CAR_Public/140616.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 118

                             Headlines


1401 OCEAN: Did Not Pay Class Members' Overtime Wages, Suit Says
AARON BROTHERS: Accord in Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Has Final OK
AMAZON.COM DEDC: "Johnson" Suit Transferred From S.C. to Kentucky
BIROTE CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
BLUE DIAMOND: Judge Certifies Consumers' Class Action

BP PLC: Judge Certifies Class Who Bought Stock Post-Explosion
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders Sue to Enjoin Sale to Lundbeck
CYMETRIX CORP: Faces "Sacchi" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
DIAMOND FOODS: Court Rejects Suit Over Kettle Brand Tias Chips

DIGITAL RIVER: Minn. Court Certified False Advertising Lawsuit
ELEVATE RECOVERIES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ESA MANAGEMENT: "Camacho" Suit Moved from S.D. to C.D. California
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Moved to Dismiss Amended RESPA Complaint
GATE GOURMET: To Face Suit Over Violation of Employees' Rights

GENERAL MOTORS: CEO Optimistic Despite Ignition Switch Crisis
GENERAL MOTORS: Panel Orders Transfer of 74 Ignition Switch Suits
GOOGLE INC: Gmail Suit to Be Settled Once Plaintiff Turns 18
GORDON RAMSAY: Countersues Former Business Partner
GROWLIFE INC: Sued Over Shares Distribution to Directors

HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Failed to Pay Overtime, Ex-Mud Engineer Says
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Judge Dismisses Consolidated Class Actions
HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Acts and Omissions
HOLOCAUST VICTIM LITIGATION: Ashkenazy's Bid to Intervene Denied
HOLOCAUST VICTIM LITIGATION: Credit Suisse's Stay Motion Denied

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Responded to Wage & Hour Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of Mortgage Modification MDL Appealed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Gets Initial OK of "Connor" Group 2 Class Accord
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Defendant in 4 Wage & Hour Lawsuits
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Paid $0.7-Mil to Settle Wage & Hour Suit

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Defendant in Junk Fax Lawsuit
MAXIMUS INC: Reserved $0.6-Mil to Cover Boise Employees Complaint
MCAFEE INC: Renews Subscriptions Without Consent, Suit Claims
MCI CEDAR: Show Cause Order Entered in "Rice" Suit
MONARCH RECOVERY: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Settles Student Athletes' Suit for $20 Million
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Removed "Jordan" Suit to E.D. Washington
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
NEW YORK, NY: Judge Denies Attorney Fees in Ground Zero Suit
ORBITAL SCIENCES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

PANTRY INC: Moved "Harding" Suit to South Carolina District Court
PFIZER INC: Faces "Morgan" Suit Over Zoloft-Related Birth Defects
PFIZER INC: Faces Suit Over Birth Defects Due to Use of Zoloft
PIONEER NATURAL: Court Approved Class Action Settlement
PLY GEM: Faces Class Action Over Misleading IPO Documents

PNC FINANCIAL: Amendment to Lender-Placed Insurance Suit Proposed
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Inflated Stock Price
PROVIDENT TRUST: Faces Las Vegas Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme
RBS CITIZENS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
REALOGY CORP: Oct. 6 Fairness Hearing on "Martinez" Suit Accord

REXAM BEVERAGE: Faces Class Action Over Racial Harassment
ROI COMPANIES: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: To Finalize Accord in Delaware Suits
SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Liens Filing
SKECHERS USA: Settlement Appeal Deadline Has Expired

SKECHERS USA: Nationwide Accord to Resolve Patty Tomlinson Claims
SKECHERS USA: Nationwide Settlement to Resolve Boatright Claims
SKECHERS USA: Jason Angell Settlement Being Finalized
SKECHERS USA: Davies/Smith Settlement Being Finalized
SKECHERS USA: George Niras Settlement Being Finalized

SKECHERS USA: Frank Dedato Settlement Being Finalized
SKECHERS USA: Agreed to Settle Roneshia Sayles Lawsuit
SLM CORP: Court Dismissed Preferred Stock Suits Without Prejudice
SPECIALTY GRAPHICS: Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls/Messages
STERLING BANCORP: Settlement Approval Hearing on June 25

SUBWAY: Faces Class Action Over Paying Workers "Cash Card"
SUPERVALU: 8th Cir. Reverses Order that Denied Class Cert.
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Overdraft Suit v. Bank Settled, Dismissed
SWF FOOD: Liable for Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
TRIAD OF ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Personal Data

UBS AG: Investors Sue Over Mutual Funds That Wiped Out Savings
UMH PROPERTIES: Wants Memphis Mobile City Flooding Suit Dismissed
UNUM GROUP: Damage Award in Suit v. Unum Life Under Appeal
UNUM GROUP: Dismissal of Suits v. Provident, Colonial on Appeal
UNUM GROUP: Still Faces "Don" Suit for Insured in California

UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Suit for Denying Benefit Claims
US NATIONAL BANK: Sued Over $8.25M Taken by Reserve Entertainment
US IMMIGRATION: Judge Rules Over Detention of Immigrants
VERIZON NEW YORK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Manhattan
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Inflated Stock Price

VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
W P CAREY INC: Moved to Dismiss "Gaines" Amended Complaint
WAL-MART: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles
WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls About 8,400 Boilers Over Fire Risk
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Johns" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations

WYETH INC: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Securities Class Action
ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS: Judge Refuses to Certify Class on Payday-Loan

* Madison County Appropriate Jurisdiction in Asbestos Cases


                            *********


1401 OCEAN: Did Not Pay Class Members' Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Flores, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, 209 Star Gazer Ct., Richlands, NC 28574; Bismellah
Flemming, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, 18
Valley Drive, Neptune, NJ 07753; and Alphonso Reevey, 9154 Claude
Court, Jonesborough, Georgia 30238 v. 1401 Ocean LLC d/b/a The
Berkeley Ocean Front Hotel, 1401 Ocean Avenue, Asbury Park, NJ
07712; Stuart Podolsky, c/o 1401 Ocean LLC d/b/a The Berkeley
Ocean Front Hotel, 1401 Ocean Avenue, Asbury Park, NJ 07712; Jay
Podolsky, 1401 Ocean LLC d/b/a The Berkeley Ocean Front Hotel,
1401 Ocean Avenue, Asbury Park, NJ 07712; and John Does 1-10, c/o
1401 Ocean LLC d/b/a The Berkeley Ocean Front Hotel, 1401 Ocean
Avenue, Asbury Park, NJ 07712, Case No. 3:14-cv-03466-FLW-DEA
(D.N.J., May 30, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to properly pay
the Plaintiffs and the Class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.  Instead, the
Plaintiffs alleged, the Defendants designated the overtime hours
worked by the Plaintiffs as "Misc" on their pay stubs and paid
them only straight-time pay for their overtime hours.

1401 Ocean LLC, doing business as The Berkeley Ocean Front Hotel,
is an entity operating a hotel in Asbury Park, New Jersey.  The
Individual Defendants are co-owners of Ocean LLC.  The Doe
Defendants are presently unknown persons.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com


AARON BROTHERS: Accord in Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong on May 27, 2014, granted final
approval of the settlement in the class action styled, JOSE
TIJERO, AMANDA GODFREY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AARON BROTHERS, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 4:10-cv-01089-SBA (N.D. Cal.).

The class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiffs Jose Tijero and
Amanda Godfrey against Aaron Brothers, Inc., alleging that, inter
alia, the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code, other applicable California wage and hour
orders and laws, and the California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. &
Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.  The Plaintiffs also sought
penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act, Labor
Code Sec. 2699 et seq., for these alleged violations.  The
Defendant denies any and all alleged wrongdoing, and denies any
liability to the Plaintiffs or to members of the putative class.
The Defendant contends that it complied with the applicable
California Labor Laws at all times.

On December 19, 2013, the Court entered an Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement, resulting in
certification of the following provisional Settlement Class:

"All Persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt, hourly employees
within the State of California between May 7, 2005 and December
19, 2013 (the date of the entry of the Court's Order Granting
Preliminary Approval to this settlement)".

That Order further directed the Parties to provide Notice to the
class, which informed absent class members of: (a) the proposed
Settlement, and the Settlement's key terms; (b) the date, time and
location of the Final Approval Hearing; (c) the right of any Class
Member to object to the proposed Settlement, and an explanation of
the procedures to exercise that right; (d) the right of any Class
Member to exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement, and an
explanation of the procedures to exercise that right; and (e) an
explanation of the procedures for class members to participate in
the proposed Settlement.

In the Final Order, the Court finds that the Settlement Class is
properly certified as a class for settlement purposes only, and
the Notice provided to the Settlement Class complies with the
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, the
United States Constitution, and any other applicable law.  The
Court also ruled, among others, that the Settlement Administrator
took reasonable steps to provide the Notice to Class Members if,
and when, it learned that the address to which those documents
were mailed were no longer accurate.

No Class Member timely objected to the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement.

The Court also held that eight Class Members -- Dorothy Elizabeth
Cadzow, Ariana Marie Preston, Trenton Lee Vendetti, Matthew
Walker, Konnie Kim, Christopher John Burdett, Sylvania E. Matassa,
and Jessica Leigh Davis -- have timely requested exclusion from
the Settlement, and have thus been excluded and are not bound by
the Judgment in this Action.

The Court confirms the appointment of Plaintiffs Jose Tijero and
Amanda Godfrey as the Class Representatives.

The Court also confirms the appointment of the Law Offices of
Badame & Associates, APC and the Law Offices of Daniel Feder as
Class Counsel.

Courthouse News Service reported that Badame & Associates and the
Law Offices of Daniel L. Feder will take home more than $266,000
from the $800,000 settlement it obtained in this Class Action.

Nothing in the Court's Final Approval Order will preclude any
action to enforce the parties' obligations under the Stipulation
of Settlement or under the Court's Order.

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, the Court awards the
Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., its fees and
expenses in connection with the administration of this settlement
in the amount of $91,804 to be paid from the Settlement Fund.


AMAZON.COM DEDC: "Johnson" Suit Transferred From S.C. to Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Johnson, et al. v.
Amazon.com dedc LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01797, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky (Louisville).  The Kentucky District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:14-cv-00418-JGH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants Amazon.com dedc, LLC, Amazon Corporate, LLC and Amazon
Fulfillment Services, Inc., are subsidiaries of Amazon.com, LLC,
which owns and operates Amazon.com, the world's largest online
retail seller of goods.  The Amazon Defendants own and operate
warehouses, known as "Fulfillment Centers," throughout the United
States where they store goods to be shipped to customers both of
Amazon.com and other retailers, who use the Amazon Defendants'
"fulfillment services."

Defendants SMX, LLC and Staff Management, Inc. are labor and
employee staffing companies, who provide employees to work in the
Amazon Defendants' Fulfillment Centers.  The Plaintiffs are former
employees of the Defendants, who worked at the Fulfillment Centers
in South Carolina.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (800) 385-8160
          Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

               - and -

          William Clark Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER LAW FIRM
          223 West Main Street, Suite A
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 979-0049
          Facsimile: (434) 919-0037
          E-mail: william.tucker@nelsontucker.com


BIROTE CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Flores, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Birote Corporation, Rigo Pizza Corporation,
Rigoletto Pizza Corp., and Cristina Castaneda, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04088 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and that
they are liable to the Plaintiff and the proposed class for unpaid
or underpaid (1) minimum wages, (2) overtime compensation, and
other relief.

Birote Corporation, Rigo Pizza Corporation and Rigoletto Pizza
Corp. are New York business corporations with their office in New
York County.  Cristina Castaneda is an owner, officer or manager
of the Defendant Corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE DIAMOND: Judge Certifies Consumers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that though he denied a
nationwide class, a federal judge certified a class of California
consumers alleging that Blue Diamond Growers misbrands its almond
milk products.


BP PLC: Judge Certifies Class Who Bought Stock Post-Explosion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that BP investors can advance a class action accusing the company
of downplaying the scope of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a
federal judge ruled.

After the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and caught fire on
April 20, 2010, its Macondo well released nearly 5 million barrels
of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.  The disaster led dozens of
investors to file class actions against BP in Houston federal
court, alleging they bought shares due to false statements made by
BP executives.

Beginning in 2007, such statements convinced the market that BP
was committed to keeping its workers safe, the investors claimed.
Investors also accused BP directors of publicly lowballing the
rate of the oil spill to prevent share prices from hitting a level
that accurately reflected the spill's size.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison refused to certify a class
action in December, finding the plaintiffs had not given enough
specifics on how to determine classwide damages.  At Ellison's
urging the plaintiffs went back to the drawing board and divided
their class into "pre-explosion and post-explosion subclasses."

The pre-explosion plaintiffs argued that BP's misstatements about
its safety culture prevented them from divesting their BP shares
before the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Ellison found the methodology used by the pre-explosion plaintiffs
to calculate their damages lacking, however, and denied them class
certification.  The post-explosion litigants were more persuasive
in arguing that BP's understatements about the spill's size had
caused an artificial delay in the stock price falling, according
to the Judge's May 20 ruling.  Ellison certified the class as all
people or entities who bought BP stock between April 26, 2010, and
May 28, 2010, excluding BP executives, their families and
affiliates.


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olga Levi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-03616-JAP-DEA (D.N.J., June 5, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders Sue to Enjoin Sale to Lundbeck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Schmidt, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd., Joseph G.
Oliveto, Michael Weiser, Kevan Clemens, Roger Stoll, and William
D. Rueckert, Case No. 1:14-cv-00687-LPS (D. Del., May 30, 2014)

In his complaint, Mr. Schmidt seeks to enjoin the Defendants from
pursuing a sale of the Company to H. Lundbeck A/S unless and until
the Company discloses all material information necessary for him
and the proposed class of shareholders to make an informed
decision regarding whether to tender their shares to Lundbeck.

