and
technology to passionately innovate what is essential to human
progress. The Company connects chemistry and innovation with the
principles of sustainability to help address many of the problems,
such as the need for clean water, renewable energy generation and
conservation, and increasing agricultural productivity. The
Company conducts its worldwide operations through global
businesses, which are reported in six operating segments:
Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure
Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials,
Performance Plastics, and Feedstocks and Energy. In December 2013,
W. R. Grace & Co announced that it has completed the acquisition
of the assets of the Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts
business of The Dow Chemical Company.


EMCOR GROUP: May Pay Huge Sums if Wage Lawsuit Wins Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMCOR Group, Inc., asserted in its Form 10-Q filed on April 29,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that if the pending wage
lawsuit against one of its subsidiaries is certified as a class
action, it might have to pay significant damages and might be
subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial
services to its other customers in California.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"),
doing business in California provides, among other things,
janitorial services to its customers by having those services
performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its
customers, which owns retail stores (the "Customer"), are co-
defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by employees
of two of USM's California local janitorial contractors. The
action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of
California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The employees allege in their complaint, among other
things, that USM and the Customer violated a California statute
that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial
contractor when it knows or should know that the contract does not
include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to
comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations
governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees have
asserted that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial contractors
are insufficient to allow those janitorial contractors to meet
their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all
hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal
and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only
themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial
services at the Customer's stores in California during the
relevant four year time period. The Company does not believe USM
or the Customer has violated the California statute or that the
employees may bring the action as a class action on behalf of
other employees of janitorial companies with whom USM contracted
for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer. However,
if the pending lawsuit is certified as a class action and USM is
found to have violated the California statute, USM might have to
pay significant damages and might be subject to similar lawsuits
regarding the provision of janitorial services to its other
customers in California. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that USM has violated the California statute, monetary
damages, including all unpaid wages and thereon, restitution for
unpaid wages, and an award of attorney fees and costs."

EMCOR Group, Inc. (EMCOR) is an electrical and mechanical
construction and facilities services firm in the United States,
the United Kingdom and globally. The Company provides services to
a range of commercial, industrial, utility and institutional
customers through approximately 70 operating subsidiaries and
joint venture entities. It specializes in providing construction
services relating to electrical and mechanical systems in
facilities of all types and in providing comprehensive services
for the operation, maintenance and management of facilities
services. In January 2014, the Company acquired EMCOR Energy
Services, Inc. (EES), a subsidiary of EMCOR Group, Inc. In January
2014, TRC Companies Inc acquired EMCOR Energy Services, Inc.
(EES), a subsidiary of EMCOR Group, Inc.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Remands Complaint for Further Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19, 2014, remanded the
putative class action against Express Scripts Holding Company,
alleging rights to sue as a private attorney general under
California law, to the district court for further proceedings,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

A complaint was filed against ESI, NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem
Prescription Management LLC, Medco Health Solutions and several
other pharmacy benefit management companies by several California
pharmacies as a putative class action, alleging rights to sue as a
private attorney general under California law. Plaintiffs allege
that defendants failed to comply with statutory obligations under
California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide California clients
with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug prices. On
July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice on the
grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.
On June 2, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing and
remanded the case to the district court. The district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on first amendment
constitutionality grounds was appealed to the Ninth Circuit as
discussed further below. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, but that motion has not been briefed pending the
appeal. On July 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss. On August 16,
2011, defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc requesting
the Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling on defendants' motion to
dismiss, which was granted on October 31, 2011.

On June 6, 2012, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a decision certifying the question of
constitutionality of California Civil Code Section 2527 to the
California Supreme Court, requesting the state's highest court to
consider the issue and make a ruling. On July 18, 2012, the
California Supreme Court granted the certification request and, on
December 19, 2013, held that California Civil Code Section 2527
does not infringe upon state constitutional free speech
protections. On January 29, 2014, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel
issued a ruling vacating the prior panel opinion and remanded the
case to the original Ninth Circuit three-judge panel to either
consider the federal constitutional issues or remand the case to
the district court. On March 19, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals entered an order lifting the stay and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

Express Scripts Holding Company provides healthcare management and
administration services on behalf of its clients, which include
health maintenance organizations (HMOs), health insurers, third-
party administrators, employers, union-sponsored benefit plans,
workers compensation plans, and government health programs. The
Company operates in two segments: Pharmacy Benefit Management
(PBM) and Emerging Markets (EM). During the year ended December
31, 2011, it reorganized its FreedomFP line of business from its
EM segment into its PBM segment. In September 2013, it announced
the acquisition of the SmartD Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
(PDP).


FARM CITY MEAT: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armado Rodriguez-Tovar, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated, v. Farm City Meat, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03476 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820
ILCS Section 105/1 et seq., and Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, 820 ILCS Section 115/1 et seq., by refusing to
compensate the Plaintiffs in a proper manner.

Farm City Meat, Inc., is an "enterprise" engaged in commerce or in
the production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez , Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


FRESH DEL MONTE: Subsidiary Accrued $2.2-Mil Reserve on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary has
accrued $2.2 million in reserve pending the outcome of its appeal
relating to the judgments for an action on unpaid wages, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 28, 2014.

In December 2007, a class action complaint was filed against one
of our subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria
Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A.,
Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon. On October
5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our subsidiary. The
court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs consistent with the
jury verdict. On January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgments. Our subsidiary is appealing the Court of
Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme Court and has accrued $2.2
million in reserve pending the outcome of the appeal.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a producer, marketer and
distributor of fruit and vegetables, as well as a producer and
distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages
and snacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The Company
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand. It
sources its fresh produce products (bananas, pineapples, melons,
tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines,
cherries, citrus, avocados, blueberries and kiwi) primarily from
Central and South America, Africa, the Philippines, North America
and Europe. The Company sources its prepared food products
primarily from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Its
products are sourced from company-owned operations, through joint
venture arrangements and through supply contracts with independent
producers. It distributes its products in North America, Europe,
Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Biggs" Suit Over Defective Ignition Switch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorie Biggs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-11912
(E.D. Mich., May 13, 2014), seeks injunctive relief in the form of
a repair to fully remedy the defects in the ignition switch system
such that the defective vehicle have their economic value restored
and can be operated safely, and/or damages to compensate them for
the diminished value of their defective vehicle as a result of the
defects and GM's wrongful conduct.

General Motors LLC, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in
Detroit, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Alyson L. Oliver, Esq.
       950 W. University Drive, Suite 200
       Rochester, MI 48307
       Telephone: (248) 327-6556
       Facsimile: (248) 436-3385
       E-mail: notifications@oliverlg.com


GIANT INTERACTIVE: Defendant in Proposed Merger Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Giant Interactive Group Inc., is a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the Company
breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 29,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "On or about March 28, 2014, we became aware
that a complaint had been filed by an alleged holder of our ADSs
against us, members of our board or directors, Giant Investment
Limited and Giant Merger Limited in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with the
proposed going private transaction, or the Proposed Merger,
contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger dated March 17,
2014. The lawsuit is a purported class action brought on behalf of
all holders of ADSs and is captioned Tripp v. Giant Interactive
Group Inc., et al. (case no. 14 CV 2177). The representative
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that each of our directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, which plaintiff alleges do not appropriately value our
company, were the result of an inadequate process overseen by
conflicted directors and include preclusive deal protection
devices. The lawsuit also claims that we, Giant Investment Limited
and Giant Merger Limited aided and abetted these violations. The
complaint purports to seek, among other things, an injunction
against the consummation of the Proposed Merger and rescission in
the event that the Proposed Merger is consummated prior to the
entry of the court's final judgment, an award of unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts'
fees and expenses, and such other equitable relief that the court
deems just and proper.

"On or about April 14, 2014, we became aware that another class
action complaint captioned Palkon v. Giant Interactive Group Inc.,
et al (case no. 14 CV 2556) was filed on behalf of all holders of
ADSs in the same court against us, our directors, Giant Investment
Limited and Giant Merger Limited alleging that each of our
directors breached fiduciary duties by not appropriately valuing
our Company in connection with the proposed going private
transaction and that we, Giant Investment Limited and Giant Merger
Limited aided and abetted these alleged violations. On or about
April 22, 2014, we became aware that a third class action
complaint captioned Sutherland, et al. v. Giant Interactive Group
Inc., et al (case no. 14 CV 2826) was filed on behalf of all
holders of ADSs in the same court against us, our directors, Giant
Investment Limited, Giant Merger Limited, Baring Private Equity
Asia and Hony Capital Fund V, L.P., alleging that the proxy
statement filed by us in connection with the proposed going
private transaction is materially false and misleading and
therefore violates Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. We and our board of directors believe that the claims in
these three complaints are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously.

"One of the conditions to the closing of the Proposed Merger is
that no final order by a court or other governmental entity shall
be in effect that prohibits the consummation of the Proposed
Merger or that makes the consummation of the merger illegal. As
such, if the representative plaintiff is successful in obtaining
an injunction prohibiting the defendants from completing the
Proposed Merger on the agreed-upon terms and such injunction has
not been reversed and is non-appealable, then such injunction may
prevent the Proposed Merger from becoming effective, or from
becoming effective within the expected timeframe. The outcome of
this lawsuit is uncertain. An adverse judgment for monetary
damages could have an adverse effect on our operations and
liquidity. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the Proposed Merger, and an adverse judgment
granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin
completion of the Proposed Merger.

Giant Interactive Group Inc. is an online game developer and
operator in China. It focuses on massively multiplayer online role
playing games (MMORPG) that are played through networked game
servers, in which a number of players are able to simultaneously
connect and interact. The Company operates 11 online games, among
which nine are self-developed, including the five games in the
Zheng Tu (ZT) Online Series.


GLOBAL GEOPHYSICAL: Defendant in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Global Geophysical Services Inc., is a defendant in putative class
actions alleging violations of the Securities Act, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

On March 20, 2014, a lawsuit styled Britt Miller, et al. v. Global
Geophysical Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-
00708, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On March 21, 2014, a
lawsuit styled Janice S. Gibson v. Global Geophysical Services,
Inc., et al., No. 4:14-CV-0735, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division. On April 3, 2014, a lawsuit styled Leslie Trinin v. P.
Matthew Verghese, et al., No. 4:14-CV-00873, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division. The cases were filed as putative class actions.
The Miller Complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 21, 2010 to
March 18, 2014, and purchasers of the Depositary Shares purchased
in, or traceable to, the Company's registration statement of
December 3, 2013. The Gibson Complaint is filed on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
February 7, 2011 to March 17, 2014. The Trinin Complaint is filed
on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of Depositary
Shares purchased in, or traceable to, the Company's registration
statement of December 3, 2014. The named defendants in the Trinin
case are certain officers and directors of the Company, and MLV
Co. and National Securities Corporation, the alleged underwriters
of the Company's December 3, 2013 offering of Depositary Shares.
The Company is not a party to the Trinin case.

Plaintiffs in these cases collectively allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, resulting in damages to members of the
putative classes. The Company intends to vigorously defend these
actions.

Global Geophysical Services, Inc. (Global), provides an integrated
suite of seismic data solutions to the global oil and gas
industry, including Global's RG-3D Reservoir Grade (RG3D) seismic
solutions.


GREENSMOOTHIEGIRL: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
------------------------------------------------------------
GreenSmoothieGirl is voluntarily recalling two products which
contain Organic Sprouted Chia Powder due to possible health risks
related to Salmonella contamination.

Company CEO, Robyn Openshaw, states, "To date, there have been no
reports of sickness traced back to our products, but we have
chosen to exert the utmost level of caution in this situation to
protect the health and well-being of our customers. We are,
therefore, voluntarily recalling products that contain organic
sprouted chia powder."

The affected products include:

    GreenSmoothieGirl Sprouted Ground TriOmega Superfood, 16 oz,
UPC 853811005036 with lot number AC030141, Exp. 1/2016 (Silver
Ziplock Pouch)

    GreenSmoothieGirl Sprouted Ground TriOmega Superfood, 16 oz,
no UPC, with lot number BIO13TOP300, Exp. 10/2015 (Gold Ziplock
Pouch)

The lot numbers associated with the recall were distributed in
retail stores in UT, OR, MT and directly to consumers throughout
the US via GreenSmoothieGirl.com.

The company is committed to resolving this recall quickly and
efficiently. "GreenSmoothieGirl is committed to providing quality
products to consumers and we stand by that commitment in issuing
this recall. We do not take the health of our valued customers
lightly," Openshaw said.

Consumers who have purchased this item and have unopened or
partially used packages are encouraged to discontinue any use of
the product and return it to the store where originally purchased.
Consumers who have questions or who purchased directly from
GreenSmoothieGirl are encouraged to contact the company via the
dedicated recall email provided below.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

For more information visit GreenSmoothieGirl.com.

Email -- gsgchiarecall2014@gmail.com

Recall Hotline -- 435-625-1596


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Medical Record Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Bowden, writing for Iowa Public Radio, reports that a class-
action lawsuit that could involve thousands of Iowans has been
filed against HealthPort Technologies.

The Georgia-based company is a medical records and billings
statement provider.  The suit alleges HealthPort overcharges
costumers for duplications of their medical records and billing
statements.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs is James Bisconglia of the
Des Moines law firm LaMarca & Landry.  Mr. Bisconglia says that
Iowa Code limits the amount a consumer can be charged for a
records request.

