CAR_Public/140610.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 114

                             Headlines


14051 MANCHESTER: Court Decertifies "Carroll" Class Suit
ABBEY PARK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
AEROPOSTALE INC: Bid for Collective Action in "Bath" Suit Granted
ALIN CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Unlawful Pay Practices and Policies
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Debt Collection Law

ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in UBB Suit
ALPHA NATURAL: Trial Date on Motion to Junk W.Va. Stock Suit Set
ALPHA NATURAL: Still Faces Suit Over Settlement of Mining Mishap
ALPHA NATURAL: Stay in Del. Massey Shareholder Suit Extended Anew
ALPHA NATURAL: Argument in NCI Employee's Suit Expected in 2014

ARRANCADA FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
BAYBRIDGE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
BAYER AG: Faces Suit in Connecticut Over ERISA Violations
BELL CONSTRUCTION: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BILL HALL: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

BOULDER BRANDS: NY Labeling Suit Stayed Pending Cal. Court Ruling
BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Suit Says
CAREER EDUCATION: Accord in Ill. "Ross" Securities Suit Approved
CAREER EDUCATION: Insurer Disputes Coverage in Securities Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: "Enea" Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaints Anew

CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit Over UTPA Stayed Pending Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: Vasquez-Patterned Suit Has 1,047 Plaintiffs
CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Employment Suit Over ARSC Remanded
CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Okays Accord in "Nimely" Labor Suit
CATERPILLAR INC: Sued Over Defective Regeneration System Parts

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates Securities Settlement Denial
CREDIBLE SECURITIES: "May" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Suit Seeks to Recover Retirement Benefits
DAKA ARMS: Failed to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
DENDREON CORP: Opt-Outs in Securities Suit Accord Pursue Own Suit

DYNAMIC CORPORATE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL: "Green" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
FORD MOTOR: May Tax Suit Costs Among Plaintiffs, Court Says
GEISHA ASIAN: Sued Over Failure Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Falsely Marketed Testofen Products, Suit Says

GENE BY GENE: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Duarte" Suit in Fla. Over Vehicle Defects
GENERAL MOTORS: Recall Probe to Clear Senior Management of Blame
GENERAL MOTORS: Wants to Fight Ignition Switch Suits in New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Number of Ignition-Linked Crashes Reaches 47

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: States to Get $105MM in Drug Settlement
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: California to Get $7-Mil. From Settlement
GOOD STEER: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JAMBOX INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
KALCO LAUNDRY: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages

KANGADIS FOOD: Files for Bankruptcy Due to Class Suit
LEGACY NURSING: Sued for Failing to Pay OT Wages Pursuant to FLSA
LHC GROUP: Louisiana Shareholder Litigation in Discovery Stage
MASTEC SERVICES: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over FLSA Violation
METLIFE INC: Still Faces Suit by Retirement System in New York

METLIFE INC: Remand of Ala. Securities Lawsuit Faces Objection
METLIFE INC: Summary Judgment to MLIC in TCA Lawsuit Appealed
METLIFE INC: Metropolitan Life Faces "Owens" TCA Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: MLIC Faces Indemnity Claim by Sun Life Assurance
METLIFE INC: Trial in "C-Mart," "Cadenasso" Lawsuits Set in Aug.

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Miami Dolphins Player Files Concussion Suit
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Deposits $6.1MM to 2010 Stock Suit Fund
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Continues to Face 2013 Shareholder Suit
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Lawsuit by Opt-Out Voluntarily Dismissed
PELLA CORP: Judge Says Class Action Settlement "Scandalous"

PEOPLES BANK: Motion for Judgment in Overdraft Fees Suit Denied
PRICELINE GROUP: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
PRICELINE GROUP: Pays $0.6MM to Hawaii After Tax Ruling
PRICELINE GROUP: Opposes Move to Amend Antitrust Lawsuit Anew
PRIORITY PAYMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Over Time Wages

ROCKING 8: Faces "Puente" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Files Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit in Okla.
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Employees Amend Complaint for Overtime Pay
SEBERT LANDSCAPING: Has Refused to Pay Compensation, Class Claims
SUPPORT.COM INC: To Settle Consumer Lawsuit Over Software

THANG DANG: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
TREE.COM INC: Settlement Process Ongoing in "Boschma" Lawsuit
TREE.COM INC: No Trial Date Yet for Class Claims in "Dijkstra"
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Shareholders Expand Class Period of Lawsuit
UNITED PARCEL: Feb 2015 Trial Set in Franchisees' Suit

UNITED PARCEL: Suit in Quebec Over Brokerage Services Dismissed
UNITED PARCEL: Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services in Discovery
UNITED STATES: Veterans File Lawsuit Over Agent Orange
WARNER MUSIC: Reply to Cert. Motion in Price Fixing Suit Due June
WARNER MUSIC: Final Hearing on $11.5MM Accord Set for Oct.

WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
ZILLOW INC: Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit Pending in Wash. Court
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in "Meridian Funds" Suit
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: "Barlow" Overdraft Fees Suit Accord Okayed


                            *********


14051 MANCHESTER: Court Decertifies "Carroll" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
THELMA WHITE and NICOLE CARROLL, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 14051 MANCHESTER INC.
d/b/a HOTSHOTS SPORTS BAR & GRILL, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:12-
CV-469 JAR, (E.D. Mo.) is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion
to Certify Missouri and Illinois State Law Claims as a Class
Action, Defendants' Motion to Decertify Collective Class,
Defendant Daniel Volmert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
Defendant Julie Volmert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
Defendants' Motion to Strike and Exclude Expert Testimony,
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Individual Liability of
Daniel and Julie Volmert and Memorandum in Support, Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability and Memorandum in
Support, and Defendants' Combined Motion to Strike Affidavits and
Memorandum in Support Thereof.

In a memorandum and order dated May 30, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/ikQomafrom Leagle.com, District Judge
John A. Ross denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Missouri and
Illinois State Law Claims as a Class Action; Defendant Daniel
Volmert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Defendant Julie
Volmert's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment on Liability and Memorandum in Support; and
Defendants' Combined Motion to Strike Affidavits and Memorandum in
Support Thereof.

The Defendants' Motion to Decertify Collective Class was granted.

The Defendants' Motion to Strike and Exclude Expert Testimony was
denied as moot.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Individual Liability of
Daniel and Julie Volmert and Memorandum in Support was granted.

Judge Ross decertified this matter as a collective action, and
dismissed without prejudice the claims of all opt-in plaintiffs,
leaving before the Court the named plaintiffs who originated this
action. The Court directed Plaintiffs' counsel to notify the opt-
in plaintiffs that the collective action has been decertified and
their FLSA claims are no longer pending before the Court.

Thelma White, Plaintiff, represented by Russell C. Riggan --
russ@rigganlawfirm.com -- RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC & Samuel W. Moore
-- smoore@rigganlawfirm.com -- RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC, and:

   Cyrus C. Dashtaki, Esq.
   DASHTAKI LAW FIRM LLC
   5205 Hampton Ave.
   St Louis, MO 63139,
   United States
   Telephone: (314) 932-7671

Nicole Carroll, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cyrus C. Dashtaki, DASHTAKI
LAW FIRM. LLC, Russell C. Riggan, RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC & Samuel W.
Moore, RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC.

14051 Manchester, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Bauman -- cbauman@bbdlc.com -- BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk --
jturk@bbdlc.com -- BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

12154 Rock Road, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

950-952 South Highway, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher
O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

12644 Dorsett Road, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

215 O'Fallon Place, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

4021 Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman,
BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

1636 Country Club Plaza, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher O. Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND
BARDGETT.

730 HSBG, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Bauman,
BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT.

1319 Central Park, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Bauman, BLITZ AND BARDGETT & Jason Turk, BLITZ AND BARDGETT.


ABBEY PARK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Clyde Richard Cunningham v. Abbey Park Gardens I Condominium
Association, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-80650 (S.D. Fla., May 16,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Abbey Park Gardens I Condominium Association, Inc., is a
corporation conducting business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd William Shulby, Esq.
      2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 530-2236
      Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
      E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


AEROPOSTALE INC: Bid for Collective Action in "Bath" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan D. Wigenton granted a motion for conditional
certification of a collection action in the case captioned CORA
BATH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RED VISION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:13-02366 (SDW) (MCA), (D. N.J.).

Red Vision is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Parsippany,
New Jersey that provides title search services and real estate
data solutions to customers across the United States. The
Plaintiff worked in Red Vision's employ as a title examiner from
approximately September 2007 until 2011.  The Plaintiff alleges
that Red Vision failed to add her piece-rate earnings with her
hourly rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay.

The Plaintiff filed the Motion for Conditional Certification of
Collective Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Court found that the Plaintiff and Red Visions' other title
examiners are similarly situated for FLSA purposes.

Judge Wigenton also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the
case pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

A copy of the District Court's May 29, 2014 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/B9Xk6Dfrom Leagle.com.

CORA BATH, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R. FRISCH --
afrisch@forthepeople.com -- MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A..

RED VISION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFERY ALAN
MEYER -- jmeyer@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP.


ALIN CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Unlawful Pay Practices and Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Alin Tolly, and ALIN Construction, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-03499
(S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2014), arises from the Defendants' unlawful pay
practices and policies pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

ALIN Construction, Inc., is a domestic business corporation
located at 32D Monsey Boulevard, Monsey, NY 10952.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq.
      MAVROMIHALIS PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      3403 Broadway
      Astoria, NY 10006
      Telephone: (718) 777-0400
      Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
      E-mail: jnfirm@aol.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Debt Collection Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shimshon Wexler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for the alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation doing business in New York with an address at 111
Eighth Avenue in New York, NY 10011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Cohen, Esq.
      THE COHEN LAW OFFICE, PC
      675 Third Ave-8th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 813-2000
      Facsimile: (212) 537-6861
      E-mail: acohen@cohenlawpc.net


ALPHA NATURAL: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in UBB Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement
reached by Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. in a suit filed by Massey
Energy Company stockholders in the wake of the Upper Big Branch
(UBB) explosion, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. awaits final approval of a
settlement it reached in a suit filed by Massey Energy Company
stockholders in the wake of the Upper Big Branch (UBB) explosion,
according to the company's May, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions
that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought
against, among others, Massey, now the Company's subsidiary Alpha
Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
(the "Court") in connection with alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on behalf
of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i) Massey and
certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally
misleading the market about the safety of Massey's operations and
that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to
have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that this action is a
proper class action; certification as class representatives; an
award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon; and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On March 3, 2011, the United States
moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the completion of
criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same facts that
allegedly give rise to this action. On July 9, 2012, the court
entered an order maintaining the stay of discovery until the
earlier of either the completion of the United States' criminal
investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2013. The court
has extended the stay several times; most recently, on July 18,
2013, the court further extended the existing discovery stay until
January 15, 2014.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint. On March 27, 2012, the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer
to the consolidated amended class action complaint.

In October and December 2013, the parties participated in
mediation. In December 2013, the parties reached agreement on all
material terms of settlement, including a cash payment of
$265,000,000. In February 2014, the parties reached agreement on
definitive settlement documentation, subject to court approval,
and on February 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs moved the court for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 19, 2014, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
subject to a final determination following a settlement hearing on
June 4, 2014. On February 25, 2014, pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, the Company made an initial payment of $30,000,000
into an escrow account. Pending final determination, the
plaintiffs may not further prosecute the action. If the Court
approves the settlement, it would result in the dismissal of the
action. Whether the Court will approve the settlement, and the
timing of any such approval, remains uncertain. The Company
expects insurance recoveries of approximately $70,000,000 to help
cover the cost of the settlement.


ALPHA NATURAL: Trial Date on Motion to Junk W.Va. Stock Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boone County Circuit Court has set a preliminary trial date of
June 24, 2014 on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit by Massey Energy
Company stockholders over disclosures regarding Alpha Natural
Resources, Inc.'s Emerald mine, according to the company's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone
County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company
and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the acquisition of Massey by the Company (the "Massey
Acquisition"). The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award
of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia. On
September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion to remand.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 19,
2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on
November 2, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the federal court remanded
the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court (without ruling on
the pending motion to dismiss). The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013. On March 27, 2014, the Boone
County Circuit Court held a hearing regarding the motions to
dismiss. The motions remain pending. The Boone County Circuit
Court has set a preliminary trial date of June 24, 2014.
On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia
Circuit Court action described filed a second complaint in Greene
County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting
claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the
Company and certain of its officers and current and former
directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false
statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings
associated with the Massey Acquisition.  The plaintiff seeks,
among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount
to be proven at trial.


ALPHA NATURAL: Still Faces Suit Over Settlement of Mining Mishap
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit in the
Boone County Circuit Court filed by the families of the deceased
miners who settled claims prior to mediation of an original case,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On April 5, 2012, one of the families of the deceased miners filed
a class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly on
behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the
mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming
as defendants Massey Energy Company, the Company and certain of
its subsidiaries, the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of
Directors.