Chelsea is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices
located in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Chelsea is a
biopharmaceutical company that acquires and develops innovative
products for the treatment of a variety of human diseases,
including central nervous system disorders.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Company's lead product, Northera, recently gained U.S. Food
and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of symptomatic
neurogenic orthostatic hypotension.  Northera is the first and
only FDA-approved therapy of its kind, and is expected to be
launched later in 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          P.O. Box 1680
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1680
          Telephone: (302) 984-3889
          Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com


CYMETRIX CORP: Faces "Sacchi" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
John Sacchi, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cymetrix Corporation, Navigant Consulting, Inc.,
Alleviant, LLC, Navigant Healthcare Cymetrix, and Does 1 through
10, Inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-03625-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., June 5,
2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen John Simoni, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN J. SIMONI
          55 Ocean Avenue
          Monmouth Beach, NJ 07750
          Telephone: (917) 621-5795
          E-mail: stephensimoni@yahoo.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Court Rejects Suit Over Kettle Brand Tias Chips
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong in Oakland, Calif., on May 28,
2014, dismissed a putative consumer fraud class action against
Diamond Foods Inc., but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the
lawsuit by filing a first amended complaint.

DOMINIKA SURZYN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. DIAMOND FOODS, INC., a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No: C 14-0136 SBA (N.D. Cal.), alleges state law
claims, inter alia, for unfair competition, false advertising and
negligent misrepresentation, based on Defendant's "All Natural"
designation on the packaging of certain of its Kettle Brand TIAS!
tortilla chips.

Diamond Foods manufactures and markets Kettle brand TIAS! tortilla
chips, including the following varieties which are at issue: All
Natural Nacho Cheddar Tortilla Chips, All Natural Zesty Ranch
Tortilla Chips, All Natural Salsa Picante Tortilla Chips, All
Natural Sweet Baja Barbeque Tortilla Chips and All Natural Chili
Con Queso Tortilla Chips.  The packaging for each variety of the
Chips bears the label "All Natural."

According to Plaintiffs, the "All Natural" designation is false,
misleading and likely to deceive consumers because the Chips
contain maltodextrin and/or dextrose, which are alleged to be
"unnatural, synthetic, and/or . . . artificial ingredient[s]."
The Plaintiff states that she "purchased one or more of the
Products during the Class Period, including, but not limited to, a
purchase made during 2013 from a Whole Foods market located in
Alameda County, California, for the purchase price of
approximately $3.00 to $4.00."

The Complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) violation of the
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (2) violation of the
fraudulent and unfair prongs of the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); (3) violation of the unlawful prong of the UCL; (4)
violation of the California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and (5)
negligent misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class comprised of all
California residents who purchased the Chips "from January 9,
2010, through and to the date notice is provided to the Class."

The Defendant moved to dismiss or strike all claims of the
Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and (f), and for failure to plead fraud with
particularity under Rule 9(b).  The Defendant also seeks to
dismiss or strike Plaintiff's allegations regarding its allegedly
deceptive marketing and advertising campaign.

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs' putative marketing and
advertising campaign claims, the judge said Diamond Foods'
alternative request to strike is denied as moot.

"Given the lack of factual allegations establishing Plaintiff's
standing, coupled with Plaintiff's failure to respond to
Defendant's arguments on this issue, the Court dismisses
Plaintiff's consumer protection claims insofar as they are
predicated on Defendant's alleged marketing and advertising
campaign. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend to cure this
Deficiency," Judge Armstrong said.


DIGITAL RIVER: Minn. Court Certified False Advertising Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Minnesota court, on March 31, 2014, certified a class action
against Digital River, Inc., alleging violation of the Minnesota
Consumer Fraud and False Statement in Advertising Acts and unjust
enrichment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota certified a class action against the
Company of all persons in the United States who purchased Extended
Download Service for Norton Products between January 24, 2005, and
October 26, 2009. The plaintiffs have sued Symantec Corporation
and the Company. The claims against the Company are for alleged
violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud and False Statement in
Advertising Acts and unjust enrichment, based on the Company's
sale of Extended Download Service to purchasers of Norton
products. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this matter,
but cannot predict the timing or ultimate outcome, nor estimate a
range of loss, if any, for this matter."

Digital River, Inc. (Digital River) provides end-to-end global
cloud-commerce, payments and marketing solutions to a wide variety
of companies in software, consumer electronics, computer games,
video games and other markets.


ELEVATE RECOVERIES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Safdieh and Christa Epitropakis, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Elevate Recoveries, LLC, and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-03621-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., June 5,
2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ESA MANAGEMENT: "Camacho" Suit Moved from S.D. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Yahaira Camacho v.
ESA Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01089, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:14-cv-01097-PA-SS to the proceeding.

The case is brought on behalf of a nationwide class of all
individuals, who applied for employment at an Extended Stay
America hotel and whose consumer report was obtained without
appropriate disclosure that the consumer report may be obtained
and without obtaining a valid, signed authorization form prior to
obtaining the report, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

ESA Management LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.  ESA Management operates hundreds of
Extended Stay America hotels throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY AND SINGER
          605 C Street Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  ikhoury@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com
                  kneilson@ckslaw.com


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Moved to Dismiss Amended RESPA Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., and Flagstar Reinsurance filed a motion to
dismiss the amended putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

In May 2012, the Bank and its subsidiary, Flagstar Reinsurance
Company, were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of Section 2607 of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Section 2607(a) of
RESPA generally prohibits anyone from "accept[ing] any fee,
kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or
understanding, oral or otherwise, that business related incident
to or part of a real estate settlement service involving a
federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person."
Section 2607(b) of RESPA also prohibits anyone from "accept[ing]
any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received
for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in
connection with a federally related mortgage loan other than for
services actually performed." The lawsuit specifically alleges
that the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company violated Section
2607 of RESPA through a captive reinsurance arrangement involving
(i) allegedly illegal payments to Flagstar Reinsurance Company for
the referral of private mortgage insurance business from the Bank
to private mortgage insurers to Flagstar Reinsurance Company and
(ii) Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported receipt of an
unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums. On January
13, 2014, the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance filed a motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint based upon the statute of
limitations and equitable tolling.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. is a savings and loan holding company. The
Company's business is primarily conducted through its principal
subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, FSB (the Bank), a federally chartered
stock savings bank. At December 31, 2012, its total assets were $
$14.1 billion. The Bank's wholly owned subsidiary is Flagstar
Capital Markets Corporation (FCMC). The Company operates in two
segments: Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The Community
Banking segment offers a line of financial products and services
to individuals, small and middle market businesses, and mortgage
lenders. Its Mortgage Banking segment originates, acquires, sells
and services residential first mortgage loans on one-to-four
family residences. The Bank's Other segment include corporate
treasury, tax benefits not assigned to specific operating
segments, and miscellaneous other expenses of a corporate nature.


GATE GOURMET: To Face Suit Over Violation of Employees' Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
an airport catering service may have violated its employees'
rights by forcing them to eat food barred by their religious
beliefs or "work hungry," the Washington Supreme Court ruled.

James Kumar and three of his co-workers filed a class action
against Gate Gourmet, which provides meals for trains and planes
at SeaTac Airport in Seattle.  They challenged Gate Gourmet's meal
policy under Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), as
the policy forbids them from bringing their own meals or leaving
the premises to buy food during their lunch breaks, due to
security concerns.  Instead, Gate Gourmet provides food for its
employees.  The employee meals include a vegetarian option, but
the workers claimed that they include animal byproducts.

In their lawsuit, the employees complained that their religion
barred them from eating meatballs made with beef and pork,
prompting Gate Gourmet to switch to turkey meatballs.  But they
said Gate Gourmet switched back to beef-pork meatballs without
telling them, and then refused to alter the menu.

The trial court dismissed their complaint, stating that the WLAD
does not require employers to accommodate their workers' religious
practices.  However, the Washington Supreme Court reversed in a
ruling written by Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud.

"Under state rules of statutory interpretation and persuasive
federal antidiscrimination law, the WLAD implies a requirement to
reasonably accommodate religious practices," she wrote.

"Washington courts construe the WLAD's protections broadly where
other forms of discrimination are concerned; we decline to carve
out an exception for religious discrimination," Gordon McCloud
added.  "Accordingly, we hold that the WLAD creates a cause of
action for failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's
religious practices."

She said the employees "have met their burden to establish a prima
facie religious discrimination claim" on the basis that they were
allegedly "forced to eat prohibited food or work hungry."

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen dissented from her colleagues, saying
the WLAD does not include religious accommodations.

"The Legislature chose to entirely exempt nonprofit religious
institutions from prosecution under the WLAD," she wrote.  "The
existence of this exemption is strong evidence that the
Legislature has given due consideration to the complexities and
implications of legislating in the religious discrimination area
and has chosen not to do so, at least for the time being."


GENERAL MOTORS: CEO Optimistic Despite Ignition Switch Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Gaffen, Richard Cowan and Nick Carey, writing for Reuters,
report that for signs that General Motors Co's ignition switch
crisis may be fading, look no farther than the quiet annual
meeting last this week.

A total of 29 shareholders attended, and not one asked about the
defect linked to at least 13 deaths and the recall of 2.6 million
cars.  The only acknowledgement of the crisis inside the meeting
was from shareholders who complimented CEO Mary Barra.  Outside, a
handful of protesters were outnumbered by media.

Months after announcing the recall, GM faces major hurdles,
including reaching a settlement with victims and their families,
legislators eager to grill Ms. Barra a second time and calling for
new safety laws, and criminal probes by several states and the
U.S. Department of Justice.

GM's costs so far are close to $2 billion, and it faces the
potential for billions more in civil and criminal legal
settlements if the experience of rival Toyota Motor Corp in its
own massive recall is a guide.

But car sales are rising, and an internal report on why GM took
more than a decade to recall the defective part placated many by
acknowledging shortcomings at the company without uncovering major
new problems.  Wall Street applauded the report, including
Buckingham Research which titled a note to clients, "A New
Beginning".

Thomas Campbell, head of the crisis management team at the law
firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, represented one of the
companies involved in the Gulf oil spill and said GM was taking
decisive action after a slow start.  The internal report and
hiring of lawyer Kenneth Feinberg to set up a victims fund
signaled GM was serious about addressing its problems.

"The government tends to involve itself in any situation more
deeply if a company isn't taking care of the issues on its own.
The current steps that GM has taken have shown that it is ready
and willing to take these kinds of actions," he said.

Ms. Barra herself apologized again on June 10 for the suffering
caused by the faulty switch but focused on the future.

"I am optimistic about where we are and where the company is
heading," Ms. Barra told shareholders, who overwhelmingly approved
compensation plans for executives that could net Ms. Barra
millions.

GM shares are up nearly 3 percent since early February, when the
first reports hit of the recalls.  Stock researcher Starmine, a
Thomson Reuters company, estimates GM's intrinsic stock value over
the next decade at $64.35 a share, versus a close of $36.40 on
June 10, and about 71 percent of analysts who track the stock rate
it a "strong buy" or "buy."

Many are focusing on GM's continued strong U.S. sales, which rose
13 percent in May.  That was the No. 1 U.S. automaker's best
monthly total since before the U.S. recession.  GM this year has
recalled globally about as many cars as are sold in the United
States in a year, but dealers say consumers are not put off.  Some
drivers of recalled cars are buying new GM cars.

Excluding $1.7 billion in charges for the ignition switch recall
and other recalls, overall profits this year may top expectations,
Ms. Barra said last week, citing profitable or improving
operations in the United States, China and Europe.

                           Next Steps

The next test for GM is the establishment of the compensation fund
for victims of the faulty switch and their families.

Mr. Feinberg, the architect of programs for victims of high-
profile catastrophes like the Sept. 11 attacks, is working on
guidelines that will determine who qualifies and how much they
will be paid.  Ms. Barra expects the fund to begin accepting
claims on Aug. 1.

Consumer-safety advocates, including the Center for Auto Safety,
had previously called upon GM to set aside at least $1 billion to
cover claims.  Buckingham analyst Joseph Amaturo predicted the
ultimate cost would be "immaterial" given GM's financial heft.

How GM handles that process will be key to putting some of the ill
will toward the company behind it, plaintiffs attorneys and crisis
experts said.

One such lawyer, Robert Hilliard, said the company is failing to
follow through on its contrition in court cases, fighting efforts
to set aside older settlements reached before the switch problem
became public. That kind of attitude would hurt GM's reputation,
he said.

"They're talking the talk, but they're not walking the walk," said
Hilliard, who added that he was "very skeptical" that a GM program
would give victims fair compensation for injuries or death.

Hilliard, however, was among several plaintiffs' lawyers
approached by GM and one of the first Mr. Feinberg called on to
discuss the case.

GM declined to respond specifically to Hilliard's comments, saying
the company had hired Mr. Feinberg in order to treat victims
fairly.

Time may be on GM's side in many of the investigations and court
cases with potentially big price tags.

It took three years for Toyota Motor Corp to settle litigation
from customers who said a massive recall caused their cars to lose
value.  In late March, Toyota agreed to settle a Justice
Department criminal probe, taking the total for the two deals to
$2.8 billion.  But Toyota U.S. sales showed no obvious sign of
harm, rising 13 percent in April and 17 percent in May

The Justice Department also could press charges against
individuals, if it found any evidence of wrongdoing.

Congress, distracted by elections, may have difficulty changing
auto safety legislation, even if Ms. Barra, who testified in
April, is asked to return.

Heads of committees in the House of Representatives and Senate
expressed dismay last week with the findings of the internal
report, which cleared senior executives of fault.  They promised
an aggressive second round of hearings sometime this summer.

Senate Democrats are clamoring for a legislative response to GM's
botched response to a safety issue, and House Energy and Commerce
Chairman Fred Upton, a Republican, has left open the possibility
of a bill to clamp down on the auto industry.

But with so few legislative days left this year because members of
Congress are campaigning for re-election, it is unclear whether
any legislation actually could make it to the finish line.  One
opportunity for possibly moving a measure later this year would be
if it was attached to a must-do highway funding bill.

"Barra has done a nice job so far in public, in front of
Congress," said Carl Tobias, professor at the University of
Richmond School of Law.  "It's a terrible assignment and she's
doing what she can."


GENERAL MOTORS: Panel Orders Transfer of 74 Ignition Switch Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judicial panel has ordered the transfer of 74
lawsuits filed on behalf of General Motors Co. customers over
ignition-switch recalls to the Southern District of New York,
where the automaker has moved in bankruptcy court to bar the
cases.