"For example . . . regardless of whether or not you request one
page or five pages, they regularly charge $20.  But the amount
that is to be charges, is supposed to be based on the actual cost
of reproduction."  Mr. Biscoglia also says HealthPort charges for
electronic delivery, which is not legal in Iowa.

Iowa is one of several states in which class-action suits have
been filed against HealthPort.  Most recently suits were filed in
New York and New Jersey for improperly billing costumers.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Federal Court Remands Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court on September 27, 2013, remanded back to state
court the securities fraud lawsuit against HealthSouth Corporation
seeking, among other things, certification as a class action,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed March 28, 2003, by several individual stockholders
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned
Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some
of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in
a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for
discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the
Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 9, 2010, to which we responded with a motion
to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010.

"During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us.
Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth
and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12,
2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request
certification as a class action. One of those named officers has
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court,
most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to
remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On
September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to
state court.
"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on
the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and
circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying
claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and
scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an
adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it
is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or
range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment
or settlement of this case."

HealthSouth Corporation is an owner and operator of inpatient
rehabilitation hospitals. As of December 31, 2011, the Company
operated 99 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals (including three
hospitals that operate as joint ventures), 26 outpatient
rehabilitation satellite clinics (operated by its hospitals,
including one joint venture satellite), and 25 licensed, hospital-
based home health agencies.


HIGHER ONE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Higher One Holdings, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Connecticut, and docketed under 3:14-cv-00755,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Higher One securities between
August 7, 2012 and May 12, 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 Higher One securities
during the Class Period, you have until July 28, 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.

Higher One provides technology-based refund disbursement, payment
processing, and data analytics services to higher education
institutions and students in the United States.  Some of the
services it offers include FDIC-insured online checking accounts
to students, as well as faculty, staff, and alumni; a debit
MasterCard ATM card; and OneAccount Premier and OneAccount Edge
for primary account usage.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that:  (i) the Company's marketing and disclosure
practices were in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act;
(ii) the Company's allegedly improper marketing and disclosure
practices would subject Higher One to potential restitution
demands and civil penalties; and (iii) the amounts of potential
restitution demands and civil penalties could reach levels that
would cause an event of default under the Company's Credit
Facility.

On May 12, 2014, in a Form 10-Q filed with the SEC announcing its
financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2014, the
Company disclosed that it is facing penalties from the Federal
Reserve over alleged violations tied to its marketing of a debit
account for financial aid refunds.  According to the filing, such
penalties could trigger a default on the Company's Credit
Facility.

On the news, Higher One shares fell $0.90, or over 14% on heavy
trading volume, to close at $5.51 on May 13, 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.


HONG KONG EXCHANGES: To Contest Class Action Over Zinc Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Burton, writing for Reuters, reports that Hong Kong
Exchanges and Clearing Ltd. said it will contest a class action
alleging it and others artificially inflated zinc prices, adding
to a growing legal battle that has so far centered on aluminium.

Duncan Galvanizing, one of the oldest galvanizers in the United
States, accused the Hong Kong bourse and its units the London
Metal Exchange (LME) and LME Holdings Ltd., alongside Goldman
Sachs Group Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co and metal warehouse
operators, of conspiring since 2010 to manipulate the U.S. zinc
price.

"HKEx and LME management's initial assessment is that lawsuit is
without merit and HKEx and subsidiaries will contest it
vigorously," the Hong Kong Exchange said in a release.

The zinc lawsuit opens up a new legal front and signals the
possibility of mounting expenses for the Hong Kong bourse
following its costly $2.2 billion purchase of the LME in 2012.

HKEx's earnings took a hit from legal fees in the first quarter,
with operating expenses related to its commodities division -- the
LME -- up by $42 million, partly due to legal fees for U.S. class
action lawsuits and a judicial review in Britain.

The latest suit, registered in the Southern District of New York,
is the first to include allegations over the impact of warehousing
on the smaller, niche zinc market.  Zinc is used to coat steel to
protect against corrosion.

Some of the same counsel representing aluminium buyers that have
lodged class actions are involved in the zinc lawsuits, HKEx said.

"In light of the class action nature of the complaints, HKEx
understands that it is not uncommon for additional follow-on
lawsuits of a similar nature to be filed in the United States once
a class action has commenced," it said.

HKEx may not make further announcements each time it becomes aware
of similar lawsuits unless there is significant new information
regarding the claim, it said.


IBM CORP: Defendant in Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation is a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit alleging violations to the
Securities Exchange Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

In December 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
related to the company's third-quarter 2013 financial results
disclosure. The company, its Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer, and a former Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the company are named as defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Section 20(a) and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) is an
information technology (IT) company. IBM operates in five
segments: Global Technology Services (GTS), Global Business
Services (GBS), Software, Systems and Technology and Global
Financing. GTS primarily provides IT infrastructure services and
business process services. GBS provides professional services and
application management services. Software consists primarily of
middleware and operating systems software. Systems and Technology
provides clients with business solutions requiring advanced
computing power and storage capabilities. Global Financing invests
in financing assets, leverages with debt and manages the
associated risks. In May 2014, the Company acquired Silverpop, a
privately held software company based in Atlanta, Ga.


K12 INC: Defendant in Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
A securities class-action lawsuit was filed by the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension & Retirement System against K12 Inc.,
alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to disclose
material facts about its enrollment and revenue growth prospects
for fiscal 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On January 30, 2014, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. K12 Inc., et
al., was filed against the Company, four of its officers and
directors, and a former officer, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension & Retirement System v. K12, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-108-
AJT-JFA (the "Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint"). The plaintiff
purports to represent a class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired K12 common stock between March 11, 2013 and
October 9, 2013, inclusive, and alleges violations by the
defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Oklahoma Firefighters
Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false or misleading statements of material fact, or failed to
disclose material facts, about (i) the Company's enrollment and
revenue growth prospects for fiscal 2014, and (ii) the Company's
compliance with state regulations governing enrollment. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The
Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims asserted
in the Oklahoma Firefighters Complaint.

K12 Inc. (K12) is a technology-based education company. K12 offers
curriculum, software systems and educational services designed to
facilitate individualized learning for students primarily in
kindergarten through 12th grade, or K-12. The Company provides a
continuum of technology-based educational products and solutions
to districts, public schools, private schools, charter schools and
families. Its products include Curriculum, Pre-K and K-8 Courses,
Online School Platform-Learning Management System, High School
Courses, Innovative Learning Applications, School Management
Systems and PEAK12. Its managed public schools includes Full-time
virtual schools and Blended schools, which includes Flex schools,
Passport schools, Discovery schools and Other blended schools. Its
international and private pay business includes Managed private
schools, The Keystone School, George Washington University Online
HS, K12 International Academy, IS Berne, WEB and Independent
course sales (Consumer).


KINDER MORGAN: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over CapEx Allocation
----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., on March 3, 2014, moved to
dismiss a putative class action alleging, among other things, that
the Company made a bad faith allocation of capital expenditures to
expansion capital expenditures, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On February 5, 2014, a putative class action and derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware (Case No. 9318) against defendants KMI, KMGP and nominal
defendant KMEP. The suit was filed by Jon Slotoroff, a purported
unitholder of KMEP, and seeks to assert claims both individually
and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders
of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the
date of the filing of the suit. The suit alleges direct and
derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership
agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other
things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith
allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions
and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions
to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond amounts that would
have been distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation
of maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified
monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees. On
March 3, 2014, nominal defendant KMEP and defendants KMI and KMGP
moved to dismiss this suit. Defendants believe that this suit is
without merit and intend to defend it vigorously.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP) is a pipeline
transportation and energy storage company in North America.  The
Company operates in five business segments: Products Pipelines,
Natural Gas Pipelines, carbon dioxide (CO2), Terminals and Kinder
Morgan Canada.


KINDER MORGAN: Del. Chancery Court Consolidates Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware ordered on April 8,
2014, that a putative class action filed against Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P., on behalf of a putative class consisting of
all public holders of KMEP units, be consolidated for all purposes
with the Jon Slotoroff complaint, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On March 27, 2014, a putative class action and derivative
complaint was filed in the Chancery Court (Case No. 9479) against
defendants KMI, KMGP and nominal defendant KMEP. The suit was
filed by Darrell Burns and Terrence Zehrer, purported unitholders
of KMEP, and seeks to assert claims both individually and on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of
KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date
of the filing of the suit. The suit asserts claims and allegations
substantially similar to the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff. On April
8, 2014, the Court ordered that this suit be consolidated for all
purposes with the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff and that the caption
of the consolidated action shall be In Re Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 9318.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP) is a pipeline
transportation and energy storage company in North America.  The
Company operates in five business segments: Products Pipelines,
Natural Gas Pipelines, carbon dioxide (CO2), Terminals and Kinder
Morgan Canada.


KINDER MORGAN: Texas Court Stays "Walker" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
A Texas state court on April 9, 2014, stayed a putative class
action filed by Kenneth Walker until Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P.'s motion to dismiss the Jon Slotoroff is decided,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No.
2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against KMI, KMGP, KMR,
Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L.
Hultquist and Perry M. Waughtal. The suit was filed by Kenneth
Walker, a purported unit holder of KMP, and alleges direct and
derivative causes of action for alleged violation of duties owed
under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of control" and "gross
mismanagement" in connection with the calculation of distributions
and allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures and maintenance capital expenditures. The suit seeks
unspecified money damages, interest, punitive damages, attorney
and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified equitable relief,
and demands a trial by jury. Defendants believe that this suit is
without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. On April 9,
2014, the Court entered an order staying the case until the
defendants' motion to dismiss is decided in the suit filed by Jon
Slotoroff.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP) is a pipeline
transportation and energy storage company in North America. The
Company operates in five business segments: Products Pipelines,
Natural Gas Pipelines, carbon dioxide (CO2), Terminals and Kinder
Morgan Canada.


KRAFT FOODS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Montgomery" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gordon J. Quist denied a motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned PAMELA MONTGOMERY, on
behalf of Herself and for the Benefit of All with the Common or
General Interest, Any Persons Injured, and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00149, (W.D. Mich.).

Ms. Montgomery filed this action against Kraft Foods Global Inc.
(Kraft) and Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks), asserting claims
under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), M.C.L. Section
445.903. Plaintiff sought certification of a class of Michigan
residents that purchased Tassimo brewers in Michigan between
November 1, 2010 and February 20, 2012.

According to Judge Quist, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
that the materiality of the statements at issue could be shown by
common evidence, or that damages could be determined on a class-
wide basis. Moreover, the Court found that the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that members of the proposed class suffered the same
injury. Thus, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to
satisfy the "demanding" criterion of Rule 23(b), and that the
motion for class certification must be denied.

A copy of the District Court's May 9, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/gJ6t6Nfrom Leagle.com.

Pamela Montgomery, plaintiff, represented by Peter W. Macuga, II
-- PMacuga@mldclassaction.com -- Macuga Liddle & Dubin PC &
Timothy H. McCarthy, Jr. -- tim@mccarthy-group.net -- The McCarthy
Law Group PC.

Kraft Foods Global, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, defendant,
represented by Christopher James Schneider --
schneiderc@millerjohnson.com -- Miller Johnson PLC, Craig H.
Lubben -- lubbenc@millerjohnson.com -- Miller Johnson PLC, Dean
Nicholas Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Richard
P. Steinken -- rsteinken@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Thalia
L. Myrianthopoulos -- tmyrianthopoulos@jenner.com -- Jenner &
Block LLP.

Starbucks Corporation, a Washington Corporation, defendant,
represented by Aaron M. Panner -- apanner@khhte.com -- Kellogg
Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC, Caitlin S. Hall --
chall@khhte.com -- Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC &
Edward P. Perdue -- eperdue@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC.


LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in Unfair Business Practices Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed that it is a
defendant of a putative class action lawsuit alleging, among other
things, that the Company committed unlawful and unfair business
practices, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical
laboratory company in the United States. Through a national
network of laboratories, the Company offers a range of testing
services used by the medical profession in routine testing,
patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease.
In addition, it has developed specialty and niche operations based
on certain types of specialized testing capabilities and client
requirements, such as oncology testing, human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and
clinical research trials. It processes tests on approximately
470,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory
testing services in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore
and three provinces in Canada.


LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in DNA Preservation Complaint in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit alleging failure to preserve DNA
samples allegedly entrusted to the Company, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Ann Baker Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation and
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to preserve DNA samples
allegedly entrusted to the Defendants and thereby breached a
written agreement with Plaintiff and violated state laws. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual, double and treble
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal
expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical
laboratory company in the United States. Through a national
network of laboratories, the Company offers a range of testing
services used by the medical profession in routine testing,
patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease.
In addition, it has developed specialty and niche operations based
on certain types of specialized testing capabilities and client
requirements, such as oncology testing, human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and
clinical research trials. It processes tests on approximately
470,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory
testing services in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore
and three provinces in Canada.


LABORATORY CORP: Defendant in TCPA Complaint in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings alleging that the Company violated
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
for each violation, subject to trebling under TCPA, and injunctive
relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical
laboratory company in the United States. Through a national
network of laboratories, the Company offers a range of testing
services used by the medical profession in routine testing,
patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease.
In addition, it has developed specialty and niche operations based
on certain types of specialized testing capabilities and client
requirements, such as oncology testing, human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and
clinical research trials. It processes tests on approximately
470,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory
testing services in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore
and three provinces in Canada.