On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013, two complaints were filed in
Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims
relating to the UBB explosion. The Company moved to dismiss both
complaints on July 17, 2013 and October 16, 2013, respectively.
The motions remain pending.


ALPHA NATURAL: Stay in Del. Massey Shareholder Suit Extended Anew
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court has again extended the stay in In re
Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation and
the court further extended the existing discovery stay until the
earlier of the completion of the United States' criminal
investigation of the Upper Big Branch mine, according to Alpha
Natural Resources, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders
(the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of
Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's
employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the
explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying
allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his
retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf
of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain
former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside
protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly
eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to
a "no shop" provision and a termination fee. In addition, the
Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey
Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on
the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all
material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an
informed vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against
Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company
and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated
for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9, 2011 and
February 24, 2011, respectively.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 10 and
13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants
moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the
remaining direct claims.

On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court. The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The
court has extended the stay several times; most recently, on
February 4, 2014, the court further extended the existing
discovery stay until the earlier of the completion of the United
States' criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or July 15,
2014.


ALPHA NATURAL: Argument in NCI Employee's Suit Expected in 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has
been completed in a suit filed by a former employee of Nicewonder
Contracting, Inc., but oral argument has not yet been scheduled
and is expected to occur later in 2014, according to Alpha Natural
Resources, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In December 2004, prior to the Company's acquisition of Nicewonder
in October 2005, the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation
("ACTF"), a division of the West Virginia State Building and
Construction Trades Council, brought an action against the West
Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
("WVDOH") and Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. ("NCI"), which became
the Company's wholly-owned indirect subsidiary as a result of the
Nicewonder acquisition, in the United States District Court in the
Southern District of West Virginia. The plaintiff sought a
declaration that the contract between NCI and the State of West
Virginia related to NCI's road construction project was illegal as
a violation of applicable West Virginia and federal competitive
bidding and prevailing wage laws and sought to enjoin performance
of the contract, but did not seek monetary damages.

On September 30, 2009, the District Court issued an order that
dismissed or denied for lack of standing all of the plaintiff's
claims under federal law and remanded the remaining state claims
to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia for
resolution. On May 7, 2010, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County
entered summary judgment in favor of NCI. On June 22, 2011, the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court
order granting summary judgment in favor of NCI, and remanded the
case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Following
remand, ACTF filed a motion for summary judgment, which the
Circuit Court denied on November 9, 2011. ACTF challenged the
order denying its summary judgment motion to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals.

On June 21, 2012, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
issued an opinion finding that ACTF has standing to pursue its
claims and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of Kanawha
County, West Virginia for further proceedings. NCI's portion of
the highway project under the contract is complete.

The case is now pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,
West Virginia. A settlement between NCI and ACTF was agreed upon
in early January 2013, prior to the scheduled trial date, January
14, 2013. The Company does not expect to incur any out-of-pocket
expenditures in connection with the settlement. The trial
proceeded among the remaining parties.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a purported
class action lawsuit against NCI filed in the Circuit Court of
Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI
Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee
Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represents the
plaintiff in the ACTF litigation, and the complaint's allegations
raise issues similar to those in the ACTF litigation.

On February 26, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled
that the contract in dispute in the ACTF litigation, as well as
the awarding and implementation of the contract were in violation
of West Virginia law. The Company is reviewing the Court's ruling
and evaluating its implications in relation to the NCI Employee
Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses
to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation.

NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee
Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer
and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee
Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County.

On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted
NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, where the case is now pending. Briefing
before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has been
completed, but oral argument has not yet been scheduled and is
expected to occur later in 2014, with a decision possibly late
this year or early in 2015.


ARRANCADA FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Arcentales-Fernandez and Rafael Espinobarros-Reyes, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Arrancada
Food Group, INC., 90 Amster Enterprises, LLC, Pizza Pasta etc.
Corp., and/or any other business entity doing business as
Famous Amadeus Pizza, and Amadeus Manata, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-03526 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover from the
Defendants, unpaid minimum wages and minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Arrancada Food Group, Inc., 90 Amster Enterprises, LLC, and Pizza
Pasta Etc. Corp are New York business corporations, organized,
operating and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
doing business as "Famous Amadeus Pizza", with multiple locations
in New York City, and a principal place of business at 840 8th
Avenue, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


BAYBRIDGE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilian Encalada, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Baybridge Enterprises Ltd., Case No. 1:14-
cv-03113 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages
from defendant for working more than 40 hours in a week and not
being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate
for each and all such hours over forty in a week, and maximum
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Baybridge Enterprises Ltd., is a domestic New York corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Karim Hassan,
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


BAYER AG: Faces Suit in Connecticut Over ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Karen Ali, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that
Milford resident Gerald Passaro II was one of the plaintiffs in a
federal lawsuit in Connecticut that challenged the federal Defense
of Marriage Act.  In 2012, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant
struck down a portion of the law that barred same-sex couples from
receiving federal benefits, and the case was combine with a
New York challenge that ultimately resulted in the U.S. Supreme
Court ruling a key provision of DOMA unconstitutional.

Now Mr. Passaro is back in federal court in Connecticut.  He
claims that even though DOMA is no longer on the books, his now-
deceased partner's former employer won't provide him with spousal
survivor benefits.  Specifically, the lawsuit says that Bayer AG
is violating provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The lawsuit was filed by Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates &
Defenders.  GLAD says that Mr. Passaro -- referred to as Jerry in
legal documents -- should receive benefits from the Pittsburgh-
based Bayer Corp. because his late husband, Thomas Buckholz,
worked as a chemist for the company in Connecticut more than 20
years before his death in 2009.

The lawsuit claims that Bayer's pension plan is "legally obligated
to extend -- and has no discretion to deny -- a [qualified
preretirement survivor annuity] to Jerry because Jerry is a
surviving spouse within the meaning of governing federal law and,
as a surviving spouse, is entitled to a QPSA."

After 13 years together, Messrs. Buckholz and Passaro were married
in front of a Christmas tree in their home in November 2008,
shortly after Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriages.
Mr. Buckholz was already seriously ill with lymphoma, and died two
months later, days before his 48th birthday.  Mr. Passaro, a
former hair stylist, is disabled and receives a Social Security
check for less than $1,000 a month, according to the GLAD website.

According to GLAD, before Mr. Buckholz died, he believed he had
received assurances from Bayer that his partner would be the
beneficiary of his pension.  But after Mr. Buckholz died,
Mr. Passaro requested the benefits -- which would total a little
more than $500 a month, according to GLAD -- and was turned down
by Bayer, its benefits provider Vanguard and Bayer's ERISA Review
Committee.

According to the lawsuit, Bayer cited DOMA in its refusal.
In 2010, Mr. Passaro became one of 13 plaintiffs in the
Connecticut DOMA challenge, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel
Management.  In June 2013, the Pedersen victory for the plaintiffs
was confirmed when the U.S. Supreme Court found DOMA
unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor.
According to the GLAD lawsuit, after the Windsor decision,
Mr. Passaro again asked Bayer for the spousal pension benefits.
The pharmaceutical company again said no.

A Bayer spokesman said the company was unable to provide an
immediate comment.

"Despite the fact that DOMA has been found unconstitutional, Bayer
continues to deny benefits to [Passaro] even though its pension
plan provides benefits to all surviving spouses and even though
federal law mandates pension benefits for surviving spouses under
plans like Bayer's," said Gary Buseck, who is GLAD's interim
executive director.  "Bayer has turned a deaf ear to its legal and
moral obligation to the widower of a dedicated employee, who is in
need of this basic support that his husband earned."


BELL CONSTRUCTION: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tacareious Daniels, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Bell Construction L.L.C., a Louisiana Limited
Liability Company, and RAY BELL, Individually, Case No. 5:14-cv-
01004 (W.D. La., May 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to recover unpaid back
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Bell Construction L.L.C., is a Louisiana Limited Liability Company
located in Minden County, Webster Parish, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rene Fernandez Rocha, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      909 Poydras St Ste 1625
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Telephone: (305) 989-8688
      E-mail: rrocha@forthepeople.com


BILL HALL: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gena Rodriguez, and others similarly situated v. Bill Hall, Jr.
Trucking, Ltd.; Iron Horse Transport, LLC; and, Dominique Hall, as
Administratrix of the estate of Bill Kall, Jr., Case No. 5:14-cv-
00459 (W.D. Tex., May 16, 2014), seeks damages for unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory
relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs.

Bill Hall, Jr. Trucking, Ltd., is a limited partnership of the
State of Texas and maintains offices in San Antonio, Texas, with
satellite terminals in Uvalde, Texas, and San Marcos, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      THE ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street,
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: dbr@rosslawpc.com
              charles@rosslawgroup.com


BOULDER BRANDS: NY Labeling Suit Stayed Pending Cal. Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
stayed all activity in a case over the labeling of Boulder Brands,
Inc.'s Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products pending a decision on
class certification in a California case over the labeling and
marketing of Smart Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products,
according to Boulder Brands's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On February 21, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the labeling of Smart Balance Fat Free Milk products was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that the label and marketing was misleading because,
although the labels says "Fat Free Milk" the product contains 1g
of fat from the Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products.
After the Company's motion to dismiss was partially granted by the
court, it answered the remaining allegations of the complaint,
denying the substantive allegations. The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

On July 28, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance Butter &
Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and deceptive (the
"California Case"). The plaintiffs have moved to file a second
amended complaint and to substitute a new class plaintiff. The
Company is opposing both motions. A substantially similar class
action lawsuit related to the labeling and marketing of Smart
Balance Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was filed on August 9,
2012 in the Southern District of New York. In light of its
similarity to the California Case, the Southern District of New
York stayed all activity in the case pending a decision in the
California Case on class certification.


BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maja Mackenzie as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. The Blue Buffalo Company, LTD., Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80634 (S.D. Fla., May 13,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for the alleged unlawful,
fraudulent, unfair, negligent, misleading, and deceptive
representation that its products contains "No Chicken/Poultry By-
Product Meals", that it contain no corn, wheat, or soy, or
artificial preservatives, and that they provide superior nutrition
compared to other comparable pet food products.

The Blue Buffalo Company, LTD., is a Delaware corporation located
at 11 River Road, Wilton, CT 06897.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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


CAREER EDUCATION: Accord in Ill. "Ross" Securities Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
finally approved the settlement reached in Ross, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation, et al., according to the company's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On January
13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the Company
and various individuals as defendants and claiming that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in
and omitting material information from the Company's public
disclosures concerning its campuses' job placement rates and its
compliance with accreditation standards. The complaint further
claimed that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by virtue of their positions as control persons
of the Company. Plaintiff asked for unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On
March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV, the
Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement Systems, and the Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs in the action.
Lead plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, asserting
the same claims alleged in the initial complaint and seeking
damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 19, 2009 and November 21, 2011 (the
"Class").

On June 12, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the Ross
litigation, subject to final Court approval and settlement of
certain shareholder derivative actions and subsequent related
claims (the "Derivative Settlements"). As previously disclosed,
the Derivative Settlements received Court approval and were
dismissed with prejudice in the first quarter of 2014. Under the
Derivative Settlements, the Company's directors' and officers'
liability insurers have paid $10.0 million towards the settlement
of this litigation.

On November 6, 2013, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Ross settlement. On April 16, 2014, the Court
finally approved the settlement and dismissed the action with
prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the Ross settlement agreement,
the Class will receive a total of $27.5 million in consideration
of the proposed settlement and the parties will release all
claims. The Company's directors' and officers' liability insurers
paid $22.5 million of the settlement amount, $10.0 million of
which was funded pursuant to the Derivative Settlements, and the
Company paid the remaining $5.0 million. However, the Company is
seeking recovery of that amount from one of its insurers, Axis
Insurance Company ("Axis"), but has not recorded a receivable for
this additional amount as it is not deemed probable as of March
31, 2014. Axis is seeking a declaration of no coverage. In
connection with the Ross settlement, the Company entered into an
additional settlement on April 15, 2014 with certain members of
the Class pursuant to which the Company expects to pay
approximately $3.8 million. The Company is seeking recovery of
this amount from Axis.