The order, issued on June 9, is a win for GM, which had argued for
the New York district at a May 29 hearing.

In its decision, the multidistrict litigation panel appeared
concerned about the impact GM's move in bankruptcy could have on
the class actions.

"The Southern District of New York bankruptcy court already has
been called upon by both General Motors and certain plaintiffs to
determine whether the 2009 General Motors bankruptcy sale order
prohibits plaintiffs' ignition-switch defect lawsuits," wrote U.S.
District Judge John Heyburn, chairman of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation.

The panel named U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who has heard
appeals related to GM's bankruptcy, to make all pretrial decisions
about the litigation.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said in an emailed statement: "This order
affirms what we've maintained all along.  All cases should be
transferred to the Southern District of New York, which is in the
best position to coordinate with the bankruptcy court's
proceedings, has previously heard appeals from the sale order and
injunction, decided several contested matters relating to the
asset sale, and where several of the ignition-switch actions filed
to date are pending."

GM has recalled 2.6 million vehicles over ignition-switch defects,
which could shut off engines and disable airbags.  The automaker
has paid $35 million to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and, in what CEO Mary Barra called an "extremely
thorough, brutally tough, and deeply troubling" internal
investigation, blamed the incompetence of certain engineers and
attorneys for failing to identify the defects, which have been
linked to 13 deaths.

It's unclear whether lawsuits over deaths and injuries associated
with ignition-switch defects could be coordinated with the class
actions as part of the MDL panel's order.  In a footnote to its
order, the panel acknowledged those cases but declined to say
whether they should be included.  GM has retained noted claims
attorney Kenneth Feinberg to negotiate with those plaintiffs out
of court.

Most of the plaintiffs lawyers in the class actions told the panel
to transfer their cases to districts outside New York.

Many cited specific judges, such as U.S. District Judge James
Selna in the Central District of California, who oversaw the
sudden-acceleration litigation against Toyota Motor Corp.
But one of those attorneys, Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner at San
Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, put a positive
spin on the MDL panel's decision.

"We are pleased that the panel has acted promptly in this case,
which has urgency for GM's customers, and centralized the
litigation under an able, experienced, and energetic judge," she
wrote in an emailed statement to The National Law Journal.  "That
is what we asked -- and hoped for -- from the panel, and we
appreciate its decision."

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber of the Southern District of
New York has halted discovery in the class actions while the
bankruptcy issues are being decided.


GOOGLE INC: Gmail Suit to Be Settled Once Plaintiff Turns 18
------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the final challenger from a massive class action over Gmail's
alleged data mining has settled -- or will, once the young man
turns 18 in July.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh signed off on the agreement shortly
after it was filed, bringing the sprawling case known as In re
Google Inc. - Gmail Litigation to a close.  The parties agreed to
vacate all future hearings and discovery deadlines, and told Koh
they would notify her if the minor known only as J.K. refuses to
sign the agreement when he turns 18 on July 12.

Google's privacy-policy updates in 2012 drew a tsunami of class
actions from across the nation accusing the tech giant of
aggregating the information it collects from users of its various
apps and platforms.  The plaintiffs in those cases claimed that
the new policy violated computer-fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap
laws at both state and federal levels.

The claims were eventually combined before Koh in San Jose, but
the plaintiffs faced a tough road after Koh found this past March
that Google's different terms and policies for the classes and
subclasses made the matter impossible to litigate collectively.

With the case then broken into individual actions, and the 9th
Circuit's refusal to certify the class, lawyers for both sides
announced last week that all but one of the plaintiffs -- J.K.
-- had agreed to dismiss the case.

The details of settlements have not been disclosed.

J.K. and his guardian are represented in San Francisco by James
Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe -- wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com --,
and by Thomas Rosenfeld of Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland
in Edwardsville, Ill.

Google is represented in this case by Whitty Somvichian of Cooley
LLP in San Francisco.


GORDON RAMSAY: Countersues Former Business Partner
--------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay countersued a former business partner
who accused Ramsay of being a dictator.  The "Hell's Kitchen" chef
claims Rowen Seibel "tried to ride Mr. Ramsay's star, but through
his own fraud, misconduct, and derelictions, brought the Fat Cow
restaurant crashing down, while falsely blaming Mr. Ramsay and
otherwise interfering with his rights."

GR US Licensing LP, for itself and derivatively on behalf of The
Fat Cow, sued Rowen Seibel and nominal defendant The Fat Cow LLC,
in New York County Supreme Court.  Ramsay claims in the lawsuit
that Seibel concocted a "fraudulent scheme to freeload upon the
renown and acumen of celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay."  He claims
that Seibel told him he needed Seibel to provide contracts for
restaurants in Las Vegas in 2011.  Then, after learning of
Ramsay's plans to open The Fat Cow restaurant in Los Angeles,
Seibel "begged to be included, this time promising Mr. Ramsey that
Seibel would be an invaluable partner because of his significant
restaurant experience," according to the lawsuit.

"Having inveigled Mr. Ramsay to include him in The Fat Cow, Seibel
took control of the restaurant and proved egregiously inept in its
management," the lawsuit states, resulting in "food, service and
business operations far below Mr. Ramsay's exacting standards."

Ramsay claims Seibel "mis-paid" certain workers, which cost the
restaurant thousands in penalties and back wages, and that Seibel
hid the proceedings from Ramsay after a class action was filed
seeking unpaid wages.  Ramsay claims his efforts to save the
restaurant were thwarted, because Seibel "refused to cooperate in
any reasonable steps to solve the problems he had created."
Ramsay claims Seibel withheld his share of money to pay attorneys
to defend the company against the class action.

The restaurant faced legal hurdles right from the start, in the
form of a trademark issues with a Florida restaurant using the
Spanish version of a related name.  Ramsay says he was forced to
hammer that issue out, but that a temporary right to continue
using the name ended earlier this year.

Ramsay says he then pushed to shut the money-losing restaurant,
but Seibel insisted on continuing, "while at the same time
refusing to provide funds needed to do so or to provide solutions
to the trademark problems."

"Seibel did and contributed nothing," Ramsay claims.

Once the restaurant closed, Ramsay suggested to the landlord that
he would start a new one under his sole control.

"Seibel did not thank Mr. Ramsay for the effort," the lawsuit
states.  "Instead, Seibel filed a related lawsuit in this court,
making the false and nonsensical claim that Mr. Ramsey, a
successful television star and renowned restaurateur with a
reputation for perfection, fraudulently induced Seibel to
participate in The Fat Cow restaurant project with the intent to
secretly cause to fail by producing a poor quality product and
miring it in legal troubles so that he could then close the
restaurant, make off with Seibel's money, and reopen a new
restaurant in the same location. The claim is nonsense."

Seigel drew first blood with his $10 million lawsuit in April.  In
it, he claimed Ramsay purposefully drove the restaurant into the
ground, stole his investment and tried to use it to open another
restaurant without him.

Ramsay now seeks to dissolve the parties' joint ventures.  He is
represented Paul Montclare with Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp.


GROWLIFE INC: Sued Over Shares Distribution to Directors
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors of GrowLife, a
marijuana-growing equipment firm, handed out millions of shares to
themselves at 2 cents apiece while the stock was selling at 58
cents and the company was losing millions of dollars, shareholders
claim in a federal class action in Los Angeles, Calif.


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Failed to Pay Overtime, Ex-Mud Engineer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Dawson, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a Halliburton,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00328-KGB (E.D. Ark., June 5, 2014) is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs as a result of the Defendant's alleged failure
to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
compensation for the hours that they worked off the clock for each
single workweek.

The Plaintiff previously worked for Halliburton as a mud engineer.

Halliburton is a Delaware for-profit corporation, licensed to do
business in the state of Arkansas.  Halliburton operates oil and
gas services throughout the world, in addition to other lines of
business that it maintains.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Delena Hurst, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 110
          Little Rock, ARKANSAS 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: delena@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Judge Dismisses Consolidated Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John E. Steele in Fort Myers, Fla., granted the Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
filed by the defendants in the lawsuit styled as, MIKLEN SAPSSOV,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATES, INC., GARY D. NEWSOME, KELLY E. CURRY, and ROBERT E.
FARNHAM, Defendants, Case Nos. 2:12-cv-46-FtM-29DNF and 2:12-cv-
163-FtM-29DNF (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiffs initiated this class action suit against Health
Management Associates, Inc. and three of its executives, Gary
Newsome, Kelly Curry, and Robert Farnham, to remedy alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The proposed
class is purchasers of the publicly traded common stock of Health
Management Associates, Inc. between July 27, 2009, and January 9,
2012.  The Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to disclose a
purported scheme to defraud Medicare, which resulted in inflated
revenue during the Class Period.


HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Acts and Omissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Higher One, a Connecticut-based firm that partners with
universities and colleges to provide financial aid through debit
cards, is in hot water again.

Higher One this year agreed to pay $15 million to settle a 2012
lawsuit claiming it improperly charged fees and made misleading
statements about account costs and fees.

A class action filed in Federal Court claims that though Higher
One claimed it had complied with the 2012 settlement, "the company
continued its improper marketing and disclosure practices during
the class period."

"These practices ultimately placed the company at risk of further
sanctions," the complaint states.

When word came that Higher One could face more sanctions, its
share price fell by $0.90 -- more than 14 percent -- - to close at
$5.51 on May 13, 2014," the complaint states.

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," lead plaintiff Brian Perez says
in the complaint.

Higher One denies the allegations.

"We believe that the allegations in the complaint are meritless
and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves," Higher One
spokesman Shoba V. Lemoine said in an email.

But the lawsuit, which also names as defendants company officers
Mark Volchek, Christopher Wolf and Jeffrey Wallace, claims that
the "defendants were personally motivated to make false statements
and omit material information necessary to make the statements not
misleading in order to personally benefit from the sale of Higher
One securities from their personal portfolios."

"As a result of the dissemination of the aforementioned false and
misleading reports, releases and public statements, the market
price of Higher One securities was artificially inflated
throughout the class period," the complaint states.

The class period is Aug. 7, 2012 to May 12, 2014.

Perez seeks class certification, damages for securities
violations, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.

He is represented by Henry Elstein, with Goldman, Gruder, and
Woods, of Trumbull, Conn.


HOLOCAUST VICTIM LITIGATION: Ashkenazy's Bid to Intervene Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward R. Korman denied a motion filed by Severyn
Ashkenazy to intervene in IN RE HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS
LITIGATION, NOS. 14-CV-00890 (ERK) (JO), 96-CV-04849 (ERK) (JO),
(E.D. N.Y.).

"I filed an opinion on May 23, 2014 in which I denied an
application by the Holocaust Survivors' Foundation-USA and various
named individuals (collectively "HSF-USA") to conduct "a searching
investigation and public hearing" into the handling of previous
allocations by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
("JDC"). . . I also denied their motion for a stay pending an
investigation while the neediest victims of Nazi persecution in
the Former Soviet Union ("FSU") would go without the necessities
of life," Judge Korman said.

Mr. Ashkenazy asserts various grievances with the manner in which
the JDC was distributing money in Poland.

Judge Korman denied Mr. Ashkenazy's motion for three principal
reasons: the action is untimely, Mr. Ashkenazy is without
standing, and he has failed to file a proper pleading, namely a
complaint.

A copy of the District Court's May 30, 2014 memorandum & order is
available at http://is.gd/iwrOPCfrom Leagle.com.

Disability Rights Advocates, Movant, represented by Sid Wolinsky,
Disbility Rights Advocates.

Director of International Affairs and Representative to the United
Nations of Agudath Israel World Organization, Movant, represented
by Harry Reicher.

Suzanne Haaker, Movant, represented by Scott Markowitz, Markowitz
& Rabbach.

Lisa Haaker, Movant, represented by Scott Markowitz, Markowitz &
Rabbach.

David Haaker, Movant, represented by Scott Markowitz, Markowitz &
Rabbach.

Lawrence Haaker, Movant, represented by Scott Markowitz, Markowitz
& Rabbach.

Susan E. Brune, Movant, represented by Nina M. Beattie, Brune &
Richard LLP.

Teddy Moore, Movant, Pro Se.

Jacob Friedman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated (See Doc. No. 897), Plaintiff, represented by Burt
Neuborne, NYU/The Brennan Center For Justice & Richard D. Emery,
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP.

Estelle Sapir, Plaintiff, represented by Estelle Sapir, Pro Se.

Miriam Stern, Plaintiff, represented by Miriam Stern, Pro Se.

Jeffrey Salinger, Plaintiff, represented by Harry Reicher.

Dennis Salinger, Plaintiff, represented by Harry Reicher.

The World Jewish Restitution Organization, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by Jean M. Geoppinger, Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Chesley Co., L.P.A., Mel Urbach, One Exchange Place, Paul M.
DeMarco, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. & Stanley
M. Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A..

South Florida Holocaust Survivors Coalition, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by Samuel J. Dubbin, Dubbin & Kravetz, LLP.

M.D. Thomas Weiss, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Samuel J.
Dubbin, Dubbin & Kravetz, LLP & William Schwartz, Cadwalader,
Wickersham, Taft LLP.

Severyn Ashkenazy, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Abraham E.
Havkins, Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzart & Varriata LLP & Linda
Fridegotto, Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale LLP.

Union Bank of Switzerland, Defendant, represented by Juanita A.
Crowley, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering & Roger M. Witten, Wilmer,
Cutler & Pickering.

Swiss Bank Corp., Defendant, represented by Juanita A. Crowley,
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Roger M. Witten, Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering & Anthony L. Paccione, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman.

Swiss Bank Corp., a/k/a Swiss National Bank, Defendant,
represented by Anthony L. Paccione, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman &
Roger M. Witten, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.

Banking Institutions # 1 - 100, Defendant, represented by Anthony
L. Paccione, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman & Roger M. Witten,
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.

John Does # 1 - 100, Defendant, represented by Anthony L.
Paccione, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman.

David Schaecter, Leo Rechter, David Mermelstein, Alex Moskovic,
Fred Taucher, Israel Arbeiter, Henry and Anita Schuster, Lea
Weems, Herbert Karliner, Sam Gasson, Esther Widman, GK, FK, LK,
DB, and JR, Defendant, represented by Samuel J. Dubbin, Dubbin &
Kravetz, LLP.