LABORATORY CORP: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss "Andres" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court granted on March 24, 2014, Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings' motion to dismiss Andres lawsuit relating to
overtime pay, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on April
29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay.
After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and
the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated
lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated
phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code. On March 24, 2014,
the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss due to technical
deficiencies in the pleading of the Plaintiffs' claims, but
granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to cure the defects. Plaintiffs
have subsequently filed an amended complaint. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical
laboratory company in the United States. Through a national
network of laboratories, the Company offers a range of testing
services used by the medical profession in routine testing,
patient diagnosis, and in the monitoring and treatment of disease.
In addition, it has developed specialty and niche operations based
on certain types of specialized testing capabilities and client
requirements, such as oncology testing, human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) genotyping and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics and
clinical research trials. It processes tests on approximately
470,000 patient specimens daily and provides clinical laboratory
testing services in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, China, Singapore
and three provinces in Canada.


LITTLE BIG: Former Employees File Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Wright, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that two
former employees of the Portland-based Little Big Burger
restaurant chain have filed a class action lawsuit against the
business and its owners, alleging that they do not pay time-and-a-
half for overtime hours worked, in violation of state and federal
labor law.

Corbyn Vance and Logan Vance, who previously worked for the
chain's restaurant outlet on Orchard Street in Eugene, filed the
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Eugene.  They said they filed
the lawsuit on behalf of other current and former employees in
addition to themselves.

The lawsuit names the Little Big Burger chain, as well as owners
Micah Camden and Katherine Poppe, as defendants.

Joseph Durkee of Portland, attorney for Little Big Burger, said
the company denies the allegations in the lawsuit.  He said the
restaurant chain "prides itself on treating its employees well
(and) beneficially serving the communities in which it operates."

In addition to the overtime pay complaint, the lawsuit alleges
that Logan Vance was wrongfully fired from his job in March after
he complained about the company's pay practices in January.  A
general manager with whom Vance raised the issue responded by
stating that Little Big Burger "does not pay overtime," the
lawsuit alleges.

The class action suit seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wages for the Vances and other employees.  The lawsuit says the
company's policy violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as Oregon wage and hour laws.  No specific dollar amount is
sought, with any damages to be decided by a jury at trial.

Logan Vance also seeks job reinstatement and back pay, according
to the lawsuit. He has suffered emotional distress, humiliation
and loss of future earning capacity as a result of his
termination, the suit says.

The lawsuit indicates that the Vances both worked at the
restaurant for three years.  Corbyn Vance was employed as a cook
and cashier, and Logan Vance's position is not noted. The lawsuit
identifies the Vances as Deschutes County residents.

Little Big Burger is preparing to open its seventh eatery in
Portland this summer.  Poppe and Camden own several other
restaurant interests in Portland, including a fried chicken outlet
and a pair of doughnut shops.


MICHAELS STORES: Challenges Class Certification Order
-----------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is challenging the class certification
order certifying a class of approximately 200 members of a class
action alleging, among other things, breach of California's unfair
competition law, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on
April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2014.

The Company states: "On September 15, 2011, the Company was served
with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for
the County of Orange ("Superior Court") by four former store
managers as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and
certain former and current store managers employed by Michaels in
California. The lawsuit alleges that the Company stores improperly
classified its store managers as exempt employees and as such
failed to pay all wages, overtime, waiting time penalties and
failed to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also
alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws,
including California's unfair competition law. On December 3,
2013, the Superior Court entered an Order certifying a class of
approximately 200 members. The Company subsequently successfully
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and is challenging the class
certification order. We believe we have meritorious defenses and
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe the
resolution of the lawsuit will have a material effect on our
Consolidated Financial Statements."

Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer
owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US
and Canada.  Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art
and hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and
seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10
private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft
Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron
Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other
states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and
molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores,
owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed
to go public.


MICHAELS STORES: Defendant in Five Data Security Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is a defendant in five putative class
actions relating to its recent Data Breach, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 1, 2014.

The Company states: "Five putative class actions were filed
relating to our recent Data Breach. The plaintiffs generally
allege that the Company failed to secure and safeguard customers'
private information including credit and debit card information
and as such, breached an implied contract, violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act (and other states' similar laws) and are
seeking damages including declaratory relief, actual damages,
punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, litigation
costs, remedial action, pre and post judgment interest, other
relief as available. The cases, are as follows: Christina Moyer v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and
Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29,
2014; Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was
filed on February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., was filed on March 14, 2014. All four of these cases were
filed in the United States District Court-Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division. A case, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on March 18, 2014, but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014, without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014,
an order was entered consolidating the current actions. We believe
we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.

"In addition, payment card companies and associations may require
us to reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to
replace cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection
with the Data Breach, and enforcement authorities may also impose
fines or other remedies against us. We have also incurred other
costs associated with the Data Breach, including legal fees,
investigative fees, costs of communications with customers and
credit monitoring services provided to our customers.  In
addition, state and federal agencies, including the State
Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission may investigate
events related to the Data Breach, including how it occurred, its
consequences and our responses. Although we intend to cooperate in
these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other
obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate
our business and our results of operations.

"While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because our
investigation into the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain
in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified,
there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes
being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified,
and there are significant factual and legal issues to be
resolved."

Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer
owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US
and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and
hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and
seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10
private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft
Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron
Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other
states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and
molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores,
owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed
to go public.


MICHAELS STORES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 11
---------------------------------------------------------
A final Fairness Hearing is set for July 11, 2014, in connection
with Michaels Stores, Inc.'s settlement agreement with plaintiffs
in the purported class actions alleging that the Company
unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable
information, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April
29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2014.

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego ("San Diego Superior Court"),
on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated California
consumers. The Carson lawsuit alleges that the Company unlawfully
requested and recorded personally identifiable information (i.e.,
her zip code) as part of a credit card transaction. The plaintiff
seeks statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.
On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled, in a
similar matter, Williams-Sonoma v. Pineda case, that zip codes are
personally identifiable information and therefore the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act of 1971, as amended ("Song Act"), prohibits
businesses from requesting or requiring zip codes in connection
with a credit card transaction.

Subsequent to the California Supreme Court decision, three
additional purported class action lawsuits, seeking similar
relief, have been filed against the Company: Carolyn Austin v.
Michaels Stores, Inc. and Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
both in the San Diego Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v.
Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, Central Division. An order coordinating the cases
has been entered and plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on
April 24, 2012. The parties settled the lawsuit for an amount that
will not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial
Statements. On February 14, 2014, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement and a final Fairness Hearing
is set for July 11, 2014.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer
owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US
and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and
hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and
seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10
private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft
Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron
Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other
states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and
molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores,
owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed
to go public.


MICHAELS STORES: Final Settlement Hearing in Privacy Suit Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final Fairness Hearing was set for May 20, 2014, in connection
with a purported class action lawsuit against Michaels Stores,
Inc., alleging violation of a Massachusetts statute regarding the
collection of personally identification information, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 1, 2014.

Relying in part on the California Supreme Court decision, a
purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2011 against
the Company, Melissa Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court-District of Massachusetts, alleging violation of a
Massachusetts statute regarding the collection of personally
identification information in connection with a credit card
transaction. An additional purported class action lawsuit
asserting the same allegations was filed in the U.S. District
Court-District of Massachusetts by Susan D'Esposito, and the two
cases were consolidated. On August 12, 2013, a settlement was
reached for an amount that will not have a material effect on our
Consolidated Financial Statements. On February 12, 2014, the Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement and a final
Fairness Hearing is set for May 20, 2014.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer
owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US
and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and
hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and
seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10
private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft
Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron
Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other
states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and
molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores,
owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed
to go public.


MICHAELS STORES: Defendant in Pricing & Promotion Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action alleging that Michaels Stores, Inc.,
advertised discounts on its framing products and/or services
without actually providing a discount to its customers, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 1, 2014.

The Company states: "On April 30, 2012, William J. Henry, a
consumer, filed a purported class action proceeding against the
Company in the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, on behalf
of himself and all similarly-situated Ohio consumers who purchased
framing products and/or services from Michaels during weeks where
Michaels was advertising a discount for framing products and/or
services. The lawsuit alleges that Michaels advertised discounts
on its framing products and/or services without actually providing
a discount to its customers. The plaintiff is claiming violation
of Ohio law ORC 1345.01 et seq., unjust enrichment and fraud. The
plaintiff has alleged damages, penalties and fees not to exceed $5
million, exclusive of interest and costs. We believe we have
meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
We do not believe the resolution of this lawsuit will have a
material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements."

Michaels Stores, Inc., is the nation's #1 arts and crafts retailer
owns and operates more than 1,000 Michaels Stores across the US
and Canada. Michaels sells some 36,000 products, including art and
hobby supplies, decor, frames, needlecraft kits, party and
seasonal products, and silk and dried flowers. It also offers 10
private brands, including Artist's Loft, Art Minds, and Craft
Smart. It provides framing and art supplies though some 120 Aaron
Brothers stores in California, Texas, and half a dozen other
states. The company's Artistree subsidiary manufactures frames and
molding for Michaels and Aaron Brothers stores. Michaels Stores,
owned by Bain Capital Partners and The Blackstone Group, has filed
to go public.


MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Tucker, v. Mitsubishi International Corporation, Case No.
4:14-cv-01318 (S.D. Tex., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, including overtime wages, owed to all hourly employees
nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mitsubishi International Corporation has a place of business at
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3500, Houston, TX 77010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nitin Sud, Esq.
      SUD LAW P.C.
      4545 Mount Vernon St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (832) 623-6420
      Facsimile: (832) 304-2552
      E-mail: nsud@nitinsud.com


MR FLUFFY: Canberra Families Mull Asbestos Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that more
than 120 Canberra families living in homes affected by Mr. Fluffy
asbestos have joined a new lobby group -- a precursor to a
possible class action -- to urgently address health concerns and
financial losses posed by their homes.

Homeowners also want the ACT government to crack down on the
licensing and work practices of asbestos assessors and removalists
in the light of mounting evidence some unscrupulous operators were
preying on Mr. Fluffy families -- undertaking incorrect and
expensive procedures.

At least two operators are offering to "test" for asbestos by
smoking the roof at a cost of about $1200.  Others were conducting
visual inspections when Mr. Fluffy homes require dust samples to
be analyzed in a laboratory to determine the presence of amosite
asbestos.

The Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group, launched by
affected homeowner Brianna Heseltine, has received more than
10,000 hits to its website since it went live.  Ms. Heseltine
discovered in April that the newly renovated home she was living
in with her husband, three-year-old son and newborn was a Mr.
Fluffy property.  Tests confirmed remnant amosite asbestos in the
ducted gas heating system, which has since been sealed.

Ms. Heseltine said she was not prepared to go silently on the
issue and has come out as the public face of Mr. Fluffy
homeowners.  She had been inundated with calls and emails from
hundreds of the 1050 affected families and was also in close
communication with lawyers advising the group on a potential class
action.

Ms. Heseltine said the first private meeting of homeowners took
place on May 26 and had gone for nearly four hours.  She said
there was an outpouring of questions and concerns over the shock
of discovering homes were still affected by Mr. Fluffy, 20 years
after a $100 million federal clean-up program.

"Our diverse group includes young families, people in their 80s,
recent purchasers and long-standing owners who installed the
asbestos insulation without knowing the grave risk.  Members were
relieved to be able to come together in a private forum to finally
express their fears and concerns over the potential health
exposure issues that have long hung over some families," she said.

"These families are dealing with the knowledge that they face
financial uncertainty at the least, and possible financial ruin at
the worst.  More disturbing is the level of fear over health.
Asbestos exposure and financial ruin produced a powerful
undercurrent in the room."

But Ms. Heseltine said there were focused discussions about how
the group will seek action from the ACT and federal governments.

"While we have been shaken by our circumstances, we are motivated
and confident that we can move this issue forward after 20 years
of inaction," she said.

With ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe having placed
prohibition orders on at least a dozen homes with the most serious
contamination over the past three months, Ms. Heseltine said there
was increasing anger over the ACT government's silence on the
issue and the lack of emergency financial support for families who
were locked out of their homes.  She was seeking a meeting with
Attorney-General and Work Safety Minister Simon Corbell this week.

"It is fair to say there are growing levels of frustration over
the continued ACT government silence on this issue.  We are
hearing about levies for a light rail system while we have
families with young children living in hotels."

There was also growing dissatisfaction with the ACT government's
oversight of the asbestos industry.

"Owners have identified training and accreditation, absence of
standard operating procedures for sampling, and variable pricing
as three key concerns," Ms. Heseltine said.

Mr. Corbell's office confirmed the Environment and Sustainable
Development Directorate was investigating at least two class A
licensed asbestos assessors who failed to pick up the presence of
loose amosite falling down the back of wardrobes in children's
bedrooms.

The Construction Occupations Registrar was also reviewing the
mandatory qualifications for all of the 11 construction
occupations and 50 construction occupations classes, including
those relating to asbestos work.

A spokesman said that while the review was industry-wide, the
directorate "would consider investigations and recent issues"
during its deliberations.


NAVITAS NATURALS: Expands Recall for Organic Sprouted Chia Powder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navitas Naturals(R), the Superfood Company(TM), announced an
expansion of its voluntary and precautionary recall to include
additional expiration dates of products containing Organic
Sprouted Chia Powder, due to the possible presence of Salmonella.