CAREER EDUCATION: Insurer Disputes Coverage in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claims and counterclaims were filed between Axis Insurance Company
and Career Education Company in connection with coverage for a
recently settled securities class action and shareholder
derivative actions, according to Career Education Corporation's
May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On December 11, 2013, Axis Insurance Company filed a declaratory
judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery
Division, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants
in connection with coverage for the recently settled securities
class action and shareholder derivative actions. Axis seeks a
declaration of no coverage. On March 11, 2014, the Company and the
individual defendants responded to Axis's complaint and asserted
counterclaims pursuant to which the Company claims approximately
$10.0 million in coverage. On April 22, 2014, Axis responded to
the Company's counterclaims.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Enea" Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaints Anew
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit Enea, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation,
and Sallie Mae, Inc. filed a motion seeking leave to file a third
amended complaint, according to Career Education's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court
State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27,
2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the
placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to
the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an
excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service
providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-
regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers
eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school
provided graduates with career placement services for life. The
plaintiffs or putative class members here co-signed the loans for
students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members.
Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was
conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two
separate orders granting the motion to strike the class
allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit Over UTPA Stayed Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
All proceedings with the trial court in the suit Surrett, et al.
v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education
Corporation have been stayed pending the outcome of an appeal
regarding arbitration and on the resolution of the issue on court
jurisdiction, according to Career Education's May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary
Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of misrepresentations to
them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students'
employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and
quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students
could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to
earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain
of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted
on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a
formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff's
UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying
certification of the rest of those claims and denying
certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between
March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out
or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case. The oral argument on the appeal is set for May 9, 2014. All
proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.


CAREER EDUCATION: Vasquez-Patterned Suit Has 1,047 Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are approximately 1,047 remaining plaintiffs in a
consolidated action that asserts the same claims as in the suit
Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation, according to Career Education's May
8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from California School of Culinary
Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the
limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action
(including, without limitation, the period following the filing of
the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive
fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also
successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged
violations of California's former Private Postsecondary and
Vocational Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the Reform Act").
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the Court
on March 6, 2012.

Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related
"multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of
approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of
Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary
Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et
al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al. v. California
School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School of
Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are
essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action
case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory
and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition
monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All
of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class
action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is
presiding over the Vasquez case.

On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez
action consolidating all eight of the separate actions. The
complaint was thereafter amended to add additional plaintiffs. As
a result of these amendments, there were at one time approximately
1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled between 2003 and
2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009 and 2010).

On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the
motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine
arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration
Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of
which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs' claims were settled
prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for
all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the
resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary
dismissal of certain claims, there are approximately 1,047
remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

The Company and plaintiffs' counsel have executed an agreement
regarding the framework for individual settlements with
approximately 950 of the remaining individual plaintiffs. Pursuant
to this settlement arrangement, defendants will pay a maximum of
$17.5 million in the aggregate to fund the individual plaintiff
settlements, attorneys' fees and administrative costs of the
settlement, subject to certain excluded costs which defendants
will be separately responsible for. The settlement amounts for
each individual plaintiff will be determined by a third party. If
any plaintiff decides not to accept the settlement, then the
amount allocated to that plaintiff will be returned to defendants.
Defendants have the right not to proceed with the settlement if a
specified number of plaintiffs do not accept the settlement.
Defendants' liability pursuant to the settlement is estimated to
be $15.5 million to $17.5 million; however, defendants do not have
a reasonable basis to estimate where in that range the liability
is likely to be. Accordingly, for the quarter ended March 31,
2014, the Company is maintaining a reserve of $15.5 million based
on its assessment that the settlement is probable.

Approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs are not within the
purview of the settlement arrangement described in the preceding
paragraph. Any liability to these plaintiffs is expected to be an
immaterial amount.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Employment Suit Over ARSC Remanded
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation is on
remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole
question of whether CEC's termination of the Admissions
Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan violated
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, according to
the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions
representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-
count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment arising from the company's decision to terminate its
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan.
In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions
representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan.
On October 6, 2011, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this
action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff
filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court.
Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was
held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings
on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013,
the company filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the
panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and for
certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the
petition was denied.

The case now is on remand to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have
exchanged initial disclosures. On February 19, 2014, the Court
ordered the parties to commence fact discovery as to the issue of
liability.


CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Okays Accord in "Nimely" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted final approval of the settlement reached in Nimely, et al.
v. Randstad General Partners, Randstad USA, Randstad Inhouse
Services L.P., and Career Education Corporation, according to
Career Education's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On December 30, 2012, April R. Nimely, a former hourly, non-exempt
call center employee based in Illinois filed a putative class and
collective action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company and various
entities of the staffing firm Randstad, which the Company used to
supplement its own staff at some of its call centers. The
complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act ("IWPCA") arising from the alleged failure to pay
wages for work performed before and after shifts and during
breaks. The putative collective class was defined as "[a]ll
persons who worked for [d]efendants as telephone dedicated
employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in
full, on an hourly basis throughout the United States at any time
between December 30, 2009 and the present who did not receive the
full amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them."
On February 27, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the
complaint and motion to dismiss the IWPCA count of the complaint.
On June 14, 2013, plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to
settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On November 29, 2013,
the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement. On March 25, 2014, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement and dismissed the case.


CATERPILLAR INC: Sued Over Defective Regeneration System Parts
--------------------------------------------------------------
G&G Specialized Carriers, LLC, a Wisconsin corporation, on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. 2:14-
cv-00567 (E.D. Wis., May 16, 2014), arises from the alleged
defective Caterpillar Regeneration System material and/or
workmanship causing the vehicle to not function as required under
all operating conditions, on a consistent and reliable basis, even
after repeated emissions warranty repairs and replacements.

Caterpillar, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business located at 100 NE Adams Street, Peoria, Illinois
61629, and is registered to conduct business in Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
      COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
      513 Central Ave-Ste 300
      Highland Park, IL 60035
      Telephone: (847) 433-4500
      Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
      E-mail: ecf@complexlitgroup.com


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates Securities Settlement Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff's denial of a settlement
agreement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and
Citigroup in 2011 was vacated on June 4 by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A three-judge panel said Judge Rakoff applied the wrong standard
when he blocked a consent decree between the SEC and Citigroup
Global Markets over mortgage-backed securities on Nov. 28, 2011,
and set a trial date.

The ruling by Judges Rosemary Pooler, Raymond Lohier and Susan
Carney follows a March 2012 decision by a circuit motions panel
staying Judge Rakoff's order to proceed to trial.

The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup
Global Markets, 11-5227-cv.

The SEC and the bank had come to terms over allegations Citigroup
had misrepresented its role and influence in a billion-dollar fund
collateralized by subprime securities that were tied to an
imploding housing market.  The commission had accused the bank of
misleading fund investors that the portfolio was selected by an
independent investment advisor, and investors suffered millions of
dollars in losses while Citigroup was reaping some $160 million in
profits short selling the very same investments.

As part of the settlement, Citgroup agreed to pay $285 million in
disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties, agreed to
injunctive relief and promised to make internal changes to prevent
such situations in the future.

Judge Rakoff criticized the consent decree signed by the parties
as the latest in a series of cases in which the SEC alleged
serious securities fraud for which the defendant admitted no
wrongdoing -- a practice he said was "hallowed by history but not
by reason."

Judge Rakoff also questioned why culpable individuals were not
held responsible and Citigroup and its shareholders had to pay the
penalty.  He said the decree was "neither fair, nor reasonable,
nor adequate, nor in the public interest."

The SEC asked the Second Circuit to reverse and petitioned for a
writ of mandamus ordering Judge Rakoff to approve the settlement.
A motions panel of Judges Pooler, John Walker and Pierre Leval
stayed Judge Rakoff's ruling on March 15, 2012, finding that there
was a likelihood the parties would succeed on the merits.

Because there was no adversarial briefing, the motions panel also
appointed John Wing, partner at Lankler, Siffert & Wohl, as pro
bono counsel to argue Judge Rakoff's position.

Writing for the circuit on June 4, Judge Pooler said, "[Wednes]day
we clarify that the proper standard for reviewing a proposed
consent judgment involving an enforcement agency requires the
district court to determine whether the proposed consent decree is
fair and reasonable, with the additional requirement that the
'public interest would not be disserved,'" -- language from the
U.S. Supreme Court decision of eBay, Inc. v. Merc Exchange, 547
U.S. 388 (2006).

She said the circuit was omitting "adequacy" from the standard as
borrowed from the class action context but "particularly inapt in
the context of a proposed SEC consent decree."

On remand to Judge Rakoff, she said the judge, in assessing the
"fairness" and "reasonableness" of a consent decree, may need to
make additional enquiries of the parties, but it can only go so
far.

"The primary focus of the inquiry, however, should be on ensuring
the consent decree was procedurally proper, using objective
measures . . . taking care not to infringe on the SEC
discretionary authority to settle on a particular set of terms."

"It is an abuse of discretion to require, as the district court
did here, that the SEC establish the 'truth' of the allegations
against a settling party as a condition for approving the consent
decrees," Judge Pooler said.

Oral argument was heard at the circuit on Feb. 8, 2013, with
Deputy General Counsel Michael Conley of the SEC representing the
commission and Brad Karp, a partner with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison for Citigroup.

The circuit expressed concern about taking the interlocutory
appeal and said it didn't want to get into the business of
reviewing every case where a judge balks at accepting a
settlement.

Judge Pooler wrote that, in order for a court to take an
interlocutory appeal of the denial of a settlement, a party must
show they have effectively been denied injunctive relief and that
denial will result in irreparable harm.

"That standard is satisfied here," she said.

Seth Taube, a former SEC enforcement prosecutor and special
assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District who heads Baker
Botts' securities litigation practice, said that although Judge
Rakoff was reversed, the judge made his point.
"The irony is that the SEC has caught up with Judge Rakoff's
concept even though the circuit reversed him -- the SEC has since
adopted a policy, in certain serious cases, of insisting on an
admission of wrongdoing," said Mr. Taube, who is not involved in
the Citigroup case.  "The other interesting piece of the case is,
it's really about a division of powers between the branches of
government: the circuit is basically saying it's the executive
branch that decides what's in the public interest and, in most
cases, the judiciary must respect that decision."

"The decision gives a court very limited ability to say an SEC
consent judgment is not reasonable."

In a statement, SEC Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney said the
agency was pleased.  He said the SEC will continue to seek
admissions of wrongdoing in appropriate cases but recognized that
reaching settlements without admissions sometimes enable
regulatory agencies to return money more quickly to harmed
investors.

Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a Washington-based
group that advocates strict financial regulation, applauded the
appeals court for citing previous law making clear that judges
should not merely "rubber stamp" agreements but ensure they are
fair and reasonable.

Mr. Kelleher said the group looked forward to Judge Rakoff's
analysis in future proceedings of whether there was collusion to
reach the deal or an effort to mislead the judge about the scope
and terms of the settlement.


CREDIBLE SECURITIES: "May" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
William May, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. Credible Security Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00091 (N.D.
Fla., May 13, 2014), seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated
damages, attorney fees, and other relief from the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Credible Security Services, LLC, is a Florida corporation that
provides security services in Alachua County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew William Birk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
      309 Ne 1ST St.
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone :(352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Suit Seeks to Recover Retirement Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan J. Meyers, Rocco H. Colanero, and Allen Penley, Eddie Warren
Bridges, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class,
and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW v. Daimler Trucks
North America, LLC and Daimler Trucks North America Welfare
Benefit Plan, Case No. 2:14-cv-02361 (W.D. Tenn., May 15, 2014),
seeks to recover benefits due and to clarify rights to benefits
due the Individual Plaintiffs and the Proposed Plaintiff Class
under the Defendants' Retiree Welfare Benefit Plan to remedy a
breach of fiduciary duty, as well as attorneys' fees and other
relief.