Josef Kohn, Claimant, represented by Eric Jason Hecker, Emery
Celli Brinckeroff & Abady LLP & Richard D. Emery, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP.

Washington State Insurance Commissioner, Interested Party,
represented by H. Lee Roussel, Office of the Attorney Genera &
Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., Wagstaffe & Wagstaffe.

Gregory Tsvilichovsky, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Matvey Yentus, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Sofiya Bloshteyn, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Olga Tsvilikhovskya, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Larisa Ryabaya, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Roza Yentus, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Pavel Aronov, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Lubov Starodinskaya, Interested Party, represented by Lubov
Starodinskaya 27007.

Eliazar Bloshteyn, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Plaintiff's Executive Committee Settlement Class Counsel,
Interested Party, represented by Burt Neuborne, NYU/The Brennan
Center For Justice, Edward D. Fagan, Fagan & Associates, Jantra
Van Roy, Zeichner, Ellman & Krause, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld
LLP, Morris A. Ratner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Nicholas E Chimicles, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Robert A. Swift,
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Sebastian M. Rainone, Stuart A. Krause,
Zeichner, Ellman & Krause, Teddy I. Moore, Moore & Associates &
Sharon Kunjumon Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C..

Pink Triangle Coalition, Interested Party, represented by Irina
Dragulev, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Susan L. Sommer, Lankla,
Siffert & Wohl & Vikram Sidhu, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

Karl Lange, Interested Party, represented by Irina Dragulev,
Shearman & Sterling LLP, Susan L. Sommer, Lankla, Siffert & Wohl &
Vikram Sidhu, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

Pierre Seel, Interested Party, represented by Irina Dragulev,
Shearman & Sterling LLP, Susan L. Sommer, Lankla, Siffert & Wohl &
Vikram Sidhu, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

Burt Neuborne, Interested Party, represented by Samuel
Issacharoff, NYU School of Law.

Richard Weisberg, Interested Party, represented by Richard H.
Weisberg, Cardozo Law School.

Richard Pavlovec, Interested Party, represented by Yisroel
Schulman, New York Legal Assistance Group.

Moshe Katz, Interested Party, represented by Marc D. Stern,
American Jewish Congress.

Tim Schwarz, Interested Party, Pro Se.

Michael Fleischmann, Interested Party, represented by Adam James
Rader, Lacher & Lovell.

American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, Interested Party,
represented by Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose & Joshua Judah
Pollack, Proskauer Rose LLP.

Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, Interested
Party, represented by Seth David Fier, Proskauer Rose LLP.

Certain Swiss Bank Accounts described as follows: All accounts and
funds maintained at Credit Suisse, or any other financial
institutions in Switzerland held in the name or for the benefit of
Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Paccione, Katten Muchin Zavis
Rosenman & Roger M. Witten, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.

Bank of Internationa, Bank of International Settlements,
Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Paccione, Katten Muchin Zavis
Rosenman & Roger M. Witten, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.


HOLOCAUST VICTIM LITIGATION: Credit Suisse's Stay Motion Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward R. Korman received a request, dated May 21,
2014, on behalf of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims
Against Germany ("Claims Conference") for approval of the budget
for the vital humanitarian services to be provided in 2014 from
funds allocated for the neediest victims of Nazi persecution from
the Swiss Banks Settlement Fund to some of the 70,000 destitute
elderly Jewish Victims of Nazi persecution living in the United,
Israel, and other countries other than the former Soviet Union
("FSU").

This application involves an issue that has arisen on more than
one occasion with respect to the $1.25 billion settlement of the
class action against the largest Swiss banks, Credit Suisse, Union
Bank of Switzerland and the Swiss Bank Corporation (the latter two
of which merged during the course of litigation).  The specific
issue involves a dispute relating to the allocation of part of the
proceeds of the settlement. Briefly, one of the classes
benefitting from the settlement was comprised of victims of Nazi
persecution from whom assets were looted by the Nazis and the
plunder of which was aided by Swiss banks and other Swiss
entities.  Special Master Judah Gribetz recommended initially that
$100 million be allocated to this Looted Assets Class and that the
money be distributed to its neediest members.

"Relying on more current empirical evidence similar to that which
I relied upon in making the initial and subsequent allocations.
I filed a draft order which proposed that the same formula for
determining the asset allocation be applied to the residual
funds," Judge Korman wrote in his memorandum and order dated May
30, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/onWTXcfrom
Leagle.com.

"On April 18, 2013, I granted the request of Holocaust Survivors'
Foundation-USA and various named individuals (collectively "HSF-
USA") for an extension until May 10, 2013, to object to the draft
order. No objection was filed by that date. On May 14, 2013 HSF-
USA filed a letter opposing the Special Masters' recommendation.
The opposition was untimely and I decline to consider it," Judge
Korman held.

HSF-USA filed a Rule 59 motion for rehearing on June 10, 2013, the
last day for filing such a motion.  The motion essentially
constituted an attack on the integrity of the JDC and the Claims
Conference. HSF-USA also sought a stay of any further distribution
pending "a searching investigation and public hearing into their
handling of previous allocations."

On May 23, 2014, Judge Korman addressed HSF-USA's objection to the
role of the JDC and denied the motion for rehearing and a stay. "I
address the objection to the allocation made to the neediest
victims of Nazi persecution in the United States, Israel, and
other countries other than the FSU that is being administered by
the Claims Conference. The allocation formula, to which I have
already alluded, is not an issue on this motion. Instead, the
motion is an attack on the honesty and integrity of the Claims
Conference. I deny the motion for a stay, and will address in an
opinion to follow the motion to conduct an inquisition of the
Claims Conference," he said.

"I deny the motion for a stay for two reasons. First, after
reviewing the record, I have concluded that there is no
justification for the inquisition HSF-USA seeks. Second, because
of the manner in which the Claims Conference administers the funds
for the neediest victims, there is no reasonable likelihood of any
impropriety, much less one that could not easily be discovered,"
Judge Korman concluded.

The case is IN RE HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION, NOS. 14-CV-
00890 (ERK) (JO), 96-CV-04849 (ERK) (JO), (E.D. N.Y.)

Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, In Re, represented by Abraham
E. Havkins -- abbie.havkins@hrrvlaw.com -- Havkins Rosenfeld
Ritzart & Varriata LLP, Burt Neuborne -- burt.neuborne@nyu.edu --
Joshua Judah Pollack -- jpollack@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose
LLP, Judah Gribetz -- judah.gribetz@bingham.com -- Samuel J.
Dubbin -- sdubbin@dubbinkravetz.com -- Dubbin & Kravetz, LLP, Seth
David Fier -- sfier@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP & Shari
Claire Reig -- shari.reig@bingham.com -- Bingham McCutchen.

American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, Interested Party,
represented by Gregg M. Mashberg -- gmashberg@proskauer.com --
Proskauer Rose.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Responded to Wage & Hour Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc., has filed responsive
pleadings in connection with the three wage-and-hour suits seeking
class action certification, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking
class action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012
and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. Each of these cases is among several others
filed by Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors working in the
Port Arthur, Texas Motiva plant on various projects over the last
few years. The claims are based on alleged failure to compensate
for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning safety wear
and other activities. Management does not expect the Company will
face significant exposure for any unpaid wages. In a separate
earlier case based on the same allegations, a federal district
court ruled that the time spent traveling on the busses is not
compensable. On January 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling finding no
liability for wages for time spent bussing into the facility, and
on October 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review
plaintiffs' appeal of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of their claims
for compensation for time spent bussing to the facility,
effectively reducing the Company's risk of liability on this issue
in its cases. The Company's investigation indicates that all
claims for time spent on other activities either were inapplicable
to the Company's employees or took place during times for which
the Company's employees were compensated. The Company has filed
responsive pleadings and, following initial discovery, are
positioning the cases to obtain a dismissal of all claims. As of
March 31, 2014, the Company has not recorded a reserve for this
matter, as it believes the likelihood of its responsibility for
damages is not probable and a potential range of exposure is not
estimable.

Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. (IES) is a provider of
infrastructure services to the residential, commercial and
industrial industries as well as for data centers and other
mission critical environments. The Company operates primarily in
the electrical infrastructure markets, with a corporate focus on
expanding into other markets through strategic acquisitions or
investments. The Company's operations are organized into three
business segments : Communications, Resident and Commercial and
Industrial. In September 2013, Integrated Electrical Services,
Inc. completed its acquisition of MISCOR Group, Ltd.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of Mortgage Modification MDL Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Laura A. Cecere appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit from the Final Approval Order, Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice entered by the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
May 7, 2014, in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re:
JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification Litigation.

The litigation is brought on behalf of all mortgage borrowers,
whose loans are serviced by Chase, who participated in a Stated-
Income Trial Period Plan extended by Chase under the Home
Affordable Modification Program and under other non-HAMP
modification program.

Appellant Laura A. Cecere is represented by:

          John J. Pentz, Esq.
          19 Widow Rites Lane
          Sudbury, MA 01776
          Telephone: (978) 261-5725
          Facsimile: (978) 405-5161
          E-mail: jjpentz3@gmail.com

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Mayra Velez Tarantino, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  mtarantino@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP PC
          10680 West Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Sharon T. Hritz, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1129 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          E-mail: shritz@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          Gerard B. Schneller, Esq.
          HOLLAND GROVES SCHNELLER & STOLZE LLC
          300 North Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com
                  eholland@allfela.com
                  gschneller@allfela.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
          Shane M. Mendenhall, Esq.
          BOLEN ROBINSON AND ELLIS LLP
          202 South Franklin Street, 2nd Floor
          Decatur, IL 62523
          Telephone: (217) 429-4296
          Facsimile: (217) 329-0034
          E-mail: cellis@brelaw.com
                  smendenhall@brelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert George Kropp, Jr., Esq.
          BUSH GOTTLIEB SINGER LOPEZ KOHANSKI ADELSTEIN
          AND DICKINSON
          500 North Central Avenue, Suite 800
          Glendale, CA 91203-8905
          Telephone: (818) 973-3225
          E-mail: rkropp@bushgottlieb.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (212) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony L. Lanza, Esq.
          Brodie Hugh Smith, Esq.
          LANZA & SMITH PLC
          3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650
          Irvine, CA 92614-8540
          Telephone: (949) 221-0490
          Facsimile: (949) 221-0027
          E-mail: tony@lanzasmith.com

               - and -

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
          MAURIELLO LAW FIRM
          1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 542-3555
          Facsimile: (949) 606-9690
          E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          608 2nd Ave. S, Suite 650
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Gary L. Abbott, Esq.
          Robin Ann Abbott, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          12515 Warwick Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          1792 Bell Tower Ln., Suite 203
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 315-3454
          E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-0000
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700

               - and -

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 E. State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          Shennan Kavanagh, Esq.
          Gary Klein, Esq.
          KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP
          85 Merrimac Street, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 357-5500
          Facsimile: (617) 357-5030
          E-mail: costello@kkcllp.com
                  kavanagh@kkcllp.com
                  klein@kkcllp.com

               - and -

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq.
          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          Facsimile: (617) 542-8033
          Email: cdelbaum@nclc.org

               - and -

          Michael Raabe, Esq.
          170 Common Street
          Lawrence, MA 01840-0000
          Telephone: (978) 686-6900

               - and -

          Andrea B. Bierstein, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES, LLP
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6403
          E-mail: abierstein@hanlyconroy.com

               - and -

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          MURDOCK GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER & GROH
          25 E. Seventh Street, Suite 600
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Paul J. Minnillo, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723-1600

               - and -

          William T. Dowd, Esq.
          Alex Lumaghi, Esq.
          DOWD AND DOWD
          100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-2500
          Facsimile: (314) 621-2503
          E-mail: bill@dowdlaw.net
                  alex@dowdlaw.net

               - and -

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          DRISCOLL FIRM
          211 N. Browdway
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 932-3233

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Hunt, Esq.
          DOSTERULLOM, LLC
          16090 Swingley Ridge, Suite 620
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 532-0042
          E-mail: jhunt@dosterullom.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCAN LLP
          300 N Tucker Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY DANIS & LOWE, LLC
          8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
          St Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 678-1064
          Facsimile: (314) 721-0905

               - and -

          Noah I. Axler, Esq.
          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN AXLER
          1845 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 732-6067

               - and -

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          2001 Market Street
          2 Commerce Square, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-3500

               - and -

          Sandra G. Smith, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI
          101 Greenwood Ave.
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770

               - and -

          Christine M. Craig, Esq.
          SHAHEEN & GORDON PA
          PO Box 977
          140 Washington St.
          Dover, NH 03821-0977
          Telephone: (603) 749-5000
          Facsimile: (603) 749-1838
          E-mail: ccraig@shaheengordon.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Michael J. Agoglia, Esq.
          Wendy M. Garbers, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: magoglia@mofo.com
                  wgarbers@mofo.com

               - and -

          Leah M. Houghton, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          225 Franklin St., 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 341-7700
          Facsimile: (617) 341-7701
          E-mail: lhoughton@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jami Wintz McKeon, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1800 M Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 467-7049
          E-mail: jmckeon@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Matthew A. Kane, Esq.
          Donn Alexander Randall, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          125 High Street, 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 368-2500
          Facsimile: (617) 368-2525
          E-mail: mkane@bulkley.com
                  drandall@bulkley.com

The appellate case is In Re: JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification
Litigation, Case No. 14-01602, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.  The multidistrict litigation is
known as In Re: JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification Litigation,
MDL No. 1:11-md-02290-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Gets Initial OK of "Connor" Group 2 Class Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted preliminary approval of a
proposed class action settlement amendment in PATRICIA CONNOR,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION a/k/a FANNIE MAE, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:10-CV-1284-
GPC-BGS, (S.D. Cal.).  A copy of the May 30, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/utyagTfrom Leagle.com.