"Based on investigations by FDA and California Department of
Public Health, one of our suppliers Health Matters America Inc.
has expanded their recall of Chia products. As a result, we are
expanding our voluntary recall to include a broader date range of
products. Our business depends on providing safe and healthy food
and we will not take chances with our consumer's wellbeing.
Because of this priority, in an abundance of caution, we have
deliberately and voluntarily expanded this recall" stated Zach
Adelman, Chief Executive Officer of Navitas Naturals. Based on
information from CDC we are not aware of any reported illnesses
associated with the products included in this expanded date range.

The affected products were distributed nationally and include:

    Navitas Naturals Organic Sprouted Chia Powder, 8oz, UPC
858847000369 all best by dates up to and including 11/22/2015

    Navitas Naturals Omega Blend Sprouted Smoothie Mix, 8oz, UPC
858847000314 all best by dates up to and including 11/05/2015

    Williams-Sonoma Omega 3 Smoothie Mixer, 8 oz, SKU 506436 all
best by dates up to and including OC 2015

No other Navitas Naturals products are affected by this recall.

"We are continuing to work hand-in-hand with the FDA and
California Department of Public Health. We take our responsibility
to consumers very seriously and we are taking immediate actions
within our supply chain and with our own quality assurance
protocols to ensure this does not happen again" stated Adelman.

Consumers who have purchased either of these products are urged to
not eat the products, and to dispose of them or return them to the
store where they were originally purchased.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella
often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses.

Customers with questions or who would like product replacements or
refunds may contact 888-886-3879.

For more information and latest update on this issue -- last
update posted Tuesday June 3, 2014 -- see http://is.gd/XzovG0


NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Final Submissions Due in Moose Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that final submissions were set to be
presented in the Newfoundland Supreme Court trial division on
May 27 for the plaintiffs and defense in a moose-vehicle collision
class action trial.

The trial began in early April and questions whether the
Newfoundland and Labrador government is negligent in not doing
enough to prevent deaths and injury due to moose-vehicle
collisions, since it introduced the non-native animal to the
province many years ago.

The lawyers for the class of plaintiffs are Ches Crosbie and
Jessica Dellow.  Defense lawyers are Peter Ralph and David Rogers,
while hearing the case is Justice Robert Stack.

Mr. Crosbie said in a news release this is the biggest road injury
lawsuit ever.  The team at Ches Crosbie Barristers handles mostly
individual injury claims resulting from road accidents.
Spectators are welcomed to attend to observe the final arguments.


NY 99: New York Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marino Rodriguez, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. NY 99 Super Discount, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-03011 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and cost pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201, et seq.

NY 99 Super Discount, Inc., is a State of New York corporation
located at 113-07 Liberty Avenue, South Richmond Hill, New York
11419.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCEAN SPRAY: Recalls Limited Quantity of 8-ounce Greek Yogurt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Spray has taken the precautionary measure of voluntarily
recalling two production lots of Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt
Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries because the products may
contain yogurt covered peanuts. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The following 8-ounce pouches of Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt
Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries are part of this recall:

    UPC # 31200 03719
    Best By Dates Feb 10, 2015 and Feb 11, 2015

The products were distributed to retail stores in the following
states: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

We received three consumer complaints that the product contained
peanuts, but no associated illnesses were reported.

The recalled products were produced by a co-packer in Chicago and
no other Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried
Cranberries or Ocean Spray(R) products are affected by the recall.
Our co-packer has reported some yogurt covered peanuts have been
packaged along with Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered
Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries on two production dates in February.
Ocean Spray has worked with the co-packer to identify the issue
and we're confident that this is an isolated incident and the
problem has been corrected.

Although the packaging does contain a warning that the product is
made on equipment that also processes nuts, Ocean Spray issued the
voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution to ensure the
safety of our consumers. This recall affects a very small amount
of our Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried
Cranberries and we have not received any reports of allergic
reactions.

If you purchased Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R)
Dried Cranberries with the above UPC code and sell by dates and
have a concern about peanut allergies, please save or take a
picture of the UPC label and best by date and contact the Ocean
Spray Consumer Hotline at 1-800-662-3263, weekdays 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, for a coupon replacement. Please
then destroy the product.


OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Kirkland Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper
------------------------------------------------------------
Olde Thompson Inc. Oxnard, CA is recalling to the consumer level
Kirkland Signature Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic
Jars with a Best Before date of 03/2017 and Lot #: OT 065099, OT
065169, OT 065254, OT 065255, OT 065256, and OT 065284, due to
possible contamination by Salmonella. This recall is being
undertaken with the knowledge of the FDA.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses.

The recalled product is identified and distributed as follows:

Kirkland Signature Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic
Jars UPC code: 096619164998

Sold exclusively at Costco Wholesale Club nationwide between April
4, 2014 and June 4, 2014

The recall affects 5,153 cases of recalling Kirkland Signature
Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic Jars with a Best
Before date of 03/2017 and Lot #: OT 065099, OT 065169, OT 065254,
OT 065255, OT 065256, and OT 065284 located below the back label.

The bacterium was discovered during routine FDA sampling of
consumer products.

If you have the recalled product, please do not consume it. Please
dispose of the recalled product and its container.

Customers who have purchased these products and have any questions
should contact an Olde Thompson Customer Care Representative at
1-844-568-5555 between the hours of 8:30AM and 8:00PM CST.


ONTARIO: Ottawa Woman Joins Class Action Over Foster Home Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gillis, writing for Ottawa Sun, reports that an Ottawa woman
joined a proposed class action, alleging abuse at a foster home.

At five years old, Carole Chretien-Rankin was taken from her
family in Lowertown -- she's never known why, she says -- and
simply vanished.  Soon after she was taken to the Orleans home
with a brood of biological and foster kids, her foster mother
threw out her favorite dress, cropped her long, dark hair and gave
her a different name.  Then, she alleges, she was pushed, slapped,
punched and spat on, strapped until she couldn't sit down and
molested by a foster brother, lured with the promise of pizza --
an unheard-of treat.  Told she was so worthless even her own
parents didn't want her, she was forced to cook and clean instead
of playing like other kids, Ms. Chretien-Rankin charges.

"I was a slave in that home," she said.

At 53, she doesn't even know how she looked as a little girl.

"I have no pictures of myself when I was young -- they never took
them," she said. "I have no memories -- it's devastating. . . .
It's like I never existed."

But now Ms. Chretien-Rankin wants to be seen and heard.  She is
one of 350 people who've come forward to join a proposed C$110-
million class action lawsuit alleging that Ontario systematically
failed to protect the legal rights of children who became Crown
wards starting in 1966.

People who were abused and neglected -- before and after being
taken into care -- could have applied for compensation from a fund
for victims of crime or through a civil suit.  But they got
nothing because the province was supposed to act as their parent
didn't make claims on their behalf, collect evidence or even tell
them they could seek the money, argued lawyer Garth Myers --
gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP, who suspects the class
action could include 40,000 or more people.

"Their lives would have changed dramatically," he said.

"They would have been able to get therapy to deal with the abuse.
A lot of these people are suffering to this day as a result of the
abuse they sustained then.

"With early intervention, they could have commenced the healing
process at an early stage."

Mr. Myers, part of the C$67-million settlement for harm suffered
by residents of three regional centers for people with
developmental disabilities, calls it "just another example of the
province failing our most vulnerable people."  None of the
allegations have been proven in court and a judge has yet to
certify a class action -- the first step.

The province has filed notice it intends to defend itself but a
spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney General declined to
comment.

Ms. Chretien-Rankin, who says she was threatened with more
beatings if she told anyone about the abuse, escaped her foster
home at 16, reclaimed her real name and became a mother of two
sons and licensed hairstylist.  She loved her job but says it
became too much as she struggled with depression, anxiety and
memory problems.  She wants the province to be accountable for the
suffering of children who were abused and urges others like her to
come forward and tell their stories, too.

"It's time for me to release the pain," she said.  "It's time for
me to heal.  It's destroyed me long enough.  I went without way
too much in my life because of fear."


ONTARIO: Prisoners Lose C$1.25MM Protest T-Shirt Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Pazzano, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that a group of
federal inmates has lost a C$1.25-million class-action lawsuit
over the right to wear protest T-shirts with upside-down Maple
Leafs to mark the annual Prisoners' Justice Day.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Barbara Conway refused to certify
the class-action lawsuit, led by two convicted murderers, and
ruled they should file a grievance with prison authorities
instead.  Although the judge found that the action met four out of
five requirements for certification, she determined that a class
action "is not the preferable procedure for resolving these
claims."

Justice Conway also struck out the inmates' claim for "misfeasance
in public office" for seizing the T-shirts as ordered in 2010 by
then-public safety minister Vic Toews.

"The substance of the inmates' claim is that the Crown breached
their Charter rights -- freedom of expression -- when it
prohibited the shirts," Justice Conway wrote.  "I am satisfied
that the grievance process has the potential to provide a "just
and effective" remedy for this claim."

Instead of filing a lawsuit, she explained that a successful
grievance would force the prison to return their shirts and revoke
the ban.

Prisoners' Justice Day, marked on Aug. 10, commemorates the deaths
of inmates inside prisons due to abuse or negligence by
correctional officials.  Since 1976, federal inmates across Canada
have recognized this day through peaceful protests, including
hunger strikes, work stoppages and letter writing.

Jason Lauzon, a "lifer" at Joyceville Prison, was involved in the
design and shipment of 400 T-shirts, which were worn by 150
inmates in 2010.  The T-shirts depicted two hands clutching jail
bars inside the inverted Maple Leaf, which is circled by barbed
wire.

Two weeks later Toews castigated the "misuse" of the national
symbol as "offensive, unacceptable and dishonorable," ordering
that the episode wouldn't be repeated.  The 150 shirts were
declared contraband and had to be surrendered within a period or
else inmates were threatened with discipline, the judge noted.

Two years later, the inmates launched a class-action lawsuit,
alleging their Charter right of freedom of expression was
violated.  The lawsuit also alleges that the prison guards'
confiscation of their shirts "amounted to trespass to chattels and
misfeasance in public office."

The two "representative plaintiffs" in the suit were Lauzon, 43,
and John Chaif, 59.  Mr. Lauzon was convicted of second-degree
murder in 1997 and is serving a life sentence.  He has spent 17
years in custody, almost all of that time in Joyceville.

Mr. Chaif, who is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder
after a 1983 conviction, has spent 31 years in custody and been in
Joyceville since '97.

Their lawyers, Shane Martinez and Davin Charney, said they will
"respectfully appeal" the court's decision.

"We're hoping (a future court ruling will) discourage the
government from engaging in this type of censorship," Mr. Martinez
said in an interview on May 27.

"The real reason for seizing the shirts because its message was
"dishonorable" and they seized, ban and censored shirts for a
political purpose, which is a denial of the inmates' Charter
rights of expression," he said.


PANDORA MEDIA: N.D. Calif. Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a complaint alleging,
among other things, that the Company unlawfully accessed and
transmitted personally identifiable information from plaintiffs'
Android mobile application, was granted in part and denied in part
on March 10, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

In June 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Pandora in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that we unlawfully accessed and
transmitted personally identifiable information of the plaintiffs
in connection with their use of our Android mobile application. In
addition to civil liability, the amended complaint includes
allegations of violations of statutes under which criminal
penalties could be imposed if we were found liable. Our motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint was granted on March 26, 2013.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in May 2013, which
contains allegations similar to those contained in the previous
complaint. On March 10, 2014, our motion to dismiss was granted in
part and denied in part.

Pandora Media, Inc. is an Internet radio in the United States.


PANDORA MEDIA: No Oral Argument Date Set for Privacy Law Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc., reported in its Form 10-Q filed on April 29,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that no date has been set
for oral argument in connection with a putative class action
lawsuit alleging that the Company violated Michigan's video rental
privacy law.

In September 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Pandora in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that we violated
Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection
statute by allowing our listeners' listening history to be visible
to the public. Our motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on
September 28, 2012, judgment was entered on November 14, 2012. The
plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. Briefing of the appeal was completed on August
2, 2013. No date has been set for oral argument.

Pandora Media, Inc. is an Internet radio in the United States.


PETITE VENICE: Faces "Straw" Action in Fla. Over Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Harry Straw, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. Petite Venice, Inc., a Florida Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:14-cv-61138 (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and cost from
the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Petite Venice, Inc., is a Florida corporation located in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Scott Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL P.A.
      300 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 617-6017
      Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: robnorell@aol.com


PGG/HSC FEED: Recalls Champion Lamb Texturized Feed B30
-------------------------------------------------------
PGG/HSC Feed Company, LLC, has implemented a voluntary recall of
50-pound packages of its Champion Lamb Texturized B30 product due
to higher than allowable copper levels. The product was
manufactured in February 2014 and carries the UPC code UPC-
748252483805 located in the bottom left corner of a white label
attached to a Payback bag with a photo of a lamb.

Consumption of the affected product, Champion Lamb Texturized feed
B30, Lot-88022114M908840, may cause potential health risks,
including death, in sheep. Symptoms of copper toxicity in lambs
include lethargy, anemic appearance, excessive teeth grinding,
extreme thirst, pale membranes (jaundice) and bloody urine. One
sheep fatality has been reported potentially in connection with
this product. The recalled product was distributed to six retail
feed dealers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

The potential presence of high copper levels was detected by
company sample tests of the product which was manufactured on Feb.
21, 2014, at its Hermiston, Ore., feed mill. The company said it
has determined the source of the high copper levels and is
revising its testing protocol.