Daimler Trucks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and is a
subsidiary of Daimler AG. Daimler Trucks conducts business in the
Western District of Tennessee, including at its parts distribution
center in Memphis, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Nickelhoff, Esq.
      Mami Kato, Esq.
      SACHS WALDMAN, P.C.
      2211 E. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 200
      Detroit, MI 48207
      Telephone: (313) 496-9429
      E-mail: anickelhoff@sachswaldman.com
              mkato@sachswaldman.com

           - and -

      Michael F. Saggau, Esq.
      ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSELINTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW
      8000 East Jefferson Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48214
      Telephone: (313) 926-5216
      E-mail: msaggau@uaw.net

           - and -

      Samuel Morris, Esq.
      GODWIN MORRIS LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C.
      Morgan Keegan Tower
      50 N. Front St., Ste. 800
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 528-1702
      Facsimile: (901) 528-0246
      E-mail: smorris@gmlblaw.com


DAKA ARMS: Failed to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Shaon and Jill Weller, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Daka Arms, LLC d/b/a Taps House of Beer,
Case No. 4:14-cv-01341 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiffs' minimum
and overtime wages required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Daka Arms, LLC is a domestic company that owns and/or operates a
bar in Houston, Texas known as "Taps House of Beer". It is an
enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R Debes , Jr, Esq.
      SHELLIST, LAZARZ & SLOBIN, LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 623-0900
      Facsimile: (713) 623-0951
      E-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com


DENDREON CORP: Opt-Outs in Securities Suit Accord Pursue Own Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of individual investors who elected to opt out of the
settlement in In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action Litigation
is pursuing the same allegations in their suit Christoph Bolling,
et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-0872 JLR,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company and three current and former officers were named
defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action
proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District
Court") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. 2:11-cv-1291 JLR. The lawsuit was
settled on stipulated terms that received final Court approval in
August 2013. The settlement has become effective, and the
litigation has been dismissed against all defendants with
prejudice. A group of individual investors who elected to opt out
of the class action settlement commenced their own action in the
District Court alleging securities fraud on May 16, 2013. That
action, captioned Christoph Bolling, et al. v. Dendreon
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-0872 JLR, names the same
defendant parties and generally alleges the same underlying facts
as were asserted in the class action -- i.e., that the Company
made various false or misleading statements between April 29, 2010
and August 3, 2011 concerning the Company, its finances, business
operations and prospects with a focus on the market launch of
PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician adoption, and
revenue from sales of PROVENGE. In addition to claims under the
federal securities laws, the Bolling plaintiff group also purports
to assert certain claims under Washington state law. Based on
information provided informally by plaintiffs' counsel, the
plaintiff group, which totals approximately 30 persons, purports
to have purchased approximately 250,000 shares of Dendreon common
stock during the relevant period, an amount that equates to under
0.5% of the estimated shares that comprised the plaintiff class in
the class action. The Bolling plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint July 16, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, and the Court
held a hearing on that motion January 3, 2014. On January 28,
2014, the Court issued an order granting the motion in part and
denying the motion in part. Specifically, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims based on the federal securities laws and the
Washington Consumer Protection Act; however, the Court denied the
motion as to plaintiffs' state law claims for fraud and negligent
misrepresentation. The Court granted plaintiffs 20 days leave to
amend on the dismissed claims. On February 17, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss that
complaint on March 24, 2014, and briefing on the motion was
scheduled to be completed by May 14, 2014. The Bolling plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages.


DYNAMIC CORPORATE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Calderon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Dynamic Corporate Holdings, Inc. D/B/A AT&T Product
Center, and Front Page Inc., and Butler Realty Corp., and
Rockville Centre wireless Inc., and Riverhead Wireless Corp., and
Long Beach Wireless,Inc., and Bay Shore Wireless, Inc., and Mark
Butler, and Tony Saracini, and Mitchell Penn, and John Cruz, each
in their professional and Individual Capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03093 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover damages and
equitable relief based upon the flagrant and willful violations of
the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him, and all others similarly
situated pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Front Page Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York that maintains its
principal executive office at 1925 Bellmore Avenue, Bellmore, New
York 11710-5639.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL: "Green" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Green, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated,
v. North Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00090 (N.D. Fla., May 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201, et seq., by failing to pay the Plaintiff minimum and
overtime compensation.

North Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc., is a Florida
corporation that operates a hospital in Alachua County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew William Birk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
      309 NE 1ST ST
      GAINESVILLE, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: May Tax Suit Costs Among Plaintiffs, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Ford Motor Company, having prevailed in a 15-year-long class-
action suit by truck dealerships, may tax litigation costs jointly
and severally against the plaintiffs, a federal judge says.

The May 29 ruling may mark the end of Bayshore Ford Truck Sales v.
Ford Motor Co., a litigation saga that began in 1999 when 74
dealers claimed Ford violated a contract to supply them company
products when it exited the heavy truck business two years
earlier.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares granted the plaintiffs summary
judgment in 2005 and certified the class in 2006.  In a damages
trial of 11 bellwether cases in June 2012, a jury awarded $29
million.

But in September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the judgment and the damages award, finding
Ford's continuing sale of spare parts fulfilled its obligations
under the Ford Heavy Truck Sales and Service Agreement that each
dealer signed.

On remand, Judge Linares dismissed the breach-of-contract claims.
That ruling is the subject of two separate appeals pending at the
Third Circuit, one by the 11 plaintiffs who participated in the
trial and another by the 63 who did not.

In October 2013, Ford moved for $393,953 in costs as a prevailing
party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).  The total was
reduced to $327,987.  Of that, $213,756 was for a supersedeas bond
that Ford purchased to allow it to pursue its appeal without
paying the underlying judgment from the jury trial.

The plaintiffs argued that imposing joint and several liability
would distribute the costs unevenly.  But Judge Linares said it
would be unfair for Ford to have to collect costs from 74 parties
individually.  The plaintiffs failed to show it would be difficult
to coordinate dividing the costs among themselves, he said.

Judge Linares also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they
should not bear the cost of the bond because they were willing to
waive its posting.  The taxing of the bond cost is allowed under
local court rules, Judge Linares said, and he called
"disingenuous" the plaintiffs' claim that they would waive
posting, noting they never objected to the bond or indicated their
willingness to waive it.

The plaintiffs further argued that the taxation of costs should be
deferred while the Third Circuit appeals are pending.  But Judge
Linares said the pending appeal only addresses the application of
the court's mandate and therefore the taxation of costs is not
premature.

Judge Linares, in granting costs other than attorney's fees,
affirmed a March 28 decision by Deputy Court Clerk John O'Brien,
who reduced the total by $65,966.  Among those knocked out were
costs for digital preparation of clips from videotaped depositions
for showing at trial, and preparation of visual aids to present at
trial.  The court called the digital video expenditure "glitz" and
"an effort to wow" the jury.  The $10,137 bill for that service
was disallowed, as was all but $450 of a $48,522 bill for
preparation of visual aids, which was deemed the work of an expert
or consultant and thus not subject to taxation.

Plaintiff lawyer Eric Chase -- echase@bressler.com -- of Bressler,
Amery & Ross in Florham Park, declined to comment on the ruling,
as did Erica Songer of Hogan Lovells --
erica.songer@hoganlovells.com -- in Washington, D.C., representing
Ford.


GEISHA ASIAN: Sued Over Failure Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Facundo, Teofilo Maldonado, and Rufino Pablo Caballero, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Geisha Asian
Cuisine, Inc., Sing Luck Garden, and Sandra Xiu Xia Zheng, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03528 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover from
the Defendants, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Geisha Asian Cuisine, Inc., is a domestic business corporation of
the State of New York, with a principal place of business at 3468
Broadway, New York, New York 10031.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Falsely Marketed Testofen Products, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian O'Toole, Robert Sokolove, and Michael Bitton, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gencor Nutrients,
INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-03754 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2014), arises
from the alleged false advertising and marketing of Testofen or
nutritional supplements containing Testofen, an extract of the
herb fenugreek as "testosterone boosters," representing that
Testofen has been "clinically proven" to increase free
testosterone levels.

Gencor Nutrients, Inc., is a California corporation having its
principal place of business in Orange County, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Barry R. Himmelstein, Esq.
      HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK
      2000 Powell Street Suite 1605
      Emeryville, CA 94608-1861
      Telephone: (510) 450-0782
      Facsimile: (510) 380-6147
      E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com


GENE BY GENE: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Gene by Gene, LTD, a Texas limited liability company
d/b/a Family Tree DNA, Case No. 1:14-cv-00004 (D. Alaska, May 13,
2014), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's alleged unlawful
disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive
genetic information in its public website without the Plaintiff's
and the Class' consent.

Gene by Gene, LTD, is a State of Texas limited liability company
located at 1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, Texas 77008.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas K. Mertz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS K. MERTZ
      319 Seward Street, Suite 5
      Juneau, AK 99801
      Telephone: (907) 586-4004
      Facsimile: (907) 586-4141
      E-mail: dkmertz@ak.net


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Duarte" Suit in Fla. Over Vehicle Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Duarte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. General Motors LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, and
Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21815 (S.D. Fla.,
May 16, 2014), arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose and
active concealment of a defect in certain GM vehicles that renders
them unsafe to drive and has killed at least 13 innocent victims
and possibly hundreds more.

General Motors LLC is a limited liability company formed under the
laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Harley Shepard Tropin, Esq.
      Robert J. Neary, Esq.
      Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
      2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900
      Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: 372-3508
      E-mail: AMM@kttlaw.com
              hst@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com
              TR@kttlaw.com
              tjl@kttlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recall Probe to Clear Senior Management of Blame
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supriya Kurane, Ankush Sharma and Peter Henderson, writing for
Reuters, report that an internal probe of General Motors Co's GM.N
delay in recalling cars with defective ignition switches linked to
at least 13 deaths is expected to conclude there was no concerted
coverup and clear senior management of blame.

The probe is expected to conclude that CEO Mary Barra, executives
who reported directly to her, the board of directors and former
CEO Dan Akerson did not know about the defective switches before
December 2013, The Wall Street Journal said, citing people
familiar with the matter.

The report will conclude that GM managers did not make connections
and act on evidence of problems linked to deadly accidents, and it
will recommend changes to GM culture and management, the Journal
said.

GM is expected to announce the dismissal of "a number of people,"
including the engineer who designed the ignition switch,
Raymond DeGiorgio, and some members of the company's legal
department, the newspaper said.

But GM's general counsel, Michael Millikin, who was co-lead of the
internal probe with former U.S. prosecutor Anton Valukas, is
expected to continue to work for the automaker and is cleared of
responsibility for the mishandling of defects and the recall
delay, the people told the newspaper.

Ms. Barra was expected to announce the findings of the internal
probe on June 5.  The No.1 U.S. automaker has recalled 2.6 million
cars because of the switches, which GM engineers have known about
for more than a decade.

In the wake of the internal report, the GM board is expected to
form an operational risk-management committee, the Journal said.

GM spokesman Greg Martin did not immediately respond to an email
seeking comment.

GM faces investigations by Congress, the Justice Department, the
Securities and Exchange Commission and several states.  It has
also been sued by families of crash victims and investors, all of
whom are likely to pour over GM's report for evidence to back
their claims.

On May 16, GM was fined $35 million for its delayed response to
the defect, the maximum that can be imposed by the U.S. Department
of Transportation.

The faulty switches are in older, inexpensive models such as the
Saturn Ion and Chevrolet Cobalt.  GM began recalling the cars in
February.

The defective switches, which are cheap to fix, can unexpectedly
turn from the "on" position to the "accessory" position, causing
engines to stall, airbags to fail during crashes and power
steering and power brakes to malfunction.

While the carmaker has acknowledged 13 deaths related to the
ignition switches, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has said the number likely could be higher.

Reuters reported on June 2 that at least 74 people have died in
crashes similar to those GM has linked to the faulty switches,
based on an analysis of government data.

The largest U.S. automaker has made several changes to its
organizational structure since the recall, saying it would improve
vehicle quality and safety.  The company also has announced the
exit of several executives in moves it said were unrelated.

In addition to naming a global vehicle safety chief in March to
improve the process for catching defects and calling for recalls
sooner, GM split its engineering division into two units the
following month and assigned one of its top attorneys to advise
the new safety chief on legal issues.

Mr. Valukas, co-lead of the probe, is well respected for his
investigation of Lehman Brothers after the financial services firm
collapsed in 2008.  He alleged then that Lehman used accounting
gimmicks and had been insolvent for weeks before it filed for
bankruptcy.

But the law firm of which he is chairman, Jenner & Block, has
worked with GM since 2002, and at least two of the automaker's
former top attorneys, Robert Osborne and Elmer Johnson, were
partners at the Chicago law firm.

That led to questions of conflict of interest for the law firm,
when the probe was announced in March.  GM at the time said there
was no such issue and that Mr. Valukas had been charged to go
"where the facts take him."


GENERAL MOTORS: Wants to Fight Ignition Switch Suits in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that General Motors Co. wants to return to
a New York courtroom to fight at least 90 ignition-switch defect
lawsuits while some car owners are driving for the cases to be
heard by a California judge seasoned in auto litigation.

A panel of federal judges was set to decide at a meeting on
May 29.

Their ruling, which could come within a week, will be the first
significant step in resolving whether GM is liable for the switch
defect and owes billions of dollars in damages to the owners of
Chevrolet Cobalts and other cars.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation will also select the judge who will
handle the combined cases.

Many car owners want the case handled by the judge overseeing
sudden-acceleration lawsuits against Toyota Motor Corp. while GM
prefers Manhattan, where a bankruptcy judge approved its
reorganization.

The decision on "venue can have an impact, and not just because it
could go to a particular judge," said Alan Rothman, a product-
liability lawyer at Kaye Scholer LLP in New York who isn't
involved in the litigation.  "It will impact which circuit's law
will apply," he said, referring to different rules that apply in
different regions.

GM was sued after it began recalling 2.59 million Cobalts, Saturn
Ions and other small cars in February.  The company said heavy key
rings or jarring can cause the ignition switch in some cars to
slip out of the "on" position, cutting off power and deactivating
air bags.  The company has linked to the defect to at least 13
deaths.

U.S. probes

GM has agreed to pay a record $35 million fine as part of the U.S.
Transportation Department's investigation into how the company
handled the recall, which is the subject of probes by Congress and
the Justice Department.  Car owners who sued claim GM knew of the
defect for at least a decade and failed to correct it.  They seek
group status on behalf of all owners of defective cars and want to
recover their vehicles' lost value.  Bob Hilliard, a plaintiffs'
lawyer, has said he seeks to recover $6 billion to $10 billion.