The Class, as conditionally certified on March 12, 2012, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), will remain
conditionally certified for settlement purposes only, ruled Judge
Curiel. The Settlement Class is defined as: All present or former
borrowers or co-borrowers as identified in JPMCB's records whose
residential mortgage loan or home equity line of credit is or was
serviced by JPMCB or Chase Home Finance LLC and either the
borrower, co-borrower or both, were contacted on their cellular
telephone(s) by JPMCB through the use of an automated dialer
system and/or an artificial or pre-recorded voice during the Class
Period. Subclass A of the Settlement Class consists of those
persons whose cell phones were actually called by JPMCB or Chase
Home Finance LLC during the Class Period, and are thus entitled to
a monetary payment. Excluded from the Settlement Class are
Defendants, their parent companies, affiliates or subsidiaries, or
any employees thereof, and any entities in which any of such
companies has a controlling interest, the Judge or Magistrate
Judge to whom the Action is assigned and any members of those
Judges' staffs and immediate families, as well as all persons who
validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

The Court also held that, because the Group 2 Settlement Class
merely expands, and does not substantively change, the already
conditionally certified class, as set forth in the First
Preliminary Approval Order, that the Group 2 Settlement Class
meets the requirements for conditional certification under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

Plaintiffs Patricia Connor and Sheri L. Bywater were previously
designated as class representatives, and will remain class
representatives for the Settlement Class.

The Court previously appointed Hyde & Swigart; The Kazerouni Law
Group, APC; the Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion; Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and David P. Meyer & Associates Co.,
LPA, as Class Counsel, and will remain as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class. The Court continues to find that Class Counsel
is competent and capable of exercising all responsibilities as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

A final approval hearing will be held before the Honorable Gonzalo
P. Curiel, at the U.S. District Court, 221 West Broadway,
Courtroom 2D, in San Diego, CA 92101, on Friday, November 14,
2014, at 1:30 p.m.

As set forth in the Amendment, subject to final approval of the
Settlement, the maximum total Settlement Costs are increased from
$9,000,000 to $11,268,058.  Claims by Group 2 Settlement Class
Members are capped at $69.97.  Because the Settlement contemplates
a finite fund, the total amount that Group 1 and Group 2
Settlement Class Members will be paid may be reduced on a pro rata
basis if the Group 2 claim rate is higher than anticipated. Any
reduction will apply equally to Group 1 and Group 2 Settlement
Class Members, such that members from both groups will receive the
same amount.

Patricia Connor, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Abbas Kazerounian
-- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC & Douglas J Campion
-- doug@djcampion.com -- Law Offices of Douglas J Campion.

Sheri L. Bywater, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Selbin --
jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Julia
Beatrice Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan, Shana Alexis Shifrin, Burke, Warren, MacKay &
Serritella, PC, Shannon Z Petersen -- sshifrin@burkelaw.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Arjun P. Rao --
arao@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & LeAnn Pedersen
Pope -- lpope@burkelaw.com -- Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella PC.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by
Sung-Min Christopher Yoo -- cyoo@alvaradosmith.com --
AlvaradoSmith, APC.

Chase Bank USA, N.A., Defendant, represented by Arjun P. Rao,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Defendant in 4 Wage & Hour Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Four wage and hour class action lawsuits are pending against
Kindred Healthcare, Inc., alleging among other things, errors in
pay calculations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The wage and hour class action lawsuits have been filed in federal
district court for the Central District of California, and are
being addressed together by the court. Each case pertains to
alleged errors made by the Company with respect to regular pay and
overtime pay calculations, waiting times, meal period waivers and
wage statements under California law. On March 13, 2013, the court
conditionally certified five classes of the seven total classes
sought for certification for discovery purposes and declined to
certify two others. Notice of class action certification and class
members' right to opt out of the lawsuit was mailed to all of the
Company's current and former California hospital employees. The
Company intends to vigorously defend these claims.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services company that
through its subsidiaries operates transitional care (TC)
hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals (IRFs), nursing and
rehabilitation centers, assisted living facilities, a contract
rehabilitation services business and a home health and hospice
business across the United States.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Paid $0.7-Mil to Settle Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc., agreed to pay $0.7 million to settle a
wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging violation of wage and
hour laws, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

A wage and hour class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of federal and state wage and hour laws is pending in
federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois. This
lawsuit pertains to the Company's previous automatic meal break
deduction practice for non-exempt employees in the Company's
hospitals located outside California. The court granted
conditional class certification in part on June 11, 2013. This
lawsuit was settled on January 31, 2014, by the Company's
agreement to pay $0.7 million to claimants from the Company's five
Illinois hospitals, plaintiffs' attorney's fees and certain
administrative costs.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services company that
through its subsidiaries operates transitional care (TC)
hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals (IRFs), nursing and
rehabilitation centers, assisted living facilities, a contract
rehabilitation services business and a home health and hospice
business across the United States.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Defendant in Junk Fax Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint was filed against Kindred
Healthcare, Inc., on January 6, 2014, alleging that one of the
Company's subsidiaries violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 and the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

On January 6, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries. The lawsuit,
styled Pines Nursing Home, et al. v. Polaris and RehabCare Group,
Inc., et al. alleges that one of the Company's subsidiaries sent
"junk" faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991 and the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The complaint
seeks damages, statutory fines and penalties, attorneys' fees and
an injunction prohibiting such conduct in the future. The Company
disputes the allegations in the complaint and will defend this
lawsuit vigorously.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services company that
through its subsidiaries operates transitional care (TC)
hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals (IRFs), nursing and
rehabilitation centers, assisted living facilities, a contract
rehabilitation services business and a home health and hospice
business across the United States.


MAXIMUS INC: Reserved $0.6-Mil to Cover Boise Employees Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMUS, Inc., disclosed that as of March 31, 2014, it has
reserved $0.6 million to cover the estimated legal costs of
defending a purported class action filed by Boise employees, in
addition to estimated liabilities to employees, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014.

In January 2014, MAXIMUS was named a defendant in Norton et al. v.
MAXIMUS in the U.S. District Court for Idaho. The plaintiffs in
this purported class action are current and former trainers and
supervisors at the MAXIMUS federal health care project in Boise.
They allege the Company willfully misclassified them as exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and failed to pay
them overtime, and they seek to establish a nationwide class
covering the company's federal health care operations. The
plaintiffs allege compensatory and punitive damages of at least $5
million. MAXIMUS has since reclassified the trainers as non-exempt
employees and is seeking an expedited resolution of their wage
claims. MAXIMUS denies liability as to the supervisors and will
contest the matter vigorously. As of March 31, 2014, the Company
has reserved $0.6 million to cover the estimated legal costs of
defending this lawsuit, in addition to estimated liabilities to
employees.

MAXIMUS, Inc. provides business process services (BPS) to
government health and human services agencies under its mission of
Helping Government Serve the People. The Company is primarily
focused on operating government-sponsored programs, such as
Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), health
insurance exchanges and other health care reform initiatives,
Medicare, welfare-to-work, child support services and other
government programs. The Company is one of the pure-play health
and human services administrative providers to governments in the
United States, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and Saudi
Arabia. The Company's segments include Health Services and Human
Services.


MCAFEE INC: Renews Subscriptions Without Consent, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that McAfee renews subscribers'
subscriptions to its anti-virus software without their consent, a
class action claims in federal court in San Jose, Calif.


MCI CEDAR: Show Cause Order Entered in "Rice" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings issued a memorandum and order
directing the plaintiffs to show cause why he should not dismiss
the action captioned as, JORDAN RICE, Plaintiff, v. LUIS SPENCER,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2013-12046-RBC, (D. Mass.).

A copy of the memorandum and order dated May 29, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Xf7Pfifrom Leagle.com.

Mr. Rice is incarcerated at MCI Cedar Junction. In his pro se
Complaint, Mr. Rice identifies as plaintiffs himself, 23
individuals, "Citizens of the United States of America," and
"Past, Present and Future Prisoners incarcerated in the Department
of Corrections." Mr. Rice and eighteen other plaintiffs are
current prisoners. One plaintiff is a former prisoner. The other
named plaintiffs are interested citizens (family or friends of the
prisoner plaintiffs). Mr. Rice identifies 200 correctional
officers, prison officials, and prison medical providers as
defendants. He also includes John Does 1-100 and Jane Does 1-100
as defendants. Mr. Rice alleges that defendants have collectively
run the Massachusetts prison system as a "Nazi concentration
camp," by engaging in a wide range of misconduct that includes
attempting to infect the prisoners with infectious diseases, among
other things.

Mr. Rice filed a "Partial Amendment to Complaint" which appears to
be his attempt to bring a second action. In letters that he filed,
he indicated that he was bringing a class action and an action in
which he was the only plaintiff. However, the Court had only
received the multi-plaintiff Complaint. Thus, it appears that the
Partial Amendment -- in which he is the sole plaintiff -- is not
an amendment to the multi-plaintiff action but to a complaint that
was never received by the Court. In the Partial Amendment, Mr.
Rice brings civil rights claims against forty-eight correctional
officers, prison officials, and prison medical providers. The
Partial Amendment contains 211 paragraphs of factual allegations,
many of which contain allegations of multiple counts of wrongdoing
by named defendants.

Magistrate Judge Collings ruled that:

1. If Mr. Rice would like to pursue the claims in the Complaint,
   he must, within 42 days, file an Amended Complaint. Failure to
   do so may result in dismissal of this action.

2. If Mr. Rice would like to pursue the claims in the Partial
   Amendment, he must, within 42 days, file a Second Amended
   Complaint. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this
   action. The Second Amended Complaint will be opened and the
   full filing fee will be due. Mr. Rice may pay the $400 filing
   fee up front or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron V. Chatelle, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-00255-ML-PAS (D.R.I., June 5, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Settles Student Athletes' Suit for $20 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
National Collegiate Athletic Association has agreed to pay $20
million to current and former student athletes who claim they were
depicted in NCAA-licensed video games without their consent.

The NCAA announced the settlement on June 9, the same day a
related case began trial in Oakland federal court.  Plaintiffs
attorneys and the NCAA are at odds over how the settlement relates
to the ongoing case, in which the compensation of student athletes
is also at issue.

In the ongoing case, a class of student athletes, led by named
plaintiff Edward O'Bannon Jr., seeks a court order blocking the
NCAA policy that prevents the association from sharing its
licensing revenue with players. U.S. District Chief Judge Claudia
Wilken is presiding over the antitrust bench trial.

By agreeing to the June 9 video games settlement, the NCAA has
already done what it is fighting against in court, plaintiffs
attorneys say.

"It's the first time that the NCAA will pay student athletes for
their performance on the field, so it's a historic occasion," said
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro partner Steve Berman, who represents
the settling plaintiffs.

The NCAA disagrees.

"In no event do we consider this settlement pay for athletics
performance," NCAA Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy said in a news
release.

The case that settled, led by named plaintiff Samuel Keller, is
narrower in scope than the O'Bannon case.  While Mr. O'Bannon's
suit is on behalf of all Division I football and basketball
players, the Keller case is limited to the specific players who
appeared in the video games.  There is also no hope of a large
cash settlement in the O'Bannon case, as Wilken refused to approve
a subclass seeking damages.

In both the Keller and O'Bannon cases, class members settled
claims last year against Electronic Arts Inc., the maker of the
video games, and the Collegiate Licensing Company for $40 million.

"With the games no longer in production and the plaintiffs
settling their claims with EA and the Collegiate Licensing
Company, the NCAA viewed a settlement now as an appropriate
opportunity to provide complete closure to the video game
plaintiffs," Mr. Remy said in the NCAA release.

The association declined further comment.

The complete details of the settlement have not yet been released,
but Hagens Berman partner Leonard Aragon estimates each eligible
athlete will receive up to a few thousands of dollars for each
year he or she played sports.  That compares with $400-$1,000 per
year per athlete from the settlement reached last year. Both
estimates depend on how many athletes claim a share of the
settlement, Mr. Aragon said.  Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Glenn
Pomerantz -- Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com -- is lead defense counsel in
the Keller and O'Bannon cases.  Mr. Berman is lead plaintiffs
counsel in the Keller case, and the Hausfeld firm is lead
plaintiffs counsel in the O'Bannon case.  Plaintiffs attorneys are
optimistic the June 9 settlement bodes well for the O'Bannon case.

"I think it's just more evidence that the sky isn't going to fall
in if the athletes share some of this money," said plaintiffs
attorney Stuart Paynter -- stuart@paynterlawfirm.com -- principal
with the Paynter Law Firm in Washington, D.C.  "The world will
keep turning and college sports will keep being played."

The NCAA has agreed students who accept money from the settlement
will not lose their eligibility to play.  But the association made
it clear in its news release that it still stands behind its
policy of not paying student athletes.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Removed "Jordan" Suit to E.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 12-00002-00385-2, was removed from the
Chelan County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington (Spokane).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00175-TOR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clay M. Gatens, Esq.
          Michelle A. Green, Esq.
          JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD PS
          2600 Chester Kimm Road
          PO Box 1688
          Wenatchee, WA 98801
          Telephone: (509) 662-3685
          Facsimile: (509) 662-2452
          E-mail: clayg@jdsalaw.com
                  michelleg@jdsalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Alan Knox, Esq.
          WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS-SEA
          P O Box 21926
          601 Union Street, Suite 4100
          Seattle, WA 98111-3926
          Telephone: (206) 233-2965
          Facsimile: (206) 628-6611
          E-mail: jknox@williamskastner.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Forstik, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Navient Solutions, Inc. a/k/a Sallie Mae, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-03460-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., May 30, 2014) is brought for
damages and other remedies resulting from the Defendant's alleged
illegal actions in negligently and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

Navient Solutions, Inc., also known as Sallie Mae, Inc., is a
business corporation headquartered in Reston, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          David S. Paris, Esq.
          Bryan H. Mintz, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-6667
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com
                  David@paslawfirm.com
                  Bryan@paslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Jessica R. K. Dorman, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  Jessica@westcoastlitigation.com


NEW YORK, NY: Judge Denies Attorney Fees in Ground Zero Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Southern District Judge Alvin Hellerstein's decision denying
attorney fees on a settlement bonus in the Ground Zero litigation
was upheld by a federal appeals court on June 9.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said Judge
Hellerstein did not abuse his discretion by denying plaintiffs'
counsel from recovering a contingency attorney fee on a $55
million bonus payment triggered by settlements of some 10,000
lawsuits brought against New York City, its contractors, and the
congressionally-funded WTC Captive Insurance Company for exposure
to toxic dust in the rescue, recovery and cleanup at the World
Trade Center.