The company has contacted affected dealers and conducted a
voluntary recall of unconsumed product which was packaged in 50-
pound bags under the Payback(R) and bore the lot label
88022114M908840.

Consumers who purchased this product and have remaining quantities
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (605)
373-2563 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CDT. Information also is
available at http://www.paybacknutrition.com/

PGG/HSC Feed is a joint venture of Pendleton Grain Growers,
Pendleton, Ore., and CHS Inc., of St. Paul, Minn.


PORTLAND GENERAL: $260MM Lawsuits Over Trojan Deal Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company reported in its Form 10-Q filed
on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that
class action lawsuits seeking damages totaling $260 million,
relating to the Company's investment in Trojan, remain pending.

In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion
County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek
damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the
Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return
on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the
abatement of the class action proceedings until the OPUC responded
to the 2002 Order. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the
OPUC has primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy
can be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or
refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that
the Company collected in prices.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon
Supreme Court.

On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the 2008
Order. Because the Oregon Supreme Court has granted the
plaintiffs' petition seeking review of that decision, and the
class actions described above remain pending, management believes
that it is reasonably possible that the regulatory proceedings and
class actions could result in a loss to the Company in excess of
the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. Because these
matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of
potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not
available to determine PGE's potential liability, if any, or to
estimate a range of potential loss.

Portland General Electric Company (PGE) is a vertically integrated
electric utility engaged in the generation, purchase,
transmission, distribution and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon.


POWERSECURE INT'L: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of
PowerSecure International, Inc., on May 27 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of a class
comprising all purchasers of PowerSecure securities between
March 10, 2014 and May 7, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888)
773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

PowerSecure provides interactive distributed generation power
systems, smart grid monitoring, peak shaving and demand response,
and standby power dispatch and control solutions to electric
utilities and their commercial, institutional and industrial
customers in the United States. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- The Company was attempting to shift resources within its
Utility Infrastructure business from certain lower-profit
assignments to higher-profit assignments.

   -- Shifting of resources was negatively impacting the Company's
operations and utility services performance.

   -- The Company was experiencing productivity losses and higher
costs within its utility services group, which were negatively
impacting the Company's gross margins.

On May 7, 2014, PowerSecure reported its financial results for its
2014 fiscal first quarter, including an adjusted loss of ($0.17)
per share.  In addition, PowerSecure disclosed that its gross
profit margin had decreased to 20.9% for the quarter, down from
30.6% for the same quarter in 2013.  According to the Company, the
decrease in its margins and earnings was attributable to
substantial shortfalls in its utility infrastructure revenue and
to the Company's failure to properly allocate resources to sustain
its margins.

As a result of this news, the price of PowerSecure shares declined
$1.90 per share, or more than 10%, to close on May 7, 2014, at
$18.60 per share, and further declined an additional $11.60 per
share, or more than 62%, to close on May 8, 2014, at $7.00 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than July 22, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael
Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York,
New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


PROSPECT CAPITAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Prospect
Capital Corporation, on May 27 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of Prospect securities between August 21, 2013 and
May 6, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888)
773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

Prospect is a financial services company that primarily lends to
and invests in middle-market privately held companies.  The
Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- Certain of Prospect's wholly owned companies were investment
companies for accounting purposes that were required to be
consolidated by the Company.

   -- Certain of Prospect's wholly owned holding companies should
have been accounted for as investment companies.

   -- The Company's reported investment income and financial
results were misstated.

   -- The Company's internal and financial controls were
inadequate.

   -- The Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 6, 2014, the Company disclosed that the staff of the
Securities and Exchange Commission has asserted that certain of
Prospect's wholly owned companies are investment companies for
accounting purposes and must be consolidated.  The Company further
disclosed that it may need to restate its prior financial
statements to resolve the issue, and that one potential effect of
a restatement would be to decrease the Company's historical net
investment income by the amount of interest and structuring income
paid by such wholly owned companies in excess of the amount of
income that may be reported as dividend income based on taxable
earnings and profits.

Following this news, the price of Prospect shares declined $0.54
per share, to a closing price of $10.20 per share on May 7, 2014,
on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve
as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about
this action, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh,
Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street,
Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail
to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 27 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. publicly traded securities
during the period between December 17, 2013 and May 22, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 27, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Provectus and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Provectus, formerly Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a
development-stage pharmaceutical company that is engaged in
developing pharmaceuticals for oncology and dermatology
indications, including PV-10, which is intended for the treatment
of several life threatening cancers, including metastatic
melanoma, liver cancer, and breast cancer.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public regarding the
prospects for PV-10.  As a result of defendants' false statements,
Provectus stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $5.22 per share on January 22,
2014.

On January 23, 2014, Adam Feuerstein published an article on
TheStreet.com alleging that Provectus management had misled
investors about the prospects for PV-10, questioning why Provectus
had not yet started its promised Phase 3 randomized controlled
trial of PV-10 and speculating that PV-10 may be obsolete in light
of new skin cancer drugs being developed.  On this news,
Provectus's stock price fell $3.35 per share to close at $1.87 per
share on January 23, 2014, a decline of nearly 64% on volume of
30.5 million shares.  On May 20, 2014, Feuerstein noted in an
article published on TheStreet.com that on its website, Provectus
had initially described its PV-10 drug as a "breakthrough" drug
for skin cancer, but had later amended its description to
"investigational."  Subsequently, on May 21, 2014, an investment
community blog on SeekingAlpha.com highlighted the failure of
Provectus to commence a Phase 3 trial of PV-10 and alleged that
the Company was tied to a stock promotion firm whose other stock
recommendations had recently had trading in their stock halted by
the SEC.  On the same day, Provectus issued a press release
refuting inaccuracies in the blog on SeekingAlpha.com.  On this
news, Provectus's stock price dropped $0.22 per share to close at
$2.02 per share on May 22, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 10%,
and on May 23, 2014, trading in Provectus stock was halted at
$2.02 per share.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Provectus publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.


QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Response to Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., answered on October 29, 2013, the
consolidated amended complaint asserting, among other things,
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On September 26, 2012, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, et al., No. SACv12-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased our
common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012. The
complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our officers
and directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the
price of our stock and enable insiders to profit through stock
sales. The complaint asserts that we and certain of our officers
and directors violated sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning
the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications
other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of
Acthar in the treatment of MS and nephrotic syndrome,
reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and our
outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief
against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated with
four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the
caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV 12-01623 DMG
(FMOx). On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted in part and
denied in part our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On October 29, 2013, we filed an answer to the
consolidated amended complaint."

Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Questcor) is a biopharmaceutical
company. The Company is focused on the treatment of patients with
serious, difficult-to-treat autoimmune and inflammatory disorders.
Its primary product is H.P. Acthar Gel (repository corticotropin
injection), or Acthar, an injectable drug that is approved by the
United States food and drug administration (FDA), for the
treatment of 19 indications.


RED ROBIN: Missouri Couple Files Hepatitis A Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
KY3 reports that a Republic, Missouri couple has filed a class-
action petition against Red Robin's parent company following last
month's hepatitis emergency.

Donald and Melinda Call filed the petition in Greene County
May 23.  The plaintiffs filed the claim because it was suggested
they receive a vaccination for hepatitis A.  They also claim the
restaurant was negligent allowing an employee with the illness to
work.  And they claim the company was negligent by not requiring
employees to get vaccinated.  On May 20, health department
officials learned of an individual who had tested positive for
hepatitis A.  That employee worked at the Red Robin in south
Springfield.

The Springfield-Greene County Health Department responded by
holding several clinics for free hepatitis A shots.  Those who
received the first shot will have to get a second shot in six
months.  A health department spokesperson expects the state of
Missouri's emergency health fund paid to pay for the vaccination
costs.

The Call family is being represented by a St. Louis Law firm.


RITE AID: Recalls 16 oz. Pints of Mint 'N Chip Thrifty Ice Cream
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid has initiated a voluntary recall of approximately 560 16
oz. pints of Mint 'n Chip ice cream distributed under the Thrifty
brand name. These pints contain pistachio ice cream with
pistachios; however, the ice cream was inadvertently placed in
containers labeled as being Mint 'n Chip. People who are allergic
to nuts, including pistachios, may run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product.

Rite Aid notified the United States Food and Drug Administration
of this issue on June 3, 2014 and will work in consultation with
it regarding this recall. This recall affects only 16 oz. Mint 'n
Chip ice cream pints sold exclusively in Rite Aid stores in
California. Affected products can be identified by the UPC code
1182264327 located on the back of each pint. The affected products
also contain the lot number 24273 and an expiration date of Oct.
28, 2015 located on the bottom of the pints. No other Thrifty or
Rite Aid brand products are affected by this voluntary recall.

Customers who are allergic to nuts, including pistachios, should
not consume these pints and can return them to any Rite Aid store
for a full refund. Information regarding the recall is available
online at www.riteaid.com or by calling 1-800-RITE-AID Monday
through Friday from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. EST and Saturday from 9:30
a.m. to 6 p.m. EST.

Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is one of the
nation's leading drugstore chains with nearly 4,600 stores in 31
states and the District of Columbia and fiscal 2014 annual
revenues of $25.5 billion.


SAFEWAY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on May 27 disclosed that
on May 23, 2014 it filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California on behalf
of all holders of Safeway Inc. common stock.  The action names as
defendants the Company, its Board of Directors, Albertson's LLC,
Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc. and Cerberus Capital
Management L.P. for, among other things, violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint arises out of a March 6, 2014 press release issued
by Safeway announcing that the individual defendants had agreed to
sell the Company to Albertson's for $32.50 per Safeway share plus
special dividends and/or CVRs related to the planned disposition
of certain of the Company's "non-core assets," estimated to be
worth $3.65 per share.  In addition, Safeway intends to distribute
the 37.8 million shares it owns in Blackhawk Network Holdings,
Inc. to shareholders in mid-April 2014.  The Blackhawk
distribution has a current value of $3.95 per Company share.  All
together, the Proposed Transaction will result in a consideration
for Safeway shareholders worth approximately $40 per share.

Several equity analysts had price targets for Safeway well above
the proposed consideration of $40 per share prior to the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction, and numerous others have
been sharply critical of the deal since it was announced.

The complaint further alleges that, in an effort to secure
shareholder approval for the Proposed Transaction, the individual
defendants filed a materially false and misleading Proxy Statement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, thereby violating
their duties of candor and full disclosure.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 14, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by
telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Greg Stone) via
e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or gstone@whafh.com or visit our
website at www.whafh.com  All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to "Safeway".


SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Court Adopts Mag. Judge's Report in RICO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008, plaintiffs Sergeants Benevolent Association
Health and Welfare Fund ("SBA"), New England Carpenters Health
Benefits Fund ("NEC") and Allied Services Division Welfare Fund
("ASD") and others commenced an action on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, principally alleging that defendants
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLP and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc. violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961 et seq., and various state laws by misrepresenting
the safety and efficacy of Ketek, a prescription antibiotic
marketed by Defendants. In December 2011 -- after the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class -- Defendants
moved for summary judgment. By order dated January 4, 2012, the
Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes for a
report and recommendation.

On September 17, 2012, Judge Reyes issued his report and
recommendation (the "R&R"), which recommends that Defendants'
motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety.

District Judge Sandra L. Townes -- in a May 9, 2014 memorandum and
order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/aHKSsafrom
Leagle.com -- adopts Judge Reyes' report and recommendation dated
September 17, 2012, except to the extent that it recommends
limiting Plaintiffs' cause of action for violations of various
consumer protection statutes to claims brought pursuant to the
laws of Plaintiffs' home states of New York, Massachusetts and
Illinois.

Judge Townes held that within 30 days of the date of the
memorandum and order, Plaintiffs must amend Counts III and IV of
their pleading as necessary to clarify the scope of, and basis
for, their state-law claims, providing, inter alia, a list of the
states in which their beneficiaries allegedly obtained and filled
prescriptions for Ketek.  The Defendants are granted leave to file
a second motion for summary judgment with respect to those state-
law claims. Within 15 days after receiving a copy of Plaintiffs'
amended pleading, Defendants are to confer with Plaintiffs and
submit a proposed briefing schedule with respect to the second
motion for summary judgment.

The case is SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH AND WELFARE
FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLP, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 08-CV-179 (SLT) (RER), (E.D. N.Y.).


SIBANYE GOLD: Files Notice Opposing Class Certification Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sibanye Gold Limited has filed a notice of its intention to oppose
the applications requesting that the court certify a class action
filed by classes of mine workers who allegedly contracted
silicosis, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on April 29,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On August 21, 2012, a court application was served on a group of
respondents that included Sibanye (the August Respondents). On
December 21, 2012, a further court application was issued and was
formally served on a number of respondents, including Sibanye,
(the December Respondents and, together with the August
Respondents, the Respondents) on January 10, 2013, on behalf of
classes of mine workers, former mine workers and their dependants
who were previously employed by, or who are currently employed by,
among others, Sibanye and who allegedly contracted silicosis
and/or other occupational lung diseases (the Classes). These
Applications request that the court certify a class action to be
instituted by the applicants on behalf of the Classes. The
Applications are the first and preliminary steps in a process
where, if the court were to certify the class action, the
applicants may, in a second stage, bring an action wherein they
will attempt to hold the Respondents liable for silicosis and
other occupational lung diseases and resultant consequences.