GM was sued in federal courts across the U.S., with at least 27
cases now pending in California alone.  As is typical, the
multidistrict panel will decide whether to group the cases as one
and send them to a particular court and judge as a way to
streamline the litigation.

State-court cases and those alleging wrongful death won't be
included.  Several plaintiffs' lawyers say the cases should be
consolidated before U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana,
Calif., about 30 miles south of Los Angeles.  Judge Selna presides
over pending suits on behalf of 16 million owners of Toyota
vehicles subject to sudden and unintended acceleration.

Speed, efficiency

Steve Berman, a lawyer for some plaintiffs, said in a March court
filing that Judge Selna is well-versed in auto litigation and
knows how to handle the pre-trial disputes that inevitably arise
over depositions and the exchange of evidence.

"Speed and efficiency are paramount," wrote Mr. Berman, an
attorney with Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  The
focus "of the ignition-switch actions is the fraud perpetrated on
the plaintiffs."

Other plaintiffs want the cases to be heard in Chicago, Miami or
Corpus Christi, Texas, where they have sued.  GM wants the cases
consolidated in the federal court in Manhattan, about a mile from
where a prior incarnation of the company filed for bankruptcy in
2009.  Company lawyers say proximity to the bankruptcy court
trumps Judge Selna's experience.

The New York court "is in the best position to coordinate with the
bankruptcy proceedings in that district," GM's lawyer,
Andrew Bloomer of Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis LLP, said in an
April 25 filing with the panel.

Shed liability

That's especially so because GM will argue as part of its defense
that a June 2009 bankruptcy court order, approving the sale of
assets belonging to the now-defunct General Motors Corp. to a new
and similarly named entity, allowed it to shed legal liability for
most economic-loss claims arising from the ignition defect.

"Those types of claims were never assumed by New GM," Bloomer
wrote.  GM's second choice for a court location is Detroit.

James Cain, a GM spokesman, said the company's court filings speak
for themselves and declined to comment further.

Separately, GM has asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber in
Manhattan to issue an order affirming that most economic loss
claims can't be pursued now.

Customers, creditors

On May 16, Judge Gerber ordered the plaintiffs and the carmaker to
file briefs on whether old GM broke rules by not treating
customers with defective cars as creditors when it filed for
bankruptcy and whether that company hid evidence of the defect.

The multidistrict panel will consider which judges are most
familiar with automobile cases and which courts have capacity to
take on a large litigation, Mr. Rothman said.  The panel will also
weigh whether a certain location is most convenient for lawyers
and their clients.

"The panel is not bound to transfer to a district where any case
is pending," he said. Rulings on where the case will be tried are
sometimes "the most intriguing and least predictable" decision the
panel makes, he said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Number of Ignition-Linked Crashes Reaches 47
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Isidore, Chris Kokenes and Rene Marsh, writing for CNNMoney,
report that more crashes are now being attributed to faulty
ignitions in General Motors vehicles.

GM has raised the number of frontal-impact crashes linked to the
problem ignitions to 47 from 32, according to company spokesman
Greg Martin.

Because of the flawed ignition, key rings holding more than one
key could cause the ignition to suddenly switch to the accessory
or off position.  That can lead to a loss of power -- disabling
power braking and steering and interrupting airbags from deploying
in an accident.

GM says the number of deaths tied to front impact crashes stemming
from this defect remains at 13.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chided the
automaker for the way it handled the recall and said that the
number of deaths tied to the problem was likely higher.

"GM knew about the safety defect, but did not act to protect
Americans from that defect until this year.  The families and
friends of those lost in the crashes have the deepest sympathies
of everyone at NHTSA.  They deserve straight answers about what
happened to their loved ones," NHTSA said in a statement.

"The final death toll associated with this safety defect is not
known to NHTSA, but we believe it's likely that more than 13 lives
were lost," NHTSA said.

GM spokesman Jim Cain said the automaker was aware of the NHTSA
statement and that "if necessary we will adjust the number."

GM has come under fire for the way it handled the flawed ignition
switch.

Company employees knew about the defect for more than a decade
before a recall was initiated in February 2014.  So far, the
automaker has recalled 2.6 million cars worldwide due to the
ignition switch.

CEO Mary Barra has revamped how GM handles safety issues.  A new
unit charged with quickly uncovering safety defects has begun to
aggressively issue recall notices for problems beyond the ignition
switch.

The company has initiated 30 separate recalls covering 13.8
million U.S. cars and trucks, and 15.8 million vehicles worldwide,
in 2014.  That's more cars and trucks than GM sold in the five
years since emerging from bankruptcy protection in 2009.

So far GM has agreed to pay the maximum fine of $35 million to
NHTSA for the delay in the ignition recall.  And it will be
subject to closer oversight by the regulator.

The Justice Department is also considering whether to bring
criminal charges against the automaker.  A similar probe over
Toyota's 2009 and 2010 unintended acceleration recalls led to a
$1.2 billion fine earlier this year.

The company estimates it will cost $1.7 billion to repair the cars
recalled so far in 2014.  That expense essentially erased the
profit the company would have reported in the first quarter.
GM shares are down 18% this year, lagging behind rivals Toyota and
Ford Motor.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: States to Get $105MM in Drug Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that GlaxoSmithKline PLC will pay
$105 million to dozens of states to settle allegations that it
unlawfully marketed its asthma drug Advair and the antidepressants
Paxil and Wellbutrin.

Under the settlement announced on June 4, the London-based
pharmaceutical also agreed to rules that bar it from paying
doctors to promote its products; providing financial incentives
that encourage salespeople to market drugs for unapproved uses;
marketing drugs using results from inadequate studies or making
unapproved claims that a product was "better, more effective,
safer or has less serious side effects," according to a statement
from California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris.

California was among states whose attorneys general filed
identical lawsuits in local courts. It will receive more than $7
million -- the largest single portion of the settlement -- after
the deal is approved in San Diego County Superior Court.

The state lawsuits claimed that GlaxoSmithKline violated state
consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the uses and qualities
of the drugs and marketing them for purposes unapproved by the
Food and Drug Administration -- a practice called off-label
marketing.

GlaxoSmithKline did not acknowledge any wrongdoing under the
settlement, which is similar to one reached with the federal
government in 2012 for a record $3 billion.  Its marketing
practices also are under investigation in Britain, China and
several other countries.

Nearly every big drugmaker has been prosecuted for off-label
marketing and agreed to settlements with the government.  Last
year, Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay nearly $491 million to resolve an
investigation into off-label marketing of the organ transplant
drug Rapamune by a company Pfizer later acquired.

The GlaxoSmithKline settlement covers 44 states and the District
of Columbia.  It doesn't include Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi,
New Hampshire, South Carolina or West Virginia, although Louisiana
previously settled its own suit.

GlaxoSmithKline said it already has put reforms in place.

Four years ago, GlaxoSmithKline committed to "stopping payments to
doctors to speak about our products, stopping payments to doctors
to attend medical conferences and cutting the tie linking the pay
of our sales representatives who call on prescribers in the U.S.
to the number of prescriptions issued," the company said in a
statement.  It said it was also rolling out such changes outside
the U.S.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: California to Get $7-Mil. From Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that California
will receive a $7 million chunk of a multistate settlement with
drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline PLC over its marketing of
medications for asthma and depression.

The California Office of the Attorney General accused the company
of promoting the drugs for off-label uses not approved by the Food
and Drug Administration.  In exchange for being released from
those claims, GSK has agreed to pay a $105 million settlement to
be divided up among California, 43 other states with a stake in
the case, and the District of Columbia.  The California complaint
and the state's settlement with GSK were both filed on June 4 in
San Diego County Superior Court, and California received the
largest share of the payout, according to the attorney general's
office.

"Patient care is undermined when pharmaceutical companies promote
uses for drugs that have not been approved by the FDA or pay
medical professionals to promote certain drugs," Attorney General
Kamala Harris said in a press release.

GSK, which has not admitted any wrongdoing, was represented in the
deal by Covington & Burling partners Matthew O'Connor in
Washington, D.C., and Emily Johnson Henn in Redwood Shores.  The
settlement prohibits GSK from making false claims about its
products and from providing sample drugs to doctors who are
expected to prescribe them for off-label uses.  It requires the
company to report research in an accurate and objective manner.
The drug company is barred from providing incentive pay to its
sales and marketing employees based on their sales volume.

"GSK is the first pharmaceutical company to commit to fundamental
reforms to our business model in the U.S. and around the world by
stopping payments to doctors to speak about our products, stopping
payments to doctors to attend medical conferences and cutting the
tie linking the pay of our sales representatives who call on
prescribers in the U.S. to the number of prescriptions issued,"
spokeswoman Mary Anne Rhyne said in an email.

The attorney general's office accused GSK of misleading asthma
patients who used the inhaled drug Advair.  The FDA approved the
drug in 2000 for patients with severe asthma whose symptoms were
not controlled by other medications.  But in 2010 added the
warning that Advair is linked to an increased risk of death and
should not be used unless necessary.

"From the time of Advair's launch in 2000 until the 2010 label
changes, GSK used false and misleading representations to promote
Advair as a first line treatment for all asthma patients,
including mild asthma patients," according to the complaint.

The drug company also provided financial incentives to its sales
representatives encouraging them to falsely represent the drug to
health-care professionals as a treatment for mild asthma, the
attorney general's office alleges.  GSK marketed antidepressants
Paxil and Wellbutrin to patients under the age of 18, even though
the medications only had been approved to treat adult patients,
according to the complaint.  The attorney general's office alleges
GSK also marketed Wellbutrin for off-label uses, such as treatment
of sexual dysfunction, anxiety, addictions, bipolar disorder and
obesity.  The company paid health-care professionals to attend
lavish meetings in Jamaica and Bermuda, where GSK provided
information about using Wellbutrin to treat such ailments,
according to the complaint.

The June 4 settlement echoes a 2012 settlement the company reached
with the U.S. Department of Justice.  In that case, GSK agreed to
plead guilty and pay $3 billion to resolve civil false claims
charges and criminal charges of introducing misbranded drugs and
failing to report drug safety data to the FDA.

That resolution was the largest health-care fraud settlement in
U.S. history, and the largest payment ever by a drug company,
according to the Justice Department.


GOOD STEER: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Good Steer Drive-in Inc. d/b/a The Good Steer and
Robert L. McCarroll, Case No. 2:14-cv-03094 (E.D.N.Y., May 16,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Good Steer Drive-in Inc. is a domestic business corporation of
the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq.
      Andrea Rodriguez, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      500 Bi-county Blvd, 112n
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Telephone: (631) 756-0400
      Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
      E-mail: promero@laborlaws.com
              atarazi@laborlaws.com


JAMBOX INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Taylor Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Jambox, INC. d/b/a Jambox Entertainment, Leroi Evans,
and Cathy Palmisano, Case No. 1:14-cv-03504 (S.D.N.Y., May 15,
2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid straight time wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jambox, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of
business at 352 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


KALCO LAUNDRY: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime & Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leida Campos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. Kalco Laundry, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03491 (N.D. Ill.,
May 13, 2014), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820
ILCS 105/1 et seq., for the Defendants' failure to pay the federal
and state mandated minimum wages and overtime wages to the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.

Kalco Laundry, Inc., is an enterprise doing business in the
judicial district of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos Gerardo Becerra, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
      332 S. Michigan, Suite 1020
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone :(312) 957-9005
      Facsimile: (773) 890-7780
      E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com


KANGADIS FOOD: Files for Bankruptcy Due to Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Privately held Kangadis Food Inc. has sought bankruptcy protection
after costs defending itself in a class action suit related to the
alleged misbranding of its Capitriti olive oil product hurt its
liquidity.

Themistoklis Kangadis, the CEO and president, says that although
the Debtor's business remains profitable, a class action lawsuit
commenced against the Debtor in April 2013, has forced the Debtor
to incur more than $1.4 million in litigation defense costs over
the past 16 months.  Indeed, the Debtor projects that if the class
action proceeds to trial, the Debtor will incur $750,000, or more,
in additional litigation costs in 2014.

In the class action, District Court Judge Rakoff entered an order
certifying the class, but has not made a finding of liability or
damages.  Judge Rakoff has scheduled a jury trial to begin Sept.
3, 2014, which may last up to two weeks.  The ability of the
Debtor to operate its business will be severely hampered if it
funds the litigation costs necessary to prepare for and conduct a
two-week jury trial. But for these litigation costs, the Debtor's
operations are profitable.