But the Second Circuit also vacated Judge Hellerstein's order that
the City defendants had to pay the $55 million in the first place
in In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation (Cirino v.
City of New York) 11-4021-cv(L).  It remanded to Judge Hellerstein
to determine the intent of the parties when they included in the
2010 settlement a provision for bonus payments based on the
percentage of plaintiffs who participated in the deal.

Judges Peter Hall and Denny Chin and Judge Jane Restani of the
United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation, decided the appeal.

Plaintiffs' counsel, led by Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern and
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, stand to gain some $187
million in fees after being reimbursed for expenses from the
settlement that Judge Hellerstein ultimately approved.

In March 2010, the WTC Captive, funded by Congress with $1 billion
to cover claims arising from the site, agreed to pay at least $575
million and as much as $632.5 million in a settlement which would
take effect when 95 percent of the eligible plaintiffs agreed to
join.  The WTC agreed to pay additional bonus payments as the
participation rate of settling plaintiffs climbed above 95 percent
and relatively few new lawsuits were filed.  Under the deal,
plaintiffs' counsel was to recover a one-third contingency fee.

Judge Hellerstein rejected the settlement, and the parties
returned in June with a new agreement that increased the range to
a high end of $712.5 million and cut the attorney fees to 25
percent.  Judge Hellerstein excluded almost 400 plaintiffs from
the eligible list, and thereby increased the opt-in rate from 96
to 99 percent, triggering a bonus payment of $55 million, instead
of $12.5 million.

Judge Hellerstein later held in 2012, over the objection of the
defendants -- the city, the contractors and the WTC Captive --
that a $5 million contingent payment was due based on the
relatively few new debris lawsuits that had been filed.

Those two orders on the bonus and contingency payments, and Judge
Hellerstein's ruling that plaintiffs counsel could not recover a
percentage of those payments in attorney fees, were the subject of
oral argument before the circuit on April 11, 2013.

Writing for the court on June 9, Judge Chin said the circuit was
vacating and remanding to determine how the parties intended to
handle claims that were involuntarily dismissed for failure to
prosecute, and whether they should have been on the eligible
plaintiffs list.

The circuit accepted the argument of the WTC Captive and reversed
Judge Hellerstein on the $5 million contingency payment --
rendering moot the bid of plaintiffs' counsel to collect attorney
fees based on the payment.

On the attorney fee issue, Judge Chin applied the factors the
circuit uses in assessing the reasonableness of a fee award under
Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000).
"In mass tort cases, district courts have routinely capped
attorneys' fees sua sponte," Judge Chin said, adding that
Judge Hellerstein was well within his discretion to do so here.

Judge Chin first noted that Judge Hellerstein's job was harder
because the firms did not keep time records, so he was unable to
"cross check" the reasonableness of the fees.  Second, Judge Chin
said the magnitude and complexity of the litigation weighed in
favor of a substantial attorney fees -- and that's just what they
will receive.

"This was perhaps the most complex mass tort case in the history
of the United States," he said, while noting the attorneys faced
"little risk" given the $1 billion appropriation for the WTC
Captive.

"Thus, the attorneys who took on this case did not face all the
risks inherent in other mass tort litigations -- such as the risk
that plaintiffs would be denied any recovery or that defendants
would be judgment-proof," Judge Chin said.

As to the quality of the representation, he noted that Judge
Hellerstein was "on the whole, complimentary of plaintiffs'
counsel," but "chided them for certain delays and raised several
ethical concerns about conflicts of interest in the fee
arrangements."

Next, Judge Chin said the 25 percent cap on their recovery from
the base settlement amount "was supported by precedent within this
circuit and in mass tort cases nationwide."  He said Judge
Hellerstein "did not contravene precedent in precluding additional
recovery with respect to the bonus payment."

Finally, Judge Chin said Judge Hellerstein was right to be mindful
of public policy concerns in deciding the fee issue.

"The district court was keenly aware that the funds available to
these victims are limited," he said.  "It recognized that
overcompensation of attorneys would take away money from needy
plaintiffs and it was rightly sensitive to the public perception
of overall fairness."

Denise Rubin -- DRubin@NapoliBern.com -- senior appellate counsel
and general counsel for Napoli Bern and Brian Shoot, partner at
Sullivan Papain, argued for the plaintiffs.

Name partner Marc Bern said on June 9 he was "disappointed for the
10,000 men and women, the heroes of 9/11, who we represented and
who are entitled to this bonus and now, at least of this moment,
will not be getting it."

"And although most people don't like to talk about attorney fees,
I have to say I'm very, very disappointed by the findings of the
Second Circuit," Mr. Bern said.  "We stepped up to represent these
men and women when no one else would do it.  We risked a
tremendous amount of money in litigating this case, which was as
hard fought as any litigation I've done in nearly four decades as
a plaintiffs' lawyer.  No one gave us anything -- we took a 100
percent risk.  Many of the findings with respect to attorneys are
just wrong."

Margaret Warner of McDermott Will & Emery argued for the WTC
Captive, New York City and its contractors.  The firm took no
position on the attorney fee issue.

"The WTC Captive argued instead that the proper measure was
clearly set forth in the agreement as the number of cases filed,
and that such cases did not have to remain pending to impact the
amount due," the firm said in a statement.  "The Second Circuit
agreed with the WTC Captive and reversed the district court."

Evan Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- of Cravath Swain & Moore
argued pro bono as Second Circuit amicus curiae appointed counsel.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
Orbital Sciences Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to
Alliant Techsystems in a stock swap and merger valued at
$5 billion, shareholders claim in Chancery Court in Wilmington,
Del.


PANTRY INC: Moved "Harding" Suit to South Carolina District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harding v. The Pantry Inc., Case
No. 2014-CP-10-2682, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Charleston County, South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina (Charleston).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02096-CWH to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges unpaid overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Bailey Smith, Esq.
          SMITH LAW FIRM
          1100 Queensborough Boulevard, Suite 101
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 531-5396
          Facsimile: (843) 853-2291
          E-mail: fleabailey77@aol.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy Willey, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          2557 Ashley Phosphate Road
          North Charleston, SC 29418
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          Facsimile: (843) 853-2291
          E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          T. Chase Samples, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Liberty Square
          55 Beattie Place, Suite 800
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 232-7000
          Facsimile: (864) 235-1381
          E-mail: chase.samples@jacksonlewis.com


PFIZER INC: Faces "Morgan" Suit Over Zoloft-Related Birth Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rikki Morgan and Earnest Morgan, Jr., individually, and as the
natural parents of Aydon Morgan v. Pfizer, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Pfizer International LLC, a New York Corporation;
J.B. Roerig & Company, a Division of Pfizer, Inc.; and Greenstone,
LLC, fka Greenstone, Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-03059-CMR (E.D. Pa.,
May 30, 2014) alleges that the pharmaceutical drug ZOLOFT(R) or
sertraline hydrochloride is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and
lacked proper warnings as to the dangers associated with its use.

Zoloft is primarily marketed as an antidepressant medication but
was approved for use in the United States by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration for treatment of Major Depressive Disorder,
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Acute Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder and
Social Anxiety Disorder.

Plaintiffs Rikki Morgan and Earnest Morgan, Jr., are the
biological parents and guardians of Aydon Morgan, who was born
with congenital birth defects known as dilated intestinal bowel,
jejunal atresia and other related conditions as a result of the
Mother Plaintiff's alleged ingestion of Zoloft manufactured by the
Defendants, according to the complaint.  The Parent Plaintiffs
bring the action on behalf of themselves as individuals and on
behalf of the Minor Plaintiff to recover medical and other
expenses related to treatment resulting from the Minor Plaintiff's
birth defects, disorders and related illnesses.

Pfizer, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York
City.  Pfizer International LLC is a New York Corporation
headquartered in New York City.  J.B. Roerig & Company is a
division of Pfizer Inc.  Greenstone, LLC, formerly known as
Greenstone, Ltd., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc.,
and is a Delaware corporation based in Peapack, New Jersey.  The
Defendants are pharmaceutical companies involved in research,
development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion,
distribution and marketing of pharmaceuticals for distribution,
sale and use by the general public the drug ZOLOFT(R) (known
generically as sertraline), an antidepressant, throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth T. Fibich, Esq.
          Gregory Q. Fibich, Esq.
          FIBICH HAMPTON LEEBRON BRIGGS JOSEPHSON LLP
          1150 Bissonnet Street
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: tfibich@fhl-law.com
                  gfibich@fhl-law.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Salim
          Barrett Beasley
          SALIM- BEASLEY, LLC
          1901 Texas Street
          Natchitoches, LA 71457
          Telephone: (318) 352-5999
          Facsimile: (318) 352-5998
          E-mail: skeeter@cp-tel.net
                  bbeasley@salim-beasley.com

               - and -

          Jay H. Henderson, Esq.
          JAY HENDERSON, LLC
          5020 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 275-4050
          Facsimile: (713) 275-4046
          E-mail: jhenderson@hbelaw.com


PFIZER INC: Faces Suit Over Birth Defects Due to Use of Zoloft
--------------------------------------------------------------
Candace Long and Adam Long, individually, and as the natural
parents of Anna Long v. Pfizer, Inc., a Delaware Corporation;
Pfizer International LLC, a New York Corporation; and J.B. Roerig
& Company, a Division of Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03061-CMR
(E.D. Pa., May 30, 2014) alleges that the pharmaceutical drug
ZOLOFT(R) and sertraline hydrochloride is defective, dangerous to
human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold, and
lacked proper warnings as to the dangers associated with its use.

Zoloft is primarily marketed as an antidepressant medication but
was approved for use in the United States by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration for treatment of Major Depressive Disorder,
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Acute Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder and
Social Anxiety Disorder.

According to the complaint, Anna Long, the biological daughter of
Defendants Candace Long and Adam Long, was born on August 8, 2006,
with congenital birth defects known as DiGeorge Syndrome, Velo-
Cardio-Facial Syndrome, coarctation of aorta, patent ductus
ateriosus, ventricular septal defect, interrupted aortic arch,
bicuspid aortic valve, atrial septal defect, laryngomalacia and
other related conditions as a result of the Mother Plaintiff's
ingestion of Zoloft manufactured by Pfizer.

The Parent Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves as
individuals and on behalf of the Minor Plaintiff to recover
medical and other expenses related to treatment resulting from the
Minor Plaintiff's birth defects, disorders and related illnesses
and for general and special damages.

Pfizer, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York
City.  Pfizer International LLC is a New York Corporation
headquartered in New York City.  J.B. Roerig & Company is a
division of Pfizer Inc.  The Defendants are pharmaceutical
companies involved in research, development, testing, manufacture,
production, promotion, distribution and marketing of
pharmaceuticals for distribution, sale and use by the general
public the drug ZOLOFT(R) (known generically as sertraline), an
antidepressant, throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth T. Fibich, Esq.
          Gregory Q. Fibich, Esq.
          FIBICH HAMPTON LEEBRON BRIGGS JOSEPHSON LLP
          1150 Bissonnet Street
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: tfibich@fhl-law.com
                  gfibich@fhl-law.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Salim
          Barrett Beasley
          SALIM- BEASLEY, LLC
          1901 Texas Street
          Natchitoches, LA 71457
          Telephone: (318) 352-5999
          Facsimile: (318) 352-5998
          E-mail: skeeter@cp-tel.net
                  bbeasley@salim-beasley.com

               - and -

          Jay H. Henderson, Esq.
          JAY HENDERSON, LLC
          5020 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 275-4050
          Facsimile: (713) 275-4046
          E-mail: jhenderson@hbelaw.com


PIONEER NATURAL: Court Approved Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Natural Resources Company reported in its Form 10-Q filed
on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that a U.S. court,
on March 17, 2014, approved a Stipulation of Agreement, providing
among other things, dismissing the consolidated class action
lawsuit against the Company.

On May 15, 2013, David Flecker, a purported unitholder of Pioneer
Southwest, filed a class action petition on behalf of Pioneer
Southwest's unitholders and a derivative suit (the "Flecker
Lawsuit") on behalf of Pioneer Southwest against the Company,
Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. ("Pioneer USA"), Pioneer
Natural Resources GP LLC (the "General Partner") and the directors
of the General Partner, in the 134th Judicial District of Dallas
County, Texas (the "Court"). A similar class action petition and
derivative suit was filed against the same defendants on May 20,
2013, in the 160th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, by
purported unitholder Vipul Patel (the "Patel Lawsuit"). On
September 3, 2013, the Patel Lawsuit was consolidated into the
Flecker Lawsuit (as consolidated, the "Pioneer Southwest
Lawsuit"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative and
class action petition on September 5, 2013.

The Pioneer Southwest Lawsuit alleged, among other things, that
the director defendants: (i) engaged in self-dealing, failed to
act in good faith toward Pioneer Southwest, and breached their
duties owed to Pioneer Southwest; (ii) failed to properly value
Pioneer Southwest and its various assets and operations and
ignored or failed to protect against the numerous conflicts of
interest arising out of the proposed transaction; and (iii)
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
engaging in a flawed merger process. The lawsuit also alleged that
the Company, Pioneer USA and the General Partner aided and abetted
the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary
duties. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs sought to have
the Pioneer Southwest merger rescinded. The plaintiffs also sought
money damages and attorneys' fees.

In September 2013, representatives of the plaintiffs and the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the
"Memorandum of Understanding") to settle the claims and
allegations made in the lawsuit. As part of the consideration for
the settlement, the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") was amended to provide for contractual appraisal
rights for the unitholders. In January 2014, the defendants and
representatives of the plaintiffs entered into a stipulation of
settlement (the "Stipulation of Settlement"). The Stipulation of
Settlement provides for a full and complete discharge, dismissal
with prejudice, settlement and release of all claims, suits and
causes of action by the plaintiffs (other than appraisal rights
under the Merger Agreement) against the defendants and their
representatives arising out of or relating to the allegations made
in the Pioneer Southwest Lawsuit, the Pioneer Southwest merger or
any deliberations, negotiations, disclosures, omissions, press
releases, statements or misstatements in connection therewith, any
fiduciary or other obligations in respect of the merger or any
alternative transaction or under Pioneer Southwest's partnership
agreement, or any costs and expenses associated with settlement
other than as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement.