In the second stage, the Applications contemplate addressing what
the applicants describe as common legal and factual issues
regarding the claim arising from the allegations of the entire
Classes. If the applicants are successful in the second stage,
they envisage that individual members of the Classes could later
submit individual claims for damages against the respective
Respondents. The Applications do not identify the number of claims
that may be instituted against the Respondents or the quantum of
damages the applicants may seek.

With respect to the Applications, Sibanye has filed a notice of
its intention to oppose the application and has instructed its
attorneys to defend the claims. Sibanye and its attorneys are
engaging with the applicants' attorneys in both Applications to
try to establish a court-sanctioned process to agree the
timelines, (including the date by which Sibanye must file its
papers opposing the Applications) and the possible consolidation
of the separate applications. At this stage, Sibanye cannot
quantify their potential liability from these actions. The two
class actions were consolidated into one action during 2013 and
the attorneys for the applicants in those matters have now applied
to the court for a case management procedure in order to set times
in which the parties have to comply with various legal processes
and timeframes in terms of the application. Sibanye has entered
notices to oppose the various actions and its attorneys are
currently considering the opposition in detail. Accordingly,
Sibanye cannot quantify the potential liability from these
actions.

Sibanye is not a party to any material legal or arbitration
proceedings, nor is any of its property the subject of pending
material legal proceedings.

Sibanye Gold Limited, formerly GFI Mining South Africa (Pty)
Limited, is a producer of gold in South Africa. Sibanye Gold is
primarily engaged in underground and surface gold mining and
related activities, including extraction, and processing. Sibanye
Gold's operations are located in South Africa. Its principal
mining operations include Kloof-Driefontein Complex (KDC) and
Beatrix. Exploration activities are focused on the extension of
existing ore bodies and identification of new ore bodies at
existing sites. As of January 10, 2013, Sibanye Gold mined only
gold, with silver as a by-product.


SILVER AIRWAYS: "McGregor" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Althea McGregor, v. Silver Airways Corp., Case No. 0:14-cv-61130
(S.D. Fla., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq.

Silver Airways Corp., owns and/or operates an airline in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card , Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


TOWN SPORTS: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Wage Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
A state appeals court upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s motions to dismiss the
class actions alleging wage payment violations, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in
the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On or about June
18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class
action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI,
LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
all New York purported hourly employees. On September 17, 2010,
TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of
both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to
certify the class actions. The court granted the motions on
January 29, 2013, dismissing the class action allegations in both
lawsuits. Following an appeal in April 2014, the Appellate
Division upheld the dismissal.

Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (TSI Holdings) is the
owner and operator of fitness clubs in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic regions of the United States and the fitness club owner
and operator in the United States, in each case based on the
number of clubs.


TOWN SPORTS: "Labbe" Suit Status Hearing Set for June 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., reported that a court
lifted the stay on the James Labbe action and scheduled a status
conference for June 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations. On December 18, 2012, TSI, LLC filed a motion to stay
the class action pending a decision on class certification in the
Cruz case, which was granted. Since the Cruz appeal has been
decided, the court lifted the stay and scheduled a status
conference for June 2014. While it is not possible to estimate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the
case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC
intends to contest this case vigorously.

Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (TSI Holdings) is the
owner and operator of fitness clubs in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic regions of the United States and the fitness club owner
and operator in the United States, in each case based on the
number of clubs.


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Do Thi Tran's Discrmination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DO THI TRAN, ET AL. v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-646,
(E.D. La.) are naturalized Vietnamese-Americans and a national
Vietnamese-American non-profit organization who seek class action
declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, who are
agencies and officials of the United States government. The
Plaintiffs assert that on or before April 1975 they were citizens
of the Republic of South Vietnam and owned real property before
Communist forces took control of the country. They subsequently
fled to the United States at various times. They left their
property behind, which they claim was seized by the Vietnamese
government and nationalized.

The Plaintiffs allege two causes of action:

     -- They argue that Defendants have violated federal law
        by providing assistance to Vietnam; and

     -- They argue the Defendants have discriminated against
        them in violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection
        Clause and the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause.

The Defendants seek dismissal, arguing the Court is barred from
hearing the case because Plaintiffs lack standing, Plaintiffs'
claims are political questions, and the statute of limitations has
expired for Plaintiffs' Constitutional claims.

District Judge Ivan L.R Lemelle granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and dismissed
the Plaintiffs' claims.  A copy of the District Court's May 9,
2014 order and reasons is available at http://is.gd/PJrKopat
Leagle.com.

Do Thi Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hoang Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Phan Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Thanh Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Khen Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Phuoc Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Tuan Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Chau Minh Thi Do, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Thu Tuyet Vu, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hue Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Trieu Huynh Vo, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Tong Tri Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Bach-Yen Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Thung Dinh Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Oanh Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hien Thi Ngo, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Minh Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hai Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Nancy Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Ai Lan Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hang Kim Luong, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Khuong Van Le, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Kim Hoang, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of
Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Ngoc Thi Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Loan Thi Dang, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Phuc-An Pho Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Bich Thuy Le-Ha, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.
Thanh Thuc Ha, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Dong Thuy Bui, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hoa Kim Bui, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Nghi Van Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Lan Do, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of
Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Tuan H. Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Vien T. D. Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Xuan Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Dat Ri Pham, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Dominic Trieu, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Dao Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Diep Ngoc Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Diep Hong Luong, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Van Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Miller Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Kia Van Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Duc Quang Dang, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Kim Chi Vogle, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Bay Van Ly, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Tho Thi Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Quang D Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hong T Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hoa Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Vicky Hue Quynh, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Duy Du Bui, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Quang Le, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of
Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Ban Thi Pham, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Dong Phat Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Chi A Quach, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices
of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Kim Tran Elwyn, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Tu Thi Vo, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of
Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Hen Trieu, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law Offices of
Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Chieu My Beckett, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Elizabeth Phung Ngoc Nghiem, Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang
Cao, Law Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

Boat People S.O.S., Plaintiff, represented by Anh Quang Cao, Law
Offices of Ryan E. Beasley, Sr.

John Forbes Kerry, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine
Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Defendant, represented by
Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

Chuck Hagel, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman
Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

Department of Energy, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine
Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

Kathleen Sebelius, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine
Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine
Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

United States Department of State, Defendant, represented by
Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

United States Department of Labor, Defendant, represented by
Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Defense, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline
Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant,
represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department
of Justice.

United States Department of Justice, Defendant, represented by
Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

Federal Claims Settlement Commission, Defendant, represented by
Jacqueline Elaine Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

Michael Froman, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine
Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

Ernest Moniz, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine Coleman
Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.

Thomas E. Perez, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Elaine
Coleman Snead, U. S. Department of Justice.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Sued for Denying Mental Health Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg BNA reports that UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. and
United Behavioral Health are "systematically and improperly"
denying claims for mental health and substance-abuse related
health benefits in violation of federal mental health parity law,
a new class action complaint alleged.  According to the complaint,
these benefit denials are motivated by a desire to avoid the
"often high costs associated with the treatment of chronic
conditions."

The complaint, filed May 21 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, seeks class treatment for three
proposed classes of health plan participants and beneficiaries who
were denied coverage for nutritional counseling or for residential
treatment for mental health or substance use disorders.

A spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare told Bloomberg BNA May 23 that
the company is currently reviewing the complaint.

                  'Restrictive' Internal Policies

The complaint was filed by three individuals who had been denied
coverage for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment by
Employee Retirement Income Security Act-governed health plans
administered by UnitedHealthcare.  They accused the insurer of
violating the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity
Act of 2008 in two broad ways.

First, they alleged that UnitedHealthcare routinely violated plan
terms covering mental health benefits by adjudicating claims
"based on internal practices and policies that are much more
restrictive than those generally accepted by the mental health
community."  Second, they argued that the insurer violated the
federal parity act by imposing "disparate and more restrictive
internal policies and practices" to claims for mental health and
substance abuse benefits.

According to the plaintiffs, UnitedHealthcare's internal policies
effectively provided that coverage would be denied for residential
treatment if a lower level of treatment would be safe, regardless
of whether it would be similarly effective.  Further, they
contended that the internal guidelines focused on "acute changes"
in claimants' circumstances and failed to properly account for
"chronically severe impairments."  The guidelines also provided
that coverage for residential treatment will be denied unless a
claimant can show that he or she will imminently suffer a
"significant deterioration in function," the plaintiffs argued.
These "restrictive" guidelines discriminate against patients with
mental illness, the plaintiffs asserted, because they aren't
imposed upon patients seeking coverage for medical or surgical
benefits.  Further, they aren't in line with generally accepted
standards for assessing appropriate levels of mental health care,
the plaintiffs argued.

The complaint was filed by Psych-Appeal Inc., Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP and the Maul Firm P.C.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Agreed to Settle Complaints for $18,600,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., on October 18, 2013, agreed to resolve the
Roe, Thomas, and Johnson matters for $18,600,000, subject to a
final approval hearing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On April 20, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California
naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.
("Intellicorp") titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. The
complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and claimed that Intellicorp failed to implement
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
adverse information contained in the background reports, failed to
maintain strict procedures to ensure that criminal record
information provided to employers is complete and up to date, and
failed to notify class members contemporaneously of the fact that
criminal record information was being provided to their employers
and prospective employers. Intellicorp removed the case to the
United States District Court of the Northern District of
California. The California Court later granted Intellicorp's
motion to transfer the case, which is now pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On October 24, 2012 plaintiffs served their First Amended
Complaint (the "Roe Complaint") alleging a nationwide putative
class action on behalf of all persons who were the subject of a
Criminal SuperSearch or other "instant" consumer background report
furnished to a third party by Intellicorp for employment purposes,
and whose report contained any negative public record of criminal
arrest, charge, or conviction without also disclosing the final
disposition of the charges during the 5 years preceding the filing
of this action through the date class certification is granted.
The Roe Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an
amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one
thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On February 4, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend
the Roe Complaint to eliminate the named plaintiff's individual
claim for compensatory damages. This amendment did not change the
breadth or scope of the request for relief sought on behalf of the
proposed class. Plaintiffs later amended their class definition in
their motion for class certification to include only those
consumers whose (1) Criminal SuperSearch returned results, but
Single County search returned no result; (2) Criminal SuperSearch
returned one or more criminal charges without a disposition, but
the Single County search returned a disposition other than
"conviction" or "guilty" and (3) Criminal SuperSearch returned a
higher level of offense (felony or misdemeanor) for one or more
criminal charges than the Single County search (misdemeanor or
infraction.)  This amendment reduces the size of the potential
class, but does not alter the time period for which the plaintiffs
seek to certify a class or the scope of the request for relief
sought on behalf of the proposed class. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was fully submitted on March 18, 2013 and oral
argument was heard by Judge Gwin on June 27, 2013.

On November 1, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.
titled Michael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. On January
7, 2013 plaintiff served its First Amended Complaint (the "Thomas
Complaint") to add Mark A. Johnson (the plaintiff in the Johnson
v. iiX matter) as a named plaintiff. The Thomas Complaint alleges
a nationwide putative class action for violations of FCRA on
behalf of "[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States (a)
who were the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third
party, (b) that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that
contained at least one public record of a criminal conviction or
arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five
years next preceding the filing of this action and during its
pendency, and (e) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United
States mail postage-prepaid, on the day it furnished any part of
the report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject
report and containing the name of the person that was to receive
the report." The Thomas Complaint proposes an alternative subclass
as follows: "[a]ll natural persons residing in Ohio or Tennessee
(a) who were the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a
third party, (b) that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c)
that contained at least one public record of a criminal conviction
or arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within
five years next preceding the filing of this action and during its
pendency, (e) when a mutual review of the record would reveal that
the identity associated with the public record does not match the
identity of the class member about whom the report was furnished,
and (f) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States
mail postage pre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of the
report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report
and containing the name of the person that was to receive the
report."

Similar to the Roe action, the Thomas Complaint alleges that
Intellicorp violated the FCRA, asserting that Intellicorp violated
section 1681k(a)(1) of the FCRA because it failed to provide
notice to the plaintiffs "at the time" the adverse public record
information was reported. The named plaintiffs also allege
individual claims under section 1681e(b) claiming that Intellicorp
failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy in the preparation of the consumer report it furnished
pertaining to plaintiffs. The Thomas Complaint seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the named
plaintiffs.

On January 3, 2013, the Company received service of a complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Insurance
Information Exchange ("iiX") titled Mark A. Johnson v. Insurance
Information Exchange, LLC (the "Johnson Complaint"). The Johnson
Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action on behalf of
"[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States who were the
subject of a consumer report prepared by iiX for employment
purposes within five (5) years prior to the filing of this
Complaint and to whom iiX did not provide notice of the fact that
public record information which is likely to have an adverse
effect upon the consumer's ability to obtain employment, is being
reported by iiX, together with the name and address of the person
to whom such information is being reported at the time such public
record information is reported to the user of such consumer
report." Similar to the Thomas matter, the Johnson Complaint
alleges violations of section 1681k(a) of the FCRA claiming that
iiX failed to notify customers contemporaneously that criminal
record information was provided to a prospective employer and
failed to maintain strict procedures to ensure that the
information reported is complete and up to date. The Johnson
Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not
less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand
dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys'
fees.