                         The Class Suit

On April 8, 2013, Joseph Ebin and Yeruchum Jenkins commenced a
class action against the Debtor in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York titled Joseph Ebin,
Yeruchum Jenkins, et al. v. Kangadis Food Inc., d/b/a The Gourmet
Factory, Index No. 1:13-cv-02311 (JSR), asserting causes of action
for fraud and breach of warranty under both New York and New
Jersey law relating to the Debtor's alleged misbranding and sale
of "olive-pomace oil" as "olive oil."  Notably, the class action
relates only to the Debtor's "Capitriti" brand of oil.

Judge Rakoff certified the Class Action under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, over the Debtor's objection. On
Dec. 11, 2013, Judge Rakoff issued an order granting class
certification, and on Feb. 25, 2014, issued a memorandum opinion
setting forth the reasons for that ruling, and a separate
memorandum order denying the Debtor's motion for summary judgment.
Among other things, Judge Rakoff found that there are triable
issues of fact relating to whether olivepomace oil is "olive oil."
Judge Rakoff also determined that the burden of proof for damages
rests with the Debtor. Therefore, the issues remaining before the
District Court are: (i) whether the Debtor is liable; (ii) if so,
the amount of damages, if any; and (iii) identification of the
individuals entitled to damages.

Judge Rakoff did express some concern about the plaintiffs'
ability to identify class members by referring to objective
criteria.  This is known as the "implied requirement of
ascertainability." (citing Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2010
WL 3119452 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2010)).  Indeed, Judge Rakoff
acknowledged that class members will not have receipts or remember
details as to their purchases of the Debtor's Capatriti oil.
Accordingly, any declaration those class members might sign with
respect to their purchase of the Debtor's products would be
unreliable.

The Debtor and its attorneys in the class action, Fox Rothschild
LLP, estimate that it will cost approximately $750,000 to complete
the jury trial of the class action litigation, in addition to the
approximately $1.4 million already incurred.  The trial is
scheduled to begin Sept. 3, 2014.

The Debtor filed the Chapter 11 case to enable the Bankruptcy
Court to expeditiously estimate the Class Action claim, which will
enable the Debtor to preserve its business and pay its creditors.

                        Estimation Motion

The Debtor has filed with the bankruptcy court a motion seeking to
estimate the class action claim under Section 502(c) of the
Bankruptcy Code.  The Debtor wants the claims estimated at $0
given the strength of its defenses.

Mr. Kangadis says it is essential that the Class Action claim be
estimated for both confirmation and distribution purposes, so that
the Debtor can promptly confirm a plan of reorganization in this
case.  Except for the disputed class action claim and the claim of
the debtor's class action counsel, the Debtor only owes
approximately $500,000 to unsecured creditors.

Thus, the Debtor is confident that, without the expense and
disruption caused by the Class Action, the Debtor can promptly
confirm a plan in this case.  Mr. Kangadis expects that a chapter
11 plan will be filed by the Debtor in the next two weeks.

For the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2014, the Debtor projects
that it will be profitable if it is not required to continue to
pay for legal fees and related expenses with respect to the class
action.

                        About Kangadis Food

Formed in 2003, Kangadis Food Inc. is an importer of olives and
other European delicacies, and a leading distributor of olive oil.
The Debtor sells its products under the brand names "Capatriti,"
"Porto," "Olio Villa," "Zorba," and "Kivotos".  The company is
100% owned by the Kangadis family.  The company says that for the
past six years, the popularity of its olive oil product sold under
the brand name "Capatriti" has grown over time, and it is one of
the leading brands in the New York metropolitan area.

As of its bankruptcy filing, Kangadis Food employs 51 people, and
operates from a 75,000 square foot facility located in Hauppauge,
New York, that serves as a warehouse, production facility, and
shipping center.

As of the Dec. 31, 2013, the Debtor, on an unaudited basis, had
total assets of $12,259,802 and total liabilities of $6,136,456,
which amount does not include any disputed claim relating to the
class action.  As of the Petition Date, the Debtor owes $3.5
million on a line of credit with Citibank, N.A.

Judge Robert E. Grossman is assigned to the case.

The Debtor has tapped Gerard R Luckman, Esq., and Adam L Rosen,
Esq., at Silverman Acampora LLP, in Jericho, New York, as counsel.


LEGACY NURSING: Sued for Failing to Pay OT Wages Pursuant to FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Jeffers and Cassondra Phillips, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Legacy Nursing Services, LLC and
Tracy Sandoval-Jones, Case No. 3:14-cv-00197 (E.D. Tenn., May 15,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Legacy Nursing Services, LLC, is a New Mexico limited liability
company that does business in Tennessee. Its principal office is
in New Mexico. Its registered agent for service of process is
Tracy Sandoval-Jones, 617 North 1st Street, Grants, New Mexico,
87020. It provides home healthcare services to its clients,
including nursing care and assistance with cooking, cleaning,
personal care, transportation, and medications, in the East
Tennessee area and in other states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Scott Jackson, Jr., Esq.
     R. SCOTT JACKSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     4525 Harding Road, Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37205
     Telephone: (615) 313-8188
     Facsimile: (615) 313-8702
     E-mail: rsjackson@rsjacksonlaw.com


LHC GROUP: Louisiana Shareholder Litigation in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement
System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-01609-JTT-CMH
are presently conducting fact discovery, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
01609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July
30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that
the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police &
Fire Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations
of the Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf
of the same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original
Complaint. In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A
of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without
merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. On December
17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied
by Order dated March 15, 2013. The parties are presently
conducting fact discovery.


MASTEC SERVICES: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Cisneros and Bernardo Vega, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly-situated v. Mastec Services Company, Inc., and
Jose Mas, Jeff Muoio, Jay Caroll, Dimas Medeiros, John Shaw,
Douglas Carter, and Brendan Dowling, each in their individual and
professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-03109 (E.D.N.Y., May 16,
2014), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief based upon
the flagrant and willful violations of the Plaintiffs rights
guaranteed to him, and all others similarly situated pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mastec Services Company, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its
headquarters located in Coral Gables, Florida, and is registered
to receive process within New York State at Corporate Creations
Network, Inc., 15 North Mill Street, Nyack, New York, 10960.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter John Andrews, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Ste 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: pja@employmentlawyernewyork.com


METLIFE INC: Still Faces Suit by Retirement System in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The suit City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v.
MetLife, Inc., et al., filed January 12, 2012, continues in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of
MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,
materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife,
Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance
benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated
to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Remand of Ala. Securities Lawsuit Faces Objection
--------------------------------------------------------------
The magistrate judge handling the suit City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. recommended
granting a motion to remand the case to state court and the
defendants have objected to that recommendation, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The suit pending in the N.D. Alabama was filed in state court on
July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012.
Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of
the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants
removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to
remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge recommended
granting the motion to remand to state court and the defendants
have objected to that recommendation.


METLIFE INC: Summary Judgment to MLIC in TCA Lawsuit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, the grant of summary judgment to Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company in a consolidated suit over the use of the
Total Control Accounts (TCA) to pay life insurance benefits,
according to MetLife Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court
on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011).

These putative class action lawsuits, which have been
consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC's
use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the
court granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.


METLIFE INC: Metropolitan Life Faces "Owens" TCA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
A suit Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
April 17, 2014, according to MetLife Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC's use of the
Total Control Accounts (TCA) as the settlement option for life
insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks
disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by
members of the putative class.


METLIFE INC: MLIC Faces Indemnity Claim by Sun Life Assurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is seeking indemnity claim
from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for some or all of the
sales practices claims regarding individual policies sold by MLIC
and transferred to Sun Life, according to MetLife Inc.'s May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been transferred to
Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to
indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity
provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's Canadian
operations entered into in June of 1998. In January 2010, the
court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for
indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet
incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for summary
judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to
withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through
arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action
complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013, again
without naming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life
notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
(Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales
practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by
MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is
obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in
these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.


METLIFE INC: Trial in "C-Mart," "Cadenasso" Lawsuits Set in Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is set for August 2014 in the cases C-Mart, Inc. v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013)
and Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D.
Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.),
according to MetLife Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). In the C-Mart case, the court granted
plaintiff's motion to certify a class of approximately 36,000
persons in Missouri who, during the period of August 7, 2012
through September 6, 2012, were allegedly sent an unsolicited fax
in violation of the TCPA. Trial is set for August 2014. In the
Cadenasso case, which has been transferred to Florida and assigned
to the same judge as the C-Mart case, plaintiff seeks
certification of a nationwide class of persons (except for those
in the C-Mart class) who were allegedly sent millions of
unsolicited faxes in violation of the TCPA. Trial has also been
set in Cadenasso for August 2014. In both cases, plaintiffs seek
an award of statutory damages under the TCPA in the amount of $500
for each violation and to have such damages trebled.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Miami Dolphins Player Files Concussion Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Hall of Fame quarterback
Dan Marino is among the latest group of football players to file a
concussion-related lawsuit against the National Football League.

The 52-year-old former Miami Dolphins quarterback is one of 15
former players who filed a lawsuit in federal court in
Philadelphia last week.

Marino and the other 14 plaintiffs join more than 4,800 others who
have alleged the NFL misled players about the long-term dangers of
concussions.  The NFL has denied those claims.

The lawsuit doesn't specify any medical problems suffered by the
plaintiffs including Marino, who retired in 1999.  It seeks
unspecified damages and medical monitoring.

The NFL and the original group of players agreed on a $765 million
settlement last August.  But the settlement was rejected by a
federal judge in January.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Deposits $6.1MM to 2010 Stock Suit Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash payments of $6.1 million from Nuverra Environmental
Solutions, and the remaining $7.4 million from insurance proceeds,
were deposited into escrow in April 2014 in relation to the
settlement of In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class Action
(Case No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT), according to Nuverra's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010 against the Company and various directors and officers
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
captioned In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class Action (Case
No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT). On March 4, 2014, the Company reached
an agreement in principle to settle this matter by entering into a
Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs. Under the terms of
the agreement, which must be approved by the court, the Company
has agreed to a cash payment of $13.5 million, a portion of which
will come from remaining insurance proceeds, as well as the
issuance of 0.8 million shares of its common stock. The Company
has agreed to provide a floor value of $13.5 million on the equity
portion of the settlement. Consequently, if the value of the 0.8
million shares issued in connection with this settlement is below
$13.5 million at the time of the final court approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement, the Company will be required to
contribute additional shares (or cash, at its option) such that
the total value of the cash and equity portions of the settlement
consideration is equal to $27.0 million. Cash payments of $6.1
million from the Company, and the remaining $7.4 million from
insurance proceeds, were deposited into escrow in April 2014 and
the shares will be deposited into escrow when the settlement
becomes effective upon final court approval. The Stipulation of
Settlement remains subject to court approval and will resolve all
claims asserted against the Company and individual defendants in
the case. As a result of the pending settlement of this matter,
the Company recorded an additional charge of $7.0 million in the
quarter ended December 31, 2013, to effectively accrue for the
proposed settlement. The Company could incur additional non-cash
charges in future periods if the market value of the 0.8 million
shares exceeds $13.5 million upon issuance.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Continues to Face 2013 Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions continues to face a consolidated
lawsuit claiming it made certain material misstatements and/or
omissions relating to operations and financial condition,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In September 2013, two separate but substantially-similar putative
class action lawsuits were commenced against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging
that the Company and the individual defendants made certain
material misstatements and/or omissions relating to the Company's
operations and financial condition which caused the price of its
shares to fall. By order dated October 29, 2013, the two putative
class actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint has
been filed. In September and October 2013, three separate but
substantially-similar shareholder derivative lawsuits were
commenced against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors alleging that that members of the
Company's board of directors failed to prevent the issuance of
certain misstatements and omissions and asserting claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims in
February 2014. Also in October 2013, two identical shareholder
derivative lawsuits were commenced against the company and certain
of the Company's current officers and directors alleging breach of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.
By order dated January 28, 2014, these two actions were
consolidated, and the plaintiffs have yet to file a consolidated
complaint.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Lawsuit by Opt-Out Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to an action filed by a single individual who opted
out of the state court settlement of In re Pacific Biosciences of
California Inc. S'holder Litig. filed a stipulation voluntarily
dismissing the case with prejudice and the suit was accordingly
terminated, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On October 25, 2013, the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, granted final approval of a
settlement of three class action lawsuits that had been
consolidated as In re Pacific Biosciences of California Inc.
S'holder Litig. In addition, on February 28, 2014, the company
entered into an agreement to settle the claims of the single
individual who opted out of the state court settlement and to
dismiss with prejudice the remaining claims asserted in the
lawsuit filed in December 2011 in United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, captioned Primo v. Pacific
Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:11-CV-06599.
Pursuant to this agreement, on March 12, 2014, the parties to the
Primo action filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the case
with prejudice. The Primo action was accordingly terminated on
March 17, 2014.


PELLA CORP: Judge Says Class Action Settlement "Scandalous"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
class action settlement before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit appeals panel was a "scandalous" assemblage of
conflicts of interest, cozy relationships, dubious calculations,
ethical wrongdoing and judicial inattention, that, in the end,
amounted to a decidedly raw deal for the consumers suing Pella
Corp. over alleged window defects.