On March 17, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the
settlement of the Pioneer Southwest Lawsuit in accordance with the
terms of the Stipulation of Settlement and dismissing the lawsuit
with prejudice in its entirety as to the defendants and against
plaintiffs and all other members of the Class.

Pioneer Natural Resources Company (Pioneer) is an independent oil
and gas exploration and production company with operations in the
United States and South Africa. Pioneer is a holding company whose
assets consist of direct and indirect ownership interests in, and
whose business is conducted substantially through, its
subsidiaries. The Company sells homogenous oil, natural gas liquid
(NGL) and gas units. The Company provides administrative,
financial, legal and management support to United States and South
Africa subsidiaries that explore for, develop and produce proved
reserves.


PLY GEM: Faces Class Action Over Misleading IPO Documents
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that various trading outfits and
officers inflated Ply Gem shares with misleading statements in the
IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus, a class claims in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


PNC FINANCIAL: Amendment to Lender-Placed Insurance Suit Proposed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion is pending that the suit Lauren vs. PNC Bank, N.A., et
al, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM) be amended to assert a nationwide
RICO claim on behalf of the class, according to The PNC Financial
Services 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.

In February 2014, the plaintiff in Lauren vs. PNC Bank, N.A., et
al, (Case No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM), now pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, moved to amend
her complaint to, among other things, assert a nationwide RICO
claim on behalf of the class. The motion is pending.

In March 2014, an additional class action complaint (Tighe v. PNC
Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 14-CV-2017) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against PNC Bank, Alpine Indemnity Limited, a reinsurance
subsidiary of PNC, ASIC and its parent, Assurant, Inc. The
allegations of this complaint are similar to those found in the
Lauren complaint. The plaintiff asserts breach of contract by PNC,
breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, breach of a fiduciary duty, and violations of Texas
statutes pertaining to deceptive and unfair trade practices. These
plaintiffs also assert claims under the federal TILA and RICO
statutes. The plaintiff seeks a nationwide class on all claims
except the state law statutory claim, for which they seek to
certify a subclass of Texas residents.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Inflated Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Provectus Biopharmaceuticals
inflated its stock price through false and misleading statements,
shareholders claim in Federal Court in Nashville, Tenn.


PROVIDENT TRUST: Faces Las Vegas Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Provident Trust Group, My
Self Direct et al. ran a Ponzi scheme as purported custodians of
self-directed IRAs, and admitted it, a class action claims in
Clark County Court in Las Vegas.


RBS CITIZENS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lori A. Mesta on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RBS Citizens N.A.; Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00703-MRH (W.D. Pa., May 30, 2014) is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, Pennsylvania common law and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law to recover damages for non-payment of
wages and overtime wages for the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated.

RBS Citizens N.A. is a foreign corporation with headquarters in
Providence, Rhode Island.  Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania is a
Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.  RBS Citizens, the parent of Citizens Bank, provides
consultation, administration and human resource services to
Citizens Bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Keith L. Eliou, Esq.
          950 Green Tree Road, Suite 202b
          Pittsburgh, PA 15220
          Telephone: (412) 921-1300
          Facsimile: (412) 921-7772
          E-mail: Keith@elioulaw.com


REALOGY CORP: Oct. 6 Fairness Hearing on "Martinez" Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones granted preliminary approval of a
settlement resolving the class action captioned JANITH MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff, v. REALOGY CORPORATION; and REALOGY FRANCHISE GROUP,
LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:10-CV-00755-RCJ-VPC, (D. Nev.).  A
copy of the May 30, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/AUUiaGfrom Leagle.com.

A Fairness Hearing will be held before the court at Courtroom 6,
9:00 A.M., Monday, October 6, 2014, at the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, 400 South Virginia Street, Reno,
Nevada, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of
the Settlement to the Class, Plaintiff's counsel's application for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and
such other matters as may be presented to the Court at that time.

For purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the Court
preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class defined as: All
persons who are or were Realogy brand affiliated brokers, sales
associates or employees, and their family members as applicable,
who, between July 2007 and July 2010, purchased and/or paid
premiums for a health insurance program sold by AFID, LLC and/or
"Association of Franchise and Independent Dealers, LLC" that was
marketed by a Realogy brand during that time period.

The Court appointed Gilardi & Co., LLC to supervise and administer
the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims.

All members of the Class who wish to exclude themselves from the
Class must do so by mailing, via first class Untied States mail, a
written request for exclusion directed to the Settlement
Administrator, postmarked on or before August 1, 2104.

The parties are directed to file with the Court all papers in
support of the Settlement, and any application by Plaintiff's
counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of
litigation expenses no later than July 14, 2014. Any reply papers
in response to objections must be filed on or before August 15,
2014.

Pending the Court's final determination of whether the proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, all discovery and
other pretrial proceedings in the Action relating to the claims
against the Defendant are deemed stayed as of November 26, 2012,
and suspended until further Order of the Court.

Thhe hearing on Motion for Class Certification Class that was set
for 9:00 a.m., June 3, 2014 was vacated.

A copy of the "Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action And
Hearing on Proposed Settlement" is available at
http://is.gd/ryHXHyfrom Leagle.com.

Janith Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Vernon E. Leverty --
gene@levertylaw.com -- Leverty & Associates, Chtd., William Ginn
-- bill@levertylaw.com -- Leverty & Associates, Chtd. & Patrick R.
Leverty -- pat@levertylaw.com -- Leverty & Associates, Chtd..

Realogy Corporation, Defendant, represented by James William Brown
-- james.brown@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Bret F Meich -- bmeich@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale, LLP, David A. Jermann -- djermann@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Edward R. Spalty --
espalty@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Richard
G. Campbell, Jr. -- rcampbell@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale, LLP.

Realogy Franchise Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by James
William Brown, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Bret F
Meich, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, David A. Jermann, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Edward R. Spalty, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Richard
G. Campbell, Jr., Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.

Realogy Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by James
William Brown, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Bret F
Meich, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, David A. Jermann, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Edward R. Spalty, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Richard
G. Campbell, Jr., Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.

Realogy Franchise Group, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
James William Brown, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
Bret F Meich, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, David A. Jermann, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Edward R. Spalty, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Richard
G. Campbell, Jr., Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.


REXAM BEVERAGE: Faces Class Action Over Racial Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Rexam Beverage Can Co.
subjected black workers to intolerable racial harassment,
including swastikas and nooses, 14 former employees and former
employees claim in a federal class action in Chicago.


ROI COMPANIES: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Sutton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The ROI Companies and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-
cv-03615-JAP-DEA (D.N.J., June 5, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: To Finalize Accord in Delaware Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., disclosed that it is attempting to
finalize the settlement of nine consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in  Delaware alleging breach of fiduciary duties,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Beginning on November 12, 2013, eleven
putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders of
Santarus seeking to challenge our proposed acquisition of
Santarus, which was announced on November 7, 2013. Nine of these
actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, one was
filed in California Superior Court (San Diego County) and one was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. These actions generally allege that the members of the
Santarus board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Santarus's shareholders by failing to maximize the value of
Santarus and by making inadequate or misleading disclosures
regarding the proposed merger, and that Santarus, we and certain
of our subsidiaries aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint in the action pending in California federal
court also asserts causes of action on behalf of the individual
plaintiff for alleged violations of certain sections of the
Exchange Act. These actions generally sought, among other things,
to enjoin the merger, unspecified damages and fees. On December 9,
2013, Santarus and its directors filed a motion to stay the action
pending in California Superior Court. On December 11, 2013, the
Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the nine actions pending
in that court, appointed lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and
designated the amended complaint filed by plaintiff Imad Ahmad
Khalil on December 9, 2013 as the operative complaint in the
consolidated Delaware litigation. On December 20, 2013, the
parties in the Delaware litigation reached an agreement in
principle, subject to full documentation, to resolve the
plaintiffs' claims in that action in exchange for certain
supplemental disclosures that Santarus included in an amended
Schedule 14D-9 it filed on that date."

"We completed our merger with Santarus on January 2, 2014. The
parties in the Delaware litigation executed a Memorandum of
Understanding reflecting the terms of their agreement in principle
on January 17, 2014 and are currently drafting full settlement
documentation and engaging in confirmatory discovery. The
settlement of the Delaware litigation will be subject to approval
by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiffs' counsel in the
Delaware litigation has also indicated that the plaintiffs intend
to request an award of an unspecified amount attorneys' fees from
the Delaware Court of Chancery. On January 22, 2014, Santarus and
its directors filed a renewed motion to stay the action pending in
California Superior Court, and we filed a separate motion to stay
that action in favor of the Delaware litigation. On January 22,
2014, Santarus and its directors filed a motion to stay the action
pending in the California federal court in favor of the Delaware
litigation, and we filed a joinder in support of that motion on
January 23, 2014. On February 12, 2014, the parties in the action
pending in California federal court filed a joint motion to stay
that action pending a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery
regarding final approval of the proposed settlement of the
Delaware litigation, and the California federal court granted that
motion on February 13, 2014. We are vigorously defending the
action pending in California Superior Court and attempting to
finalize the settlement of the consolidated Delaware litigation.
We believe that all of the claims asserted against us by Santarus
shareholders lack merit."

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
dedicated to acquiring, developing and commercializing
prescription drugs and medical devices used in the treatment of a
variety of gastrointestinal disorders, which are those affecting
the digestive tract. As of December 31, 2012, the Company's
products included XIFAXAN, MOVIPREP, APRISO, RELISTOR, OSMOPREP,
SOLESTA, DEFLUX, FULYZAQ, GIAZO, METOZOLV ODT, AZASAN, ANUSOL-HC,
PROCTOCORT, PEPCID, DIURIL and COLAZAL. As of December 31, 2012,
its primary product candidates under development included
Rifaximin, Methylnaltrexone bromide oral, Budesonide foam and
Rifaximin EIR. In January 2014, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.
acquired Santarus, Inc. In January 2014, Salix Pharmaceuticals,
Ltd. acquired Santarus, Inc.


SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Liens Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Scottsdale Healthcare Corp.,
Dignity Health, and the John C. Lincoln Health Network illegally
file liens against patients who receive care through a Medicare
Advantage plan, patients claim in a class action in Maricopa
County Court in Phoenix.


SKECHERS USA: Settlement Appeal Deadline Has Expired
----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., reported that the time for any appeals from
a court's final order approving the nationwide consumer class
action settlement has expired, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "the FTC and Attorneys General for 44 states
and the District of Columbia ("SAGs") had been reviewing the
claims and advertising for Shape-ups and our other toning shoe
products. We also disclosed that we had been named as a defendant
in multiple consumer class actions challenging our claims and
advertising for our toning shoe products, including Shape-ups. On
May 16, 2012, we announced that we had settled all domestic legal
proceedings relating to advertising claims made in connection with
the marketing of our toning shoe products. Under the terms of the
global settlement -- without admitting any fault or liability,
with no findings being made that our company had violated any law,
and with no fines or penalties being imposed -- we have made
payments in the aggregate amount of $50 million to settle and
finally resolve the domestic advertising class action lawsuits and
related claims brought by the FTC and the SAGs. The FTC Stipulated
Final Judgment was approved by the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio on July 12, 2012. Consent
judgments in the 45 SAG actions have been approved and entered by
courts in those jurisdictions. On May 13, 2013, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky entered an
order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action
settlement, and the time for any appeals from that final approval
order has expired.

"On November 8, 2012, we were served with a Grand Jury Subpoena
("Subpoena") for documents and information relating to our past
advertising claims for our toning footwear, including Shape-ups
and Resistance Runners. The Subpoena was issued by a Grand Jury of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, in Cleveland, Ohio. The Subpoena seeks documents and
information related to outside studies conducted on our toning
footwear. This Subpoena appears to grow out of the FTC's inquiry
into our claims and advertising for Shape-ups and our other toning
shoe products, which we settled with the FTC, SAGs and consumer
class as part of a global settlement. We are fully cooperating and
are in the process of producing documents and other information
requested in the Subpoena. The Assistant United States Attorney
has informed us that neither our company nor our employees are
targets at the present time. Although we do not believe this
matter will have a material adverse impact on our results of
operations or financial position, it is too early to predict the
timing and outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a range
of potential losses, if any.

"The toning footwear category, including our Shape-ups products,
has also been the subject of some media attention arising from a
number of consumer complaints and lawsuits alleging injury while
wearing Shape-ups. We believe our products are safe and are
defending ourselves from these media stories and injury lawsuits.
It is too early to predict the outcome of any case or inquiry,
whether there will be future personal injury cases filed, whether
adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have
a material adverse impact on our results of operations or
financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be
adequate to cover any losses."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs and markets Skechers-branded
lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and performance
footwear for men and women under several lines.


SKECHERS USA: Nationwide Accord to Resolve Patty Tomlinson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court-approved nationwide consumer class action settlement is
expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by Patty
Tomlinson, alleging violations to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, according to Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

According to the Company, "On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson
filed a lawsuit against our company in Circuit Court in Washington
County, Arkansas, Case No. CV11-121-7. The complaint alleges, on
her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that
our advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and implied
warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson
action"). The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class,
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs. On February 18, 2011, we removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where
it was pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-
05042 JLH. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the
action back to Arkansas state court, which motion we opposed. On
May 25, 2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas
state court and denied our motion to dismiss or transfer as moot,
but stayed the remand pending completion of appellate review. On
September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and
remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County,
Arkansas. On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the
state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case. On August
13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
nationwide consumer class action settlement in Grabowski v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:12-CV-00205 (the
"Grabowski/Morga class actions"), and issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of the Tomlinson
action, among other cases. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving
the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for
any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs and markets Skechers-branded
lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and performance
footwear for men and women under several lines.


SKECHERS USA: Nationwide Settlement to Resolve Boatright Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed on May 9,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, the Court-approved
nationwide consumer class action settlement is expected entirely
to resolve the class claims brought by Elma Boatright and Sharon
White alleging that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups is
false and misleading.