On October 18, 2013, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
resolving the Roe, Thomas and Johnson matters which Judge Gwin
approved on October 29, 2013 subject to a hearing on Final
Approval. The Stipulation of Settlement provides for a payment of
$18,600,000 all of which is to be provided by insurance.
Accordingly, if the Stipulation of Settlement is approved at the
hearing on Final Approval, the settlement of these matters is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a provider of information about risk to
professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage, government,
supply chain, and risk management. Verisk enable risk-bearing
businesses to understand and manage their risks. The Company
provides its customers by supplying data that, combined with its
analytic methods, creates embedded decision support solutions.
Verisk organizes its business in two segments: Risk Assessment and
Decision Analytics. Its Risk Assessment segment provides
statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the United States
property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry. Its Decision
Analytics segment provides solutions its customers use to analyze
the processes of the Verisk Risk Analysis Framework: Prediction of
Loss, Detection and Prevention of Fraud, and Quantification of
Loss. On June 17, 2011, it acquired the net assets of Health Risk
Partners, LLC. On April 27, 2011, it acquired 100% interest of
Bloodhound Technologies, Inc.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Can't Estimate Liability in Interthinx Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., has sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx and disclosed that as of March 31, 2014, it cannot
determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability
related to litigation involving Interthinx, according to Verisk's
Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On May 13, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics,
Inc. and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of the
Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado,
who filed the class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection
employees who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years
nationwide and who were classified as exempt employees. The class
complaint claims that the fraud detection employees were
misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied
certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they
were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three
causes of action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under
the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid
commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive
relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On July 2, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and
Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia
Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action
on behalf of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as
auditors, mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors
nationwide at any time (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of
this action until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
class and (ii) within 4 years prior to the filing of the initial
complaint until trial for the California collective action. The
class complaint claims that the defendants failed to pay overtime
compensation, to provide rest and meal periods, waiting time
penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to the
plaintiffs as required by federal and California law. It pleads
seven causes of action against defendants: (1) Failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC
Wage Order No. 4; (3) Failure to pay waiting time penalties in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-203; (4) Failure to
provide itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
section 226 and IWC Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide and or
authorize meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
section 226.7 and IWC Order No. 4; (6) Violation of California
Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement
claim, Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 (California class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, equitable and injunctive
relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 14, 2013, the Company received notice of a claim titled
Dejan Nagl v. Interthinx Services, Inc. filed in the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The claimant, Dejan Nagl,
a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary
Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the claim on behalf of
himself and all current and former individuals employed in
California as auditors by Interthinx, Inc. for violations of the
California Labor Code and Wage Order. The claimant alleges on
behalf of himself and other auditors the following causes of
action: (1) Failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods in
violation of Lab. Code sections 226.7, 514 and 1198; (2) Failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of Lab. Code sections 510 and
1194; (3) Failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation
of Lab. Code section 226; (4) Failure to timely pay wages in
violation of Lab. Code section 204 and (5) Failures to timely pay
wages for violations of Lab. Code sections 201- 203. The claim
seeks compensatory damages and penalties that are associated with
the various statutes, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx. Pursuant to the terms of the sale agreement, the
Company is responsible for the resolution of these matters.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to these matters.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. (Verisk) is a provider of information about
risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage,
government, supply chain, and risk management. Verisk enable risk-
bearing businesses to understand and manage their risks. The
Company provides its customers by supplying data that, combined
with its analytic methods, creates embedded decision support
solutions. Verisk organizes its business in two segments: Risk
Assessment and Decision Analytics. Its Risk Assessment segment
provides statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the
United States property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry. Its
Decision Analytics segment provides solutions its customers use to
analyze the processes of the Verisk Risk Analysis Framework:
Prediction of Loss, Detection and Prevention of Fraud, and
Quantification of Loss. On June 17, 2011, it acquired the net
assets of Health Risk Partners, LLC. On April 27, 2011, it
acquired 100% interest of Bloodhound Technologies, Inc.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Can't Estimate Insurance Services Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., disclosed that as of March 31, 2014, it
cannot estimate the liability related to the Insurance Services
Office, Inc., litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2013, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in an action titled Laurence J.
Skelly and Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the
Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations. The plaintiffs, former
employees of our subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc., or
ISO, bring the action on their own behalf as participants in the
Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations and on the behalf of
similarly situated participants of the pension plan and ask the
court to declare that a certain amendment to the pension plan as
of December 31, 2001, which terminated their right to calculate
and define the value of their retirement benefit under the pension
plan based on their compensation levels as of immediately prior to
their "retirement" (the "Unlawful Amendment"), violated the anti-
cutback provisions and equitable principles of ERISA. The First
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleges
that (1) the Unlawful Amendment of the pension plan violated
Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA as well as the anti-cutback rules of
ERISA Section 204(g) and Section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue
Code; (2) ISO's failure to provide an ERISA 204(h) notice in a
manner calculated to be understood by the average pension plan
participant was a violation of Sections 204(h) and 102(a) of ERISA
and (3) the Living Pension Right was a contract right under ERISA
common law and that by terminating that right through the Unlawful
Amendment ISO violated plaintiffs' common law contract rights
under ERISA. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory, equitable
and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of the Unlawful
Amendment and ordering the pension plan and ISO retroactive to the
date of the Unlawful Amendment to recalculate the accrued benefits
of all class members, indemnification from ISO to the pension plan
for costs and contribution requirements related to voiding the
Unlawful Amendment, bonuses to the class representatives, costs
and attorney's fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. (Verisk) is a provider of information about
risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare, mortgage,
government, supply chain, and risk management. Verisk enable risk-
bearing businesses to understand and manage their risks. The
Company provides its customers by supplying data that, combined
with its analytic methods, creates embedded decision support
solutions. Verisk organizes its business in two segments: Risk
Assessment and Decision Analytics. Its Risk Assessment segment
provides statistical, actuarial and underwriting data for the
United States property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry. Its
Decision Analytics segment provides solutions its customers use to
analyze the processes of the Verisk Risk Analysis Framework:
Prediction of Loss, Detection and Prevention of Fraud, and
Quantification of Loss. On June 17, 2011, it acquired the net
assets of Health Risk Partners, LLC. On April 27, 2011, it
acquired 100% interest of Bloodhound Technologies, Inc.


VOCUS INC: Defendant in Stockholders Complaint
----------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was brought against Vocus, Inc.,
on April 28, 2014, alleging that the Company breached its
fiduciary duties to its public stockholders, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On April 28, 2014, a purported class action
lawsuit was brought against us, the members of our Board of
Directors, GTCR Valor Merger Sub, Inc. (Purchaser), GTCR Valor
Companies, Inc. (Parent) and GTCR, LLC (GTCR), captioned TLC
Foundation L.P. v. Vocus, Inc. et al., which we refer to as the
(Delaware action). The Delaware action generally alleges that the
individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
our public stockholders in connection with Parent and Purchaser's
proposed acquisition of us because, among other things, they
allegedly failed to maximize value for our stockholders, including
by allegedly pursuing a conflicted sales process, agreeing to
unfair deal protections, failing to adequately consider other
potential acquirors, and failing to fully disclose all material
information necessary for our stockholders to make an informed
decision regarding the acquisition. The Delaware action also
generally alleges that we, GTCR, Parent and Purchaser aided and
abetted those alleged violations. The plaintiffs purport to bring
the Delaware action on behalf of a class of our stockholders, and
seek, among other relief (i) to enjoin the acquisition of us by
Parent and Purchaser, (ii) to rescind or, alternatively, award
damages to our stockholders to the extent the acquisition has
already been implemented, (iii) to require the individual director
defendants to disclose all material information relating to the
proposed transaction and (iv) to award plaintiff the fees and
costs associated with Delaware action. The litigation is in its
early stages, therefore, neither the outcome of this litigation
nor an estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible
losses are determinable at this time. We believe that the Delaware
action is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against
all claims asserted."

Vocus, Inc. (Vocus) provides a suite of software for social media
marketing, search marketing, e-mail marketing and publicity,
creating a solution for its customers.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Retirees Seek Certification for Pension Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Wisely, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that two
Wayne County retirees hope a judge will certify a class action
against nine current and former members of the Wayne County
Employee Retirement System board as well as system director
Robert Grden.

They claim their future income has been imperiled by "grossly
negligent investments."

Bobby Hawkins, a retired sheriff's deputy and Anthony Fuller, a
retired equipment operator from the Department of Public Service,
filed the suit in April in Wayne County Circuit Court and asked a
judge to certify it as a class action.

A hearing on the class-action status was set for May 30.

The suit claims that the board members approved investments that
were "often indefensible" including alternative investments "such
as crony-marketed real estate, undercapitalized or zero-
capitalized small business and collateralized loan and debt
obligations which have either no value, are corrupt or immediately
capital starved," according to the complaint.

In addition to Mr. Grden, the suit names current trustee Elizabeth
Misuraca, as well former Trustees Lorenzo Moner, Julia Goodman,
Jewel Ware, Edward Boike, John Hubert, William Wolfson, Matthew
Schenk and Augustus Hutting, who died in 2011.

Other trustees who serve now or with the former trustees aren't
named in the lawsuit.

Mr. Grden did not respond to a request for comment left with his
deputy, and two board members reached by the Free Press declined
comment.

The suit claims the trustees failed to conduct proper due
diligence before investing pension funds.

"The process was rife with conflicts of interest as trustees would
receive perks such as free meals and entertainment from people
with business before the board," the suit claims.

The suit seeks unspecified damages.

"We're also seeking implementation of reform so that these abysmal
practices aren't repeated," said Gerard Mantese, the lawyer who
represents Hawkins and Fuller.

Mr. Mantese said the suit seeks mandatory training for people
making investment decisions, an ethics policy, and other due
diligence standards.

In 2009, Mr. Mantese's firm sued the city of Detroit's general
pension fund as well as its police and fire pension fund, also
alleging breach of fiduciary duty.  That case settled earlier this
year for $7.9 million.  That settlement included pension reforms
as well, including new policies on ethics, due diligence, travel
and education.

Wayne County's pension system has declined steadily since 2003
when it was 100% funded.  Its most recent actuarial evaluation
showed it holds just 46% of the funds needed to pay promised
benefits over the next 30 years.

Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano has blamed poor investment
choices by the board for the underfunding problem, while some
trustees blame Mr. Ficano for negotiating overly generous pensions
for his appointees.

Public pensions in Michigan are guaranteed by the state
constitution, though Detroit's bankruptcy is testing whether that
guarantee will be honored.


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Complaints May Impact Financial Condition
------------------------------------------------------------
Negative outcomes of cases against Weatherford International Ltd.,
including a purported securities class action alleging violation
of the federal securities laws, may have material impact in the
Company's financial condition, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company said, "In March 2011, a shareholder derivative action,
Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Duroc-Danner, et al., No.
201119822, was filed in Harris County, Texas, civil court
purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and
former officers and directors, alleging breaches of duty related
to the material weakness and restatement announcements. In
February 2012, a second shareholder derivative action, Wandel v.
Duroc-Danner, et al., No. 1:12-cv-01305-LAK (SDNY), was filed in
federal court in the Southern District of New York. In March 2012,
a purported securities class action captioned Freedman v.
Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK
(SDNY) was filed in the Southern District of New York against us
and certain current and former officers. That case alleges
violation of the federal securities laws related to the
restatement of our historical financial statements announced on
February 21, 2012, and later added claims related to the
announcement of a subsequent restatement on July 24, 2012.

"We cannot predict the outcome of these cases including the amount
of any possible loss. If one or more negative outcomes were to
occur relative to these cases, the aggregate impact to our
financial condition could be material."

Weatherford International Ltd. (Weatherford) is a provider of
equipment and services used in the drilling, evaluation,
completion, production and intervention of oil and natural gas
wells. The Company operates four segments: North America, Latin
America, Europe/West Africa/the former Soviet Union (FSU) and
Middle East/North Africa/Asia. It operates in over 100 countries
and have manufacturing facilities and sales, service and
distribution locations in approximately all of the oil and natural
gas producing regions in the world. The Company operates in ten
service lines: artificial lift systems; stimulation and chemicals;
drilling services; well construction; integrated drilling;
completion systems; drilling tools; wireline and evaluation
services; re-entry and fishing and pipeline and specialty
services. Weatherford Switzerland conducts all of its operations
through its subsidiaries, including Weatherford Bermuda and
Weatherford International, Inc. (Weatherford Delaware).


WEATHERFORD INT'L: July 8 Final Hearing on $53 Million Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International Ltd., has agreed to settle for $53
million, a purported shareholder class action relating to, among
other things, the Company's material weakness in its internal
controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and a final
hearing has been set for July 8, 2014, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on April 29, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

According to the Company, "In March 2011, a purported shareholder
class action captioned Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd.,
et al., No. 1:11-cv-01646-LAK (SDNY), was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, following
our announcement on March 1, 2011, of a material weakness in our
internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes, and
restatement of our historical financial statements (the "2011
Class Action"). The associated lawsuit alleged violation of the
federal securities laws by us and certain current and former
officers. During the three months ended December 31, 2013, we
entered into negotiations to settle the 2011 Class Action. As a
result of these negotiations, settlement became probable and a
settlement agreement was signed on January 29, 2014. The
settlement arrangement was submitted to the court for approval and
notice to the class. A final hearing has been set for July 8,
2014. The settlement agreement required payments totaling
approximately $53 million which was entirely funded by our
insurers."