That was what Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner concluded about
the proposed settlement in Eubank v. Pella Corp., an 8-year-old
dispute, that Judge Posner and two fellow judges threw out on
June 2.

"The district court approved a class action settlement that is
inequitable -- even scandalous," Judge Posner wrote on behalf of
the three-judge panel, referring to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  "Class counsel sold out the
class."

The tangle of problems began, according to the opinion, with the
selection of dentist Leonard Saltzman as the sole named plaintiff
in the suit, which claimed Pella's ProLine casement windows had a
design defect that allowed water to penetrate and damage the
windows' frames.

The case, Judge Posner wrote, dripped impropriety and conflict of
interest.  The lead class counsel was Mr. Saltzman's son-in-law,
Paul M. Weiss of Chicago's Complex Litigation Group, the opinion
says.  Mr. Saltzman's daughter, Jamie Weiss, also a lawyer, is a
partner in her husband's firm.  The couple are defendants in a
lawsuit charging them with misappropriation of assets from their
former firm, Freed & Weiss, which had served as class co-counsel
in the Pella case.  Illinois' attorney discipline commission has
recommended Paul Weiss' suspension for 30 months for alleged
sexual harassment and indecent behavior involving seven women.

Judge Posner found a financial motive in the haste to reach a
settlement.  "Weiss may have been desperate to obtain a large
attorney's fee in this case before his financial roof fell in on
him," Posner wrote.

Four other named plaintiffs were added to the case, joining
Mr. Saltzman.  But when the proposed settlement was presented to
the district court, those four opposed it, while Saltzman embraced
it.  Paul Weiss replaced the objectors with four new plaintiffs,
who supported the deal.

That deal was stacked in favor of the plaintiffs' attorneys and
Pella, with the class members an afterthought, Judge Posner wrote.

The settlement called for the attorneys to receive $11 million up
front, while the class members were to file complicated, 12-page
claim forms and wait. Pella also agreed to pay immediately a $2
million advance to the lead class counsel -- money that Paul
Weiss, embroiled in legal trouble, could well use, Judge Posner
wrote.

An estimate by the class counsel put the total available to the
class members at $90 million, which U.S. District Judge James
Zagel signed off on.  Judge Posner did his own calculations and
came up with a sum, at the very most, of $22.5 million, but more
likely $8.5 million.  If correct, that would mean the attorneys
would pocket at least half of the class' total settlement award,
or far more, he wrote.

Judge Posner faulted Judge Zagel for, among other things, signing
off on the settlement before the deadline for submitting claims
had expired; for not kicking Saltzman and Paul Weiss off the case;
for not disapproving whole sections of the proposed settlement;
and for not demanding a fair and accurate accounting of the total
award and its distribution.

"[A]lmost every danger sign in a class action settlement that our
court and other courts have warned district judges to be on the
lookout for was present in this case," Judge Posner wrote.  "Most
were not even mentioned by the district judge and those that were
received a brushoff."

The panel, which included circuit judges Ann Williams and John
Tinder, reversed and remanded the case, and called for Weiss,
Saltzman and Complex Litigation Group to be replaced, and the four
original named plaintiffs reinstated.


PEOPLES BANK: Motion for Judgment in Overdraft Fees Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Business Court denied the motion of Peoples
Bank for judgment in a suit related to its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees, according to Peoples Bancorp Of
North Carolina, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleges
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff seeks to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.  On June 6, 2013, the Bank
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was heard in
the North Carolina Business Court on October 1, 2013.   On April
15, 2014, the North Carolina Business Court denied the Bank's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.   The effect of the court's
ruling, which is not a determination on the merits, is to allow
the case to proceed to the next stages of the legal process,
including discovery and determination as to whether class
certification is appropriate or not.  The Bank continues to
believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit, including the
request that the lawsuit be certified as a class action.


PRICELINE GROUP: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Priceline Group Inc. continues to face lawsuits over hotel
occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, according to the
company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company and certain third-party online travel companies
("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately forty lawsuits,
including certified and putative class actions, brought by or
against states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes,
excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.).  The Company's subsidiaries
Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all
of these cases.  Generally, each complaint alleges, among other
things, that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective
relevant travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.
Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement,
penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.  In
addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or counties,
and at least eleven states, have initiated audit proceedings
(including proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities
in California, which have been inactive for several years), issued
proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the
payment of travel transaction taxes.  Additional state and local
jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to
travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes,
retroactively and/or prospectively.


PRICELINE GROUP: Pays $0.6MM to Hawaii After Tax Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
During the three months ended March 31, 2014, The Priceline Group
Inc. paid approximately $0.6 million under protest to the State of
Hawaii related to a ruling on local hotel occupancy tax, according
to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In January 2013, the Tax Appeal Court for the State of Hawaii held
that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the State's
transient accommodations tax, but held that the OTCs, including
the Company, are liable for the State's general excise tax on the
full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room
reservation, without any offset for amounts passed through to the
hotel. The Company recorded an accrual for travel transaction
taxes (including estimated interest and penalties), with a
corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately $16.5
million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in the
three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to this
ruling. During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company
paid approximately $0.6 million under protest to the State of
Hawaii related to this ruling. The Company has filed an appeal now
pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court. Other adverse rulings
include a decision in September 2012, in which the Superior Court
in the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of
the District and against the OTCs ruling that tax is due on the
OTCs' margin and service fees, which the Company is appealing. As
a result, the Company increased its accrual for travel transaction
taxes (including estimated interest), with a corresponding charge
to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million in September
2012 and by approximately $5.6 million in the three months ended
March 31, 2013. Also, in July 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, ruled that the Company and the other OTCs are
liable for tax and other obligations under the Chicago Hotel
Accommodations Tax. A summary judgment to determine the extent of
the liability is now pending. In addition, in October 2009, a jury
in a San Antonio class action found that the Company and the other
OTCs that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for
purposes of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and
are, therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances.
The Company intends to vigorously appeal the trial court's
judgment when it becomes final.


PRICELINE GROUP: Opposes Move to Amend Antitrust Lawsuit Anew
-------------------------------------------------------------
Online travel company defendants in a multidistrict antitrust
litigation by persons who purchased hotel room reservations, filed
an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint, according to The Priceline Group
Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations
from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain OTC
defendants, including the Company.  The initial complaint, Turik
v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the
Hotel Defendants and the OTC defendants violated federal and state
laws by entering into a conspiracy to enforce a minimum resale
price maintenance scheme pursuant to which putative class members
paid inflated prices for hotel room reservations that they
purchased through the OTC defendants.  Thirty-one other complaints
containing similar allegations have been filed in a number of
federal jurisdictions across the country. Plaintiffs in these
actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") heard
arguments on a motion for consolidation and transfer of pretrial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 on November 29, 2012.
Pursuant to JPML orders, all of the pending cases were
consolidated before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, an amended
consolidated complaint was filed.

On July 1, 2013, the Company, together with the other OTC
defendants and Hotel Defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint. On February 18, 2014, Judge
Boyle dismissed the amended consolidated complaint without
prejudice, and ordered that plaintiffs must move for leave to
amend within thirty days if they wish to file a second
consolidated amended complaint, and further ordered that any such
motion for leave to amend be accompanied by a synopsis explaining
why a second amended complaint would overcome the deficiencies
stated in the court's February 18, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and
Order. On March 20, 2014, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a
proposed Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "proposed
SCAC"). The proposed SCAC names only the OTC defendants as
defendants and alleges that the OTC defendants violated federal
and state laws by entering into minimum resale price maintenance
agreements with the Hotel defendants and by conspiring to enforce
the terms of those resale price maintenance agreements. On April
3, 2014, the OTC defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file the proposed SCAC.


PRIORITY PAYMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Over Time Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Karlton Britton on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Priority Payment Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01475
(N.D. Ga., May 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant to
obtain full and complete relief for the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Priority Payment Systems, LLC is a Georgia Corporation located at
2001 Westside Parkway, Suite 155, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louise Ngozi Smith, Esq.
      SMITH LAW, LLC
      P.O. Box 1396
      Dacula, GA 30019
      Telephone: (678) 691-5676
      Facsimile: (770) 674-1122
      E-mail: louise@smithlaw-llc.com

           - and -

      William Julian Smith, III, Esq.
      SMITH LAW, LLC
      P.O. Box 1396
      Dacula, GA 30019
      Telephone: (678) 691-5676
      Facsimile: (770) 674-1122
      E-mail: bjsmith3414@gmail.com


ROCKING 8: Faces "Puente" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose L. Puente, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01357 (S.D.
Tex., May 15, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as
permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc., is a corporation formed and
existing under the laws of the State of Texas.  It maintained and
operated a scrap metal transportation business in Harris County,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Luis Quiles, Esq.
      8100 Washington Ave, Suite 250
      Houston, TX 77007
      Telephone: (800) 789-9243
      E-mail: alanquiles@gmail.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Files Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit in Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation" have filed respective motions to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, according to
the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders,
filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in
the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013,
the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re
SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities
Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On
July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
which asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class
of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from
February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common
units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial
public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of
common units of the Mississippian Trust II (together with the
Mississippian Trust I, the "Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable
to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The
claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian
Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas
reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain
transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with
the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. The defendants have filed
respective motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint,
which are pending before the court.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Employees Amend Complaint for Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former employees of SandRidge Energy, Inc. filed an
amended complaint at a court-specified deadline on April 2014,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge
Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended
Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other
similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs
further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and
other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in
work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims
against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act,
(iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to Class
and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11,
2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date.


SEBERT LANDSCAPING: Has Refused to Pay Compensation, Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Lagunes, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, v. Sebert
Landscaping Company d/b/a Great Impressions, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-03488 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure and refusal to pay compensation to
their employees, including the Plaintiffs.

Sebert Landscaping Company, d/b/a Great Impressions, Inc., is an
enterprise that provides landscaping and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jawayria Zarreen Kalimullah, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 784-3541
      E-mail: jawayriak@gmail.com

           - and -

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


SUPPORT.COM INC: To Settle Consumer Lawsuit Over Software
---------------------------------------------------------
Support.com, Inc. is in the process of settling complaints over
the design of one of its software products and the method of
promotion of this product to consumers, according to the company's
May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On February 7, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification
was filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, No. 12-CV-00609, alleging
that the design of one the Company's software products and the
method of promotion to consumers constitute fraudulent inducement,
breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment. On the same day the same plaintiffs' law firm
filed another action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 12-CV-0963, involving similar
allegations against a subsidiary of the Company and one of the
Company's partners who distributes the company's software
products, and that partner has requested indemnification under
contract terms with the Company. The law firm representing the
plaintiffs in both cases has filed unrelated class actions in the
past year against a number of major software providers with
similar allegations about those providers' products.  On June 18,
2012, the Company entered into a settlement which remains subject
to final court approval. Under the terms of the settlement, the
Company would offer a one-time cash payment, which is covered by
the Company's insurance provider, to qualified class-action
members. In addition, the Company would offer a limited free
subscription to one of its software products. In accordance with
ASC 450, Contingencies, the company estimated and recorded a
charge against earnings in general and administrative expense in
the second quarter of 2012 of $57,000 associated with the limited
free software subscription. The Company denies any wrongdoing or
liability and entered into the settlement to minimize the costs of
defense.


THANG DANG: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Hernandez Lopez and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Thang Dang Farms, LLC D/B/A Dang Farms, A/K/A LP Produce Nhan Huu
Dang, and Thang Q. Dang, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-21811
(S.D. Fla., May 16, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Thang Dang Farms, LLC, D/B/A Dang Farms A/K/A LP Produce is a
corporation registered to do business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


TREE.COM INC: Settlement Process Ongoing in "Boschma" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A nominal payment into the settlement fund for the case Boschma v.
Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.)
was made in late 2013, according to the Tree.com, Inc.'s May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct.,
C.D. Cal.).  On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed this putative
class action against Home Loan Center, Inc. ("HLC") in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-
rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and
conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was
not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the
loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual
allegations, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal
Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law,
breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all
individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained an
option ARM loan through HLC on their primary residence located in
California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for
class certification, but have filed a total of eight complaints in
connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints
has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. The plaintiffs
filed the eighth complaint (a "Second Amended Complaint") in
Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010
alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with
each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs' complaint, the
Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the
appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed
the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was remanded to
superior court. During 2013, the parties agreed to a $450,000
settlement, which was approved in 2013. A nominal payment into the
settlement fund was made in late 2013. The Company expects
administration of the settlement to be completed by the third
quarter of 2014. A provision for the remaining $435,000 is
included in current liabilities of discontinued operations at
March 31, 2014. The impact of the settlement was not material.