Weatherford International Ltd. (Weatherford) is a provider of
equipment and services used in the drilling, evaluation,
completion, production and intervention of oil and natural gas
wells. The Company operates four segments: North America, Latin
America, Europe/West Africa/the former Soviet Union (FSU) and
Middle East/North Africa/Asia. It operates in over 100 countries
and have manufacturing facilities and sales, service and
distribution locations in approximately all of the oil and natural
gas producing regions in the world. The Company operates in ten
service lines: artificial lift systems; stimulation and chemicals;
drilling services; well construction; integrated drilling;
completion systems; drilling tools; wireline and evaluation
services; re-entry and fishing and pipeline and specialty
services. Weatherford Switzerland conducts all of its operations
through its subsidiaries, including Weatherford Bermuda and
Weatherford International, Inc. (Weatherford Delaware).


* Greenberg Traurig Sees Trend in Credit Card Suits v. Retailers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greenberg Traurig LLP's David G. Thomas -- thomasda@gtlaw.com --
James P. Ponsetto -- ponsettoj@gtlaw.com -- and Michael E. Pastore
-- pastorem@gtlaw.com -- in an article for Law360, report that
starting in 2013, class action lawyers have filed various putative
class actions against retailers under a Massachusetts statute
regulating the type of personal identification information a
retailer may obtain during a credit card transaction -- Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 93, Sec. 105(a) (Chapter 93, Section 105(a)).  This trend
stems from a 2013 court decision interpreting Chapter 93, Section
105(a) to include ZIP codes within the type of information that
may not be collected on a credit card transaction form.

As Chapter 93, Section 105(a) seeks to protect consumers,
violations may amount to unfair or deceptive trade practices under
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A
(Chapter 93A).  Chapter 93A, in turn, provides a private right of
action to any consumer "injured" by a Chapter 93A violation and,
perhaps more importantly, allows that consumer to seek relief for
him or herself and for all other "similarly injured and situated"
consumers.  In this regulatory scheme, if there is a violation,
class action litigation inevitably follows.

Background

Chapter 93, Section 105(a) provides:

No person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity
that accepts a credit card for a business transaction shall write,
cause to be written or require that a credit card holder write
personal identification information, not required by the credit
card issuer, on the credit card transaction form.  Personal
identification information shall include, but shall not be limited
to, a credit card holder's address or telephone number.

The section does not apply, however, when personal identification
information is necessary (1) for shipping, delivery, or
installation of purchased merchandise or services or (2) for a
warranty when such information is provided voluntarily by a credit
card holder.  Chapter 93, Section 105(d) expressly provides that
any violation of Section 105 shall be deemed an unfair or
deceptive trade practice under Chapter 93A.

Finally, as currently enacted, Chapter 93, Section 105(a) applies
to "all credit card transactions"; however, there is a bill
pending in Massachusetts that seeks to extend Section 105 to all
"debit card transactions" as well. 2013 Massachusetts House Bill
1429, Section 1 (filed on Jan. 18, 2013, by John D. Keenan). House
Bill 1429 is currently in the Legislature's Judiciary Committee,
and is scheduled to be reported out by June 30, 2014.

Collection of ZIP Codes at Issue in Tyler v. Michaels Stores

On March 11, 2013, in Tyler v. Michaels Stores Inc., 464 Mass. 492
(2013) (Tyler), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC)
answered a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in connection with a lawsuit pending
against Michaels Stores Inc.  In that case, the retailer allegedly
followed a policy of collecting ZIP codes during credit card
transactions in violation of Chapter 93, Section 105(a).

In answering the district court's questions (set in the context of
a motion to dismiss), the SJC determined that a consumer's ZIP
code, when combined with a consumer's name, allows a retailer to
identify the consumer's address and telephone number through
public databases.  ZIP codes, according to the SJC, are therefore
deemed "personal identification information" under Chapter 93,
Section 105(a).  In addition, the SJC concluded that (1) the term
"credit card transaction form" referred equally to electronic and
paper forms and (2) a consumer may bring a claim even absent an
allegation of identity fraud.

The SJC's decision in Tyler is significant for many reasons. In
particular, the SJC made clear that a consumer had to plead more
than just a violation of a statute to assert a claim under Chapter
93A. Specifically, in light of some confusion caused by the SJC's
1985 decision in Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151 (1985), about the
meaning of injury, the SJC made clear in Tyler that a consumer had
to plead and prove some harm or injury, separate and distinct from
the underlying statutory violation to assert a damages claim.
Indeed, as the SJC explained:

To the extent . . . Leardi can be read to signify that "invasion"
of a consumer plaintiff's established legal right in a manner that
qualified as an unfair or deceptive act [under Chapter 93A],
automatically entitles the plaintiff to at least nominal damages
(and attorneys' fees), we do not follow the Leardi decision.

Also, the SJC reiterated that the harm or injury must be caused by
the alleged violation.  As a result, the SJC arguably narrowed the
scope of Chapter 93A injury in Tyler (a long-awaited narrowing).

Nonetheless, the SJC also gave the plaintiffs' class bar a road
map as to how to plead and potentially prove Chapter 93A injury
and damages for violations of Chapter 93, Section 105(a).  For
example, in Tyler, the separate and distinct injury was receiving
unwanted junk mail or having personal information sold to a third-
party for a profit.  Since the SJC's decision, the plaintiff's
class action bar has targeted other retailers allegedly following
similar policies and alleged these very same separate and distinct
injuries to consumers in their complaints.

Again, Tyler addressed the injury issue only in the context of a
motion to dismiss filed in the district court.  Neither the SJC
nor the district court addressed whether the putative class should
be certified (which since has settled).  Accordingly, a putative
class representative would have to prove that the common issue of
"Chapter 93 injury" and causation is appropriate for class
certification, e.g., that all class members gave their ZIP codes,
the "giving" did not fall into one of the enumerated exceptions,
and that those ZIP codes were used to send consumers unwanted junk
mail or to sell their information to a third-party for a profit.
Accordingly, there may very well be some strong defenses to class
certification in these cases, which, of course, will be based on
the facts of the underlying policy and a retailer's actions.

As for damages, one would reasonably question what actual damages
were suffered by receiving unwanted junk mail.  The answer likely
is that there are no actual damages.  Chapter 93A, however, states
that in the absence of actual damages, if there is a Chapter 93A
injury, a consumer is entitled to recover nominal damages of
$25.00.  As explained by the SJC in Tyler, receipt of unwanted
marketing material represents an invasion of privacy (the harm
that Chapter 93, Section 105(a) seeks to prevent) causing an
injury worth more than a penny.

As such, plaintiffs' counsel will seek $25.00 in damages for each
consumer impacted by the policy (or, perhaps, an even more
draconian remedy, $25.00 for each transaction or piece of unwanted
mail received).  In addition, plaintiffs' counsel will likely seek
to treble those damages; however, the SJC (in Leardi) already has
concluded that where a plaintiff is entitled to treble damages and
actual damages when trebled are less than $25.00, the plaintiff is
only entitled to $25.00 -- not $75.00.

Moreover, plaintiffs' counsel will seek to recover attorneys' fees
and costs.  Fees and costs are awarded as a matter of law under
Chapter 93A if there is a violation -- regardless of whether the
violation was knowing or willful.  Considering the number of
consumers who use credit cards at retail stores (during the four-
year class period under Chapter 93A), $25.00 nominal damages could
grow quickly.

Furthermore, to the unquestionable delight of the plaintiff class
action bar, the SJC, in Tyler, postulated:

The issue of damages becomes more complicated where a merchant
sells a consumer's personal identification information acquired in
a manner violating Sec. 105(a), because the harm comes from the
merchant's disclosure of the consumer's private information on the
open market, not from a direct assault on her privacy.

Disgorgement of the merchant's profits may provide an appropriate
means of calculating damages in [this] situation, both because it
is a close approximation of the value of the consumer's personal
identification information on the open market and because such a
damage award would remove any financial incentive to merchants to
violate the statute.

What Retailers Need to Do

Retailers should review their policies concerning what information
is requested from consumers during credit card transactions to
make sure those policies comply with Section 105(a).  If "personal
identification information" is requested for one of the exempt
reasons, retailers should be sure that they are able to verify
which transactions fall within the exemption (if later challenged
in litigation).

Many retailers ask for personal identification information at the
point of sale to enroll consumer in marketing or other customer
programs.  To avoid being pursued in a class action, retailers
should consider only asking for this information after the
transaction has been closed and the sales receipt has been
provided to the consumer.  Also, when doing so, retailers should
train their employees to disclose fully why such information is
being requested, e.g., that is being requested to send the
consumer marketing.  Signage located at the point of sale and
verbiage on receipts concerning those policies also would be
helpful in defending allegations that the retailer violated
Section 105(a) and Chapter 93A.

Furthermore, beyond compliance with Section 105(a), retailers
should review Section 105(b) to make sure that their other
policies are in compliance as well.  Specifically, Chapter 93,
Section 105(b) provides:

No person, firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity
accepting a check in any business or commercial transaction as
payment in full or in part for goods or services shall do any of
the following:

     (1) Require, as a condition of acceptance of such check, that
the person presenting such check provide a credit card number, or
any personal identification information other than a name,
address, motor vehicle operator license number or state
identification card number of such person and telephone number,
all of which may be recorded; provided, however, that the person,
firm, partnership, corporation or other business entity accepting
such check may verify the signature, name, and expiration date on
a credit card; provided further, that in complying with a request
to provide a telephone number, the person paying with a check may
provide either a home telephone number or a telephone number where
such person may be called during daytime hours.

     (2) Require, as a condition of acceptance of the check, or
cause a person paying with such check to sign a statement agreeing
to allow a credit card to be charged to cover the amount of such
check;

     (3) Contact a credit card issuer or otherwise access a credit
card account balance to determine if the amount of any credit
available to the person paying with a check will cover the amount
of such check.

     (4) Require, as a condition of acceptance of the check, that
a person's credit card number be recorded in connection with any
part of a transaction.

     (5) Record on a check, or require a person paying with a
check to record on such check, any information regarding the race
of such person.

Section 105(b), however, does not prohibit a retailer from:

     (1) requesting, receiving, or recording a credit card number
in lieu of requiring a cash deposit to secure payment in event of
default, loss, damage or other occurrence; or

     (2) recording a credit card number and expiration date as a
condition for cashing or accepting a check where such person has
agreed with the card issuer to cash or accept checks from the
issuer's card holders and where the issuer guarantees such card
holder checks cashed or accepted by such person.

Retailers' Email Collection Practices Challenged As Well

The plaintiff class action bar also has being trying to extend
Tyler to challenge retailers' email collection practices.  In
doing so, some plaintiffs' lawyers rely on a decision arising
under California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1974 (Song-
Beverly) (a statute similar to Section 105(a)) from the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California,
entitled Capp v. Nordstrom Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00680-MCA-AC.

In Capp, Nordstrom allegedly requested and recorded plaintiff
Capp's email address for the purpose of sending him an electronic
receipt of his transaction.  Shortly after the sale, however, Capp
allegedly received unsolicited marketing materials by email from
Nordstrom in addition to his e-receipt.  The district court denied
Nordstrom's motion to dismiss Capp's complaint, which was based on
the argument that (1) an email address was not PII under Song-
Beverly and (2) the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 preempted Capp's Song-
Beverly claim.

Although dealing with these issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
the district court concluded that an email address constituted PII
because retailers could use the e-mail address along with a
customer's credit card information to locate the customer's
physical mailing address (which, like Section 105(a), does
constitute PII under Song-Beverly).  In addition, according to the
district court, the alleged act of asking for an email address for
one arguably proper purpose, then allegedly using it for another,
directly implicated the purpose of Song-Beverly as articulated by
the California Supreme Court in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores
Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 524 (2011).

Next, the district court in Capp concluded that CAN-SPAM did not
preempt Song-Beverly based on an express "savings clause" in
preserving the reach of state statutes that are not specific to
e-mails.  In doing so, the district court explained that Song-
Beverly can be reconciled with CAN-SPAM as a retailer:

can easily conform its conduct to the proscriptions in both acts
. . . by [waiting] until "after the customer has already received
her [written] receipt" to request the customer's email address
. . . and then send[ing] commercial e-mail messages to conform to
the prescriptions of CAN-SPAM without the prospect of liability
under either statute.

Notwithstanding whether (1) the SJC would conclude that an email
address is PII under Section 105(a), (2) sending emails in
compliance with CAN-SPAM would even violate Chapter 93A (unlike
Song-Beverly, Chapter 93A has an express exemption clause for
transactions "otherwise permitted" under federal law, i.e.,
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, Sec. 3), or (3) sending an unsolicited
commercial email message would constitute a separate and distinct
harm under Tyler, retailers should review their email collection
policies and practices to make sure that, among other things,
emails are requested and collected outside of credit card
transactions and the reason for the request (for example, to send
marketing emails and not just e-receipts) is disclosed to
consumers.  This should assist in limiting the need to respond to
and defend Tyler-like demand letters and litigation in
Massachusetts.

Finally, beyond California and Massachusetts, many other states
have laws governing the collection of PII.  Retailers doing
business in other states should review local laws to ensure
compliance.


                             *********

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  * * *