TREE.COM INC: No Trial Date Yet for Class Claims in "Dijkstra"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The trial for the Class Claims in the suit Lijkel Dijkstra v.
Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-
JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV) has not yet been scheduled, according
to the Tree.com, Inc.'s May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed this putative class
action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against
Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint
alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to
the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct
supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West
Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for
declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion,
unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"),
violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act,
civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all
defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc.
have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in
October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional
class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. On
February 26, 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims
applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"),
HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC
and the plaintiff have reached a tentative settlement agreement
with respect to the remaining Individual Claims. The trial for the
Class Claims has not yet been scheduled by the court. The Company
believes that the plaintiffs' allegations related to the Class
Claims lack merit and intends to defend against this action
vigorously.

The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.6 million
and $1.95 million, of which some or all may be covered by
insurance. A reserve of $0.6 million and a corresponding insurance
recoverable of $0.5 million have been established for this matter
in the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2014.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Shareholders Expand Class Period of Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities lawsuit against Twenty-First Century
Fox, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York filed a second amended consolidated complaint
that expands the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011,
according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the NoW Matter. The suit names as defendants the
Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and
seeks compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and
costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the
Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the
court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated
complaint shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things,
added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK &
Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to
include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court
on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were given until April 30, 2014 to
amend their complaint. On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the
allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands
the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. The Company's
management believes the claims in the Wilder Litigation are
entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend those
claims.


UNITED PARCEL: Feb 2015 Trial Set in Franchisees' Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A trial is scheduled for February 2015 in a suit by a certified
class of all United Parcel Service, Inc. Store franchisees who did
rebrand, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

UPS and the company's subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are
defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the
rebranding of The UPS Store franchises.  In the Morgate case, the
plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand
to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who
did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees
described in (1) above, the trial court entered judgment against a
bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January
2012.  In March 2013, the company reached a settlement with the
remaining individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand; this
settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the company's
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.  The
trial court granted the company's motion for summary judgment
against the certified class described in (2) above, which was
reversed in January 2012.  The company has not reached a
settlement with this class of franchisees, and the claims of the
class remain pending. The trial is scheduled for February 2015.


UNITED PARCEL: Suit in Quebec Over Brokerage Services Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 2013 Quebec litigation over alleged inadequate disclosure of
United Parcel Service, Inc. concerning the existence and cost of
brokerage services, has been dismissed, according to the company's
May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against
the company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec
(2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure
concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided
by the company under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
the company's favor. The Ontario class action was certified in
September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to the
company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The
complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is
being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate
disclosure were granted and the company is appealing that
decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a
class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012;
there was no appeal, which ended that case in the company's favor.
The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed.


UNITED PARCEL: Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery process is underway to determine whether it is
appropriate to dismiss a suit alleging United Parcel Service, Inc.
engaged in price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services, according to the company's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In
July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming
numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS
Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the
amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
in October 2010, which the company moved to dismiss. In August
2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss all claims
relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to
amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November
2012. The company filed another motion to dismiss. In January
2014, the Court dismissed UPS from one of the claims in the Third
Amended Complaint with prejudice, but denied UPS's motion to
dismiss with respect to the other claims asserted against UPS. The
discovery process is underway.


UNITED STATES: Veterans File Lawsuit Over Agent Orange
------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
lingering health and legal fallout from the spraying of Agent
Orange during the late 1960s in Korea is the background of a
lawsuit filed on June 3 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit by national veterans organizations against the
Department of Veterans Affairs.

The lawsuit, McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, contends
that hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of veterans who served
along Korea's demilitarized zone (DMZ) and who were exposed to the
toxic chemical are being wrongfully denied disability benefits.

The veterans groups turned to litigation after receiving no
response to a Jan. 28 letter to former VA secretary Eric Shinseki
outlining the problem, according to Bart Stichman, co-executive
director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program.  The law
firm Paul Hastings represents Mr. Stichman's organization as well
as the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and
the Vietnam Veterans of America.

The lawsuit focuses on a seven-year period between 2004 and 2011
in which, the groups contend, the VA denied disability benefits
that it should have paid.

During the Vietnam War, from April 1968 to July 1969, Agent Orange
was sprayed along the southern border of the Korean DMZ.  Some
troops stationed there during that period subsequently developed
illnesses linked to Agent Orange exposure, according to the suit.
Congress addressed the problem in 2003 with legislation making
veterans' children with birth defects eligible for benefits if the
veterans served along the Korean DMZ either during the 16 months
of herbicide spraying or during the 25 months after spraying
ceased -- that is, from Aug. 1, 1969 to Aug. 31, 1971.

However, in 2004, the suit says, the VA adopted a rule that
divided this 41-month period into two time blocks, and imposed
different benefit levels: Those who served near the Korean DMZ
from April 1968 to July 1969 were entitled to the presumption that
they had been exposed to herbicides, but those who served from
Aug. 1, 1969, to Aug. 31, 1971, were not entitled to the same
presumption.  Instead, that second group had to establish decades
after the fact that they were actually exposed to herbicides on a
factual, case-by-case basis.

Seven years later, in 2011, the VA, acting on objections filed by
veterans service organizations, changed the rule and extended the
presumption of Agent Orange exposure to veterans who served along
the Korean DMZ from August 1969 to August 1971.  But the VA
refused to make the corrected rule retroactive to claims filed
between 2004 and 2011.

The net result is that those who filed claims before 2011 and are
presumed exposed to Agent Orange between April 1968 and July 1969
are entitled to benefits retroactive to the date of their claims.
But those presumed exposed to Agent Orange between August 1969 and
August 1971 cannot receive benefits retroactive to the date of
their claims if they filed their claims before 2011.

One of the veterans denied retroactive benefits is Michael
McKinney.  In 2010, he filed a claim for several diseases to which
VA regulations accord presumptive service-connected status due to
Agent Orange exposure.  His claim was based on exposure to Agent
Orange during his service along the DMZ, which began in August
1969.  In 2011, while McKinney's claim was pending, the VA
finalized the 2011 regulation, but the department denied him
benefits for the period between the date of his claim and 2011.

"We made the VA aware of this problem in January 2014,"
Mr. Stichman said.  "We have yet to receive even an
acknowledgement of our letter.  We do not file lawsuits lightly.
We would prefer to work with the VA to correct a systemic problem
immediately when it is identified, so we don't have to pursue
litigation to right a wrong."

A VA spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending
litigation.

The veterans groups plan to file a motion for a stay on June 5
that would require the department to identify veterans affected by
retroactivity issue and to adjust their benefits, according to
Mr. Stichman.

The Veterans Judicial Review Act created a right to challenge a VA
rule by filing an action directly in the Federal Circuit.


WARNER MUSIC: Reply to Cert. Motion in Price Fixing Suit Due June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit against Warner Music Group Corp. in relation
to the pricing of digital music downloads, filed a Class
Certification brief on March 14, 2014, to which the company should
reply by June 20, 2014, according to the company's May 8, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
the company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking
information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music.
Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the case as to all defendants, including the company.
However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the
judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further
proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court
granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.
Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain, for the class of internet download
purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended
complaint on August 31, 2011.  Pursuant to the terms of an August
15, 2011 stipulation and order, the case is currently in
discovery. Disputes regarding the scope of discovery are ongoing.
Plaintiffs filed a Class Certification brief on March 14, 2014.
The Company's reply is due June 20, 2014.


WARNER MUSIC: Final Hearing on $11.5MM Accord Set for Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on final approval of the $11.5 million settlement
reached by Warner Music Group Corp. with recording artists in a
suit over royalties for certain digital music sales is scheduled
for October 2, 2014, according to the company's May 8, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California
between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which
were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the
Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for
certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording
contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on
their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of
other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on
a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had
breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case
through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording
artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of
the major record companies, including the company. Plaintiffs seek
to have the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case
applied to their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable
response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be
appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel
moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order,
the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead
class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint
on August 21, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. As part of the settlement,
the Company will make available $11.5 million (less attorneys'
fees, costs, and costs of claims administration and class notice)
to compensate class members for past sales of downloads and
ringtones. On January 23, 2014, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. The hearing on final approval of the
settlement is scheduled for October 2, 2014.


WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shane Lee, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., a California
Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-cv-03794 (C.D.
Cal., May 16, 2014), arises from the alleged violation the Fair
Credit Reporting Act specifically for routinely obtaining and
using information in consumer background reports to conduct
background checks on prospective employees and existing employees.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc., is a subsidiary of Whole
Foods Market, Inc., a corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business located at 550 Bowie Street, Austin,
Texas 78703.  The Defendant is a California corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
      Marc L. Godino, Esq.
      Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com
              mgodino@glancylaw.com
              lglancy@glancylaw.com


ZILLOW INC: Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit Pending in Wash. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Zillow, Inc. to dismiss a securities suit filed
against it has been fully briefed and is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, according
to the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at
Seattle against the company and certain of its executive officers
seeking unspecified damages. A consolidated amended complaint was
filed in June 2013. The complaint purports to state claims for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of
those who purchased the company's common stock between February
15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. The complaint generally alleges,
among other things, that during the period between February 15,
2012 and November 6, 2012, the company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business practices
and financial results. In August 2013, the company moved to
dismiss the lawsuit. That motion to dismiss has been fully briefed
and is pending before the Court. The company denied the
allegations of wrongdoing, and the company will continue to
vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit. It has not recorded
an accrual related to this lawsuit as of March 31, 2014 or
December 31, 2013, as it does not believe a material loss is
probable.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in "Meridian Funds" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been completed in the case Reyes v. Zions First
National Bank, et al. and is in process in the suit In re
Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark
Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et al. vs. Zions Bancorporation
and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., according to Zions
Bancorporation's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

The company is subject to litigation in court and arbitral
proceedings, as well as proceedings, investigations, examinations
and other actions brought or considered by governmental and self-
regulatory agencies. At any given time, litigation may relate to
lending, deposit and other customer relationships, vendor and
contractual issues, employee matters, intellectual property
matters, personal injuries and torts, regulatory and legal
compliance, and other matters. While most matters relate to
individual claims, the company is also subject to putative class
action claims and similar broader claims. Current putative class
actions and similar claims include:

     (i) a complaint relating to the company's banking
relationships with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful
telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff seeks a trebled
monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First
National Bank, et al., brought in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and

    (ii) a complaint arising from the company's banking
relationships with Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds
controlled by him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which the
liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an award from the company,
on the basis of aiding and abetting and other claims, for monetary
damages suffered by victims of a fraud allegedly perpetrated by
Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors
Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et al. vs. Zions
Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., pending
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Washington.

In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. In
the first quarter of 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
approved the plaintiff's motion to appeal the District Court
decision.

Discovery has been completed in the Reyes case and is in process
in the Meridian Funds case.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: "Barlow" Overdraft Fees Suit Accord Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreements reached in Barlow, et al. v. Zions First
National Bank and Zions Bancorporation were approved by the court
and paid into escrow in the first quarter of 2014, according to
the company's May 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

The company is subject to litigation in court and arbitral
proceedings, as well as proceedings, investigations, examinations
and other actions brought or considered by governmental and self-
regulatory agencies. At any given time, litigation may relate to
lending, deposit and other customer relationships, vendor and
contractual issues, employee matters, intellectual property
matters, personal injuries and torts, regulatory and legal
compliance, and other matters. While most matters relate to
individual claims, the company is also subject to putative class
action claims and similar broader claims. Current putative class
actions and similar claims include:

In the third quarter of 2013, the company entered into definitive
settlement agreements with respect to complaints relating to
allegedly wrongful acts in the company's processing of overdraft
fees on debit card transactions, Barlow, et al. v. Zions First
National Bank and Zions Bancorporation. The settlement agreements,
which cover all of the company's affiliates alleged to have
engaged in wrongful processing, were approved by the court and
paid into escrow in the first quarter of 2014.

At any given time, proceedings, investigations, examinations and
other actions brought or considered by governmental and self-
regulatory agencies may relate to the company's banking,
investment advisory, trust, securities, and other products and
services; the company's customers' involvement in money-
laundering, fraud, securities violations and other illicit
activities or the company's policies and practices relating to
such customer activities; and the company's compliance with the
broad range of banking, securities and other laws and regulations
applicable to the company.  At any given time, the company may be
in the process of responding to subpoenas, requests for documents,
data and testimony relating to such matters and engaging in
discussions to resolve the matters. Significant investigations and
similar inquiries to which the company is currently subject relate
to:

     (i) possible money laundering activities of a customer of one
of the company's subsidiary banks and the anti-money laundering
practices of that bank (conducted by the United States Attorneys
Office for the Southern District of New York); and

    (ii) the practices of the company's subsidiary, Zions Bank;
the company's former subsidiary, NetDeposit, LLC; and possibly
other of the company's affiliates relating primarily to payment
processing for allegedly fraudulent telemarketers and other
customer types (conducted by the Department of Justice).

These two matters appear to be ongoing.


                             *********

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  * * *