According to the Company, "On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright
and Sharon White filed a lawsuit against our company in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Case
No. 3:12-cv-87-S. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that our advertising
for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a
breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties,
fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks
certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs. On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs
filed a motion to consolidate this action with In re Skechers
Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-
TBR. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga
class actions, and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the
continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court
in the Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally
approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the
time for any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Boatright."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs and markets Skechers-branded
lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and performance
footwear for men and women under several lines.


SKECHERS USA: Jason Angell Settlement Being Finalized
-----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Jason Angell are currently finalizing
the terms of the settlement agreement in the Angell action
alleging that the Company used false and misleading advertisements
in marketing Shape-ups, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The case is, Jason Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc.  According to the
Company: "On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to
authorize the bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of
Quebec, District of Montreal. Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a
class action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the
alternative, all residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers
Shape-ups footwear. Petitioner's motion alleges that we have
marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading
advertisements and representations about the products' ability to
provide health benefits to users. The motion requests the Court's
authorization to institute a class action seeking damages
(including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and
injunctive relief. Petitioner's motion was formally presented to
the Court on June 29, 2012. At a mediation held on February 28,
2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Angell action (as well as the Niras and Dedato actions) through
authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class. The parties are currently finalizing the terms
of the settlement agreement. If the motion for approval of the
class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on
appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Angell action or a
reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the
Angell action would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position in excess of the settlement."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs and markets Skechers-branded
lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and performance
footwear for men and women under several lines.


SKECHERS USA: Davies/Smith Settlement Being Finalized
-----------------------------------------------------
Kourtney Smith has replaced Brenda Davies as representative
plaintiff in the Statement of Claim alleging, among other things,
that the Company used false and misleading advertisements to
market Shape-ups, according to Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a
Statement of Claim in the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton,
Alberta, on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased
Skechers Shape-ups footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide fitness benefits to users. The Statement of
Claim seeks damages (including damages for bodily injury),
restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. On or about
November 21, 2013, an Amended Statement of Claim was filed to
substitute a new representative plaintiff, Kourtney Smith, in
place of Ms. Davies and to allege substantially the same claims as
in the original Statement of Claim with respect to all Skechers
toning footwear sold to residents of Canada. Skechers has not yet
responded to the Amended Statement of Claim. The settlement in the
Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions, if finally approved by
the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an appeal is taken,
is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the
plaintiff in Davies/Smith. If the motion for approval of the class
action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we
cannot predict the outcome of the Davies/Smith action or a
reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the
Davies/Smith action would have a material adverse impact on our
results of operations or financial position in excess of the
settlement."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs and markets Skechers-branded
lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and performance
footwear for men and women under several lines.


SKECHERS USA: George Niras Settlement Being Finalized
-----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and George Niras are currently finalizing
the terms of the settlement agreement providing for the voluntary
discontinuance (dismissal) of the Niras action upon approval of
the settlement by the Quebec Superior Court, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014.

The Company states: "On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a
Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups,
Resistance Runner, Shape-ups Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The
Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed these toning
shoes through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide health
benefits to users. The Statement seeks damages, restitution,
punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Skechers has not yet
responded to the Statement. At a mediation held on February 28,
2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Niras action through authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of
a nationwide settlement class. The parties are currently
finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement. It is
anticipated that the agreement will provide for the voluntary
discontinuance (dismissal) of the Niras action upon approval of
the settlement by the Quebec Superior Court. If the motion for
approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Niras
action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the
outcome of the Niras action would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations or financial position in excess of
the settlement."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs and markets Skechers-branded
lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and performance
footwear for men and women under several lines.


SKECHERS USA: Frank Dedato Settlement Being Finalized
-----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Frank Dedato are currently finalizing
the terms of the settlement agreement providing for the voluntary
discontinuance (dismissal) of the Dedato action upon approval of
the settlement by the Quebec Superior Court, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014.

The Company states: "On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato
filed a Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-
ups or Resistance Runner footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges
that Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief. Skechers has not yet responded to
the Statement of Claim. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Dedato
action through authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a
nationwide settlement class. The parties are currently finalizing
the terms of the settlement agreement. It is anticipated that the
agreement will provide for the voluntary discontinuance
(dismissal) of the Dedato action upon approval of the settlement
by the Quebec Superior Court. If the motion for approval of the
class action settlement is denied or approval is reversed on
appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Dedato action or a
reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the
Dedato action would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position in excess of the settlement."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (Skechers) designs and markets Skechers-
branded lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and
performance footwear for men and women under several lines.


SKECHERS USA: Agreed to Settle Roneshia Sayles Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Roneshia Sayles has agreed to settle
the class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations
of the California Labor Code, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

According to the Company, "On October 2, 2012, Roneshia Sayles
filed a class action lawsuit against our company in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
Case No. BC473067. The complaint involves a wage and hour claim,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid
time for certain breaks and when retail employees' bags are
checked upon leaving the store at the ends of their shifts. The
complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and
damages; general and special damages; civil, statutory and waiting
time penalties; restitution of unpaid wages; injunctive relief;
attorneys' fees and costs; pre-judgment interest on unpaid
compensation. In January 2014, the parties entered into a
Stipulation and Settlement of Class Action Claims (the
"Settlement"). The Settlement still has to be approved by the
Court. In the event that the Settlement is not approved by the
Court, it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or
a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse
result would have a material adverse impact on our results of
operations or financial position, we believe we have meritorious
defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend to defend
the case vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs and markets Skechers-branded
lifestyle footwear for men, women and children, and performance
footwear for men and women under several lines.


SLM CORP: Court Dismissed Preferred Stock Suits Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Court on May 7, 2014, dismissed without prejudice the
putative class action complaints filed by stockholders of SLM
Corporation's preferred stocks, according to the Company's Form
8-K dated May 9, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states: "We previously reported that on January 28,
2014 and February 10, 2014, a stockholder of each of the Series B
preferred stock and Series A preferred stock of the Company,
respectively, filed a putative class action complaint in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its
board of directors. The complaints were captioned William McCrady
v. SLM Corporation et al., C.A. No 9285-VCL and James L. Myers v.
SLM Corporation et al., C.A. No 9371-VCL, respectively. Each
plaintiff purported to bring the complaint on behalf of a class
consisting of the holders of the series of preferred stock he
holds in connection with the spin-off of Navient from the Company.
The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the
Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the
holders of such preferred stock and an implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing in structuring the proposed spin-off of
Navient. On May 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice, dismissing the consolidated class
actions. On May 7, 2014, the Court entered an order dismissing the
cases without prejudice."

SLM Corporation (Sallie Mae) is a holding company. It operates in
three business segments: Consumer Lending, Business Services and
FFELP Loans. The fourth segment includes Other. The Company's
primary business is to originate, service and collect loans it
makes to students and their families to finance the cost of their
education. It uses Private Education Loans to mean education loans
to students or their families that are non-federal loans and loans
not insured or guaranteed under the previously existing Federal
Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). It also provides servicing,
loan default aversion and defaulted loan collection services for
loans owned by other institutions, including the United States
Department of Education (ED), as well as processing capabilities
to educational institutions and 529 college-savings plan programs.


SPECIALTY GRAPHICS: Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls/Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Colin Suttles, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Specialty Graphics, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00505-LY (W.D. Tex., May 30, 2014) is brought to stop the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by causing unsolicited calls to be made to the
Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through
the use of an auto-dialer and artificial or pre-recorded voice
message.

Specialty Graphics, Inc., is an Arizona corporation headquartered
in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Brian B. Kilpatrick, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          Galleria Tower I
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@crafthugheslaw.com
                  jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com
                  brian@hughesellzey.com


STERLING BANCORP: Settlement Approval Hearing on June 25
--------------------------------------------------------
The Court has scheduled a hearing on June 25, 2014, to determine,
among other things, whether to approve the proposed settlement
among Sterling Bancorp and plaintiffs in class actions alleging
that Sterling Bancorp breached its fiduciary duties  in connection
with a merger transaction, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On April 9, 2013, the first of seven actions, captioned Altman v.
Sterling Bancorp, et al., Index No. 651263/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. County, 2013), was filed in the New York State Supreme Court,
New York County, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders
against legacy Sterling, its directors, and the Company. On May
17, 2013, the seven actions were consolidated under the caption In
re Sterling Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 651263/2013 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, 2013). On June 21, 2013, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint
alleging that legacy Sterling's board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Merger transaction and by
failing to disclose all material information to shareholders. The
consolidated and amended complaint also alleged that the Company
aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches. The action
sought, among other things, equitable relief and/or money damages.

On June 5, 2013, substantially similar litigation was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Miller v. Sterling Bancorp, et al., No. 13-3845
(S.D.N.Y. 2013), against legacy Sterling, its directors, and the
Company on behalf of the same putative class of legacy Sterling
shareholders. The complaint alleged the same breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting claims against defendants, and also
alleged defendants' preliminary proxy statement was inaccurate or
incomplete in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

In terms of material developments on the status of proceedings, on
September 12, 2013, the Company and the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of the
lawsuits under which each of the actions will be dismissed with
prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
Merger. The settlement is subject to, among other things, entry
into final, definitive documentation and approval by the New York
State Supreme Court. The Court has scheduled a hearing on June 25,
2014, to determine, among other things, whether to approve the
proposed settlement.

Sterling Bancorp is a bank holding company and a financial holding
company. The Company and its subsidiaries provide banking and
related financial services and products to customers primarily in
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut (the New York metropolitan
area). The Company has operations in the New York metropolitan
area and conducts business throughout the United States. The
Company's principal subsidiary is Sterling National Bank (the
Bank). Sterling Bancorp's subsidiaries also include Sterling
Banking Corporation and Sterling Bancorp Trust I (the Trust). The
Bank maintains 12 offices in New York: nine offices in New York
City (six branches and an international banking facility in
Manhattan and three branches in Queens); two branches in Nassau
County (one in Great Neck and the other in Woodbury, New York) and
one branch in Yonkers, New York. The Bank provides loans to small
and medium-sized businesses. In August 2012, the Bank acquired the
business of Universal Mortgage, Inc.


SUBWAY: Faces Class Action Over Paying Workers "Cash Card"
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the owner of 29 Subway
outlets illegally pays workers with a "cash card" from a South
Dakota bank, which charges them for every transaction, a worker
claims in a class action in Austin, Texas.

Jake Branson sued Destiny Foods in Travis County Court.  It owns
29 stores, employing about 300 people in Travis and Williams
counties.  Branson claims that on April 17, Destiny issued a memo
to employees stating that as of April 28 it "is moving to a
paperless payroll system.  This means we will no longer issue
paper paychecks each payday.  Instead, you have been given a pay
card where your pay will be electronically loaded each payday."

The "Global Cash Card: was linked to Meta Bank, of Sioux Falls,
S.D.

Branson claims that the "'Cardholder Agreement' -- which was not
provided to the employees at the time they were issued their cards
. . . provides for a number of fees, including but not limited to
a per transaction withdrawal fee of $1.75, a per transaction
balance inquiry fee of $1.00 and a per transaction 'Point of Sale
PIN Transaction fee of $.50.'"

Branson claims this violates the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1693k(2), and the Texas Pay Day Law.  He seeks an
injunction, damages and costs.

He is represented by James Terry Jr., with Terry, Simon & Kelly.


SUPERVALU: 8th Cir. Reverses Order that Denied Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Mom-and-pop grocers bringing antitrust claims against SuperValu
and C&S Wholesale Grocers deserve class certification, the 8th
Circuit ruled in St. Louis.

The two largest grocery wholesalers in the country, SuperValu and
C&S agreed in 2003 to a geographic asset exchange that gave
SuperValu the Midwest with C&S taking New England.

D&G Inc., which operates a store called Gary's Foods in Mount
Vernon, Iowa, brought a class action against the wholesalers in
Wisconsin, claiming that the exchange would increase the price of
goods in the Midwest.  The case was brought to Minnesota in 2009
as other plaintiffs filed similar complaints against the stores
across the country. All the lawsuits were then consolidated in
Minneapolis as In re: Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust
Litigation.

A federal judge refused to certify a class, however, and granted
the defendant grocery giants summary judgment, finding the
plaintiffs failed to demonstrate injury and failed to define the
relevant market.

The 8th Circuit reversed, finding that there is a question of fact
as to whether a per se violation of antitrust laws occurred.

"Tellingly, although the written non-compete agreement permitted
the wholesalers to compete in each other's regions for new and
existing customers, neither one actually did so," Chief Judge
William Jay Riley wrote for a three-member panel.  "Also revealing
are e-mails, written by C&S's executive vice president, indicating
'the basis of the deal' was that SuperValu would 'depart[] from
New England' and 'wo[uld]n't compete with [C&S] in New England'
and C&S was 'not interested in a transaction that leaves SuperValu
in New England.'  Considering these pieces of evidence along with
D&G's other evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude the
wholesalers' real agreement involved dividing territory and
customers along geographic lines."

Finding no abuse of discretion in denying class certification of
all SuperValu customers in the Midwest region, however, the 8th
Circuit instead granted a narrower class certification involving
only SuperValu customers who were charged the Supervalu's pricing
formula and were supplied from Champaign, Ill.

SuperValu used a pricing formula called activity-based sell, or
ABS, which could have D&G pay more for a certain product depending
on which distribution center that acted as its supplier.

"Although the evidence suggests the ABS fee inputs would be
standardized for this narrow class, at this stage we decline to
opine whether 'questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.'
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)," Riley wrote.  "We merely request the
district court to consider, in light of our holding that the
wholesalers are not entitled to summary judgment, whether to
certify this class."

The case was remanded back to federal court.

Judges Myron Bright and Jane Kelly concurred with Riley.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Overdraft Suit v. Bank Settled, Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of a settlement was entered in a suit against
Susquehanna Bank by two New Jersey customers challenging the
manner in which checking account overdraft fees were charged by
the bank, according to Susquehanna Bancshares, 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 July 29, 2011, Susquehanna Bank was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by two New Jersey customers
of the bank in the United States District Court of Maryland. The
suit challenges the manner in which checking account overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order of
debit card and other checking account transactions. The suit makes
claims under New Jersey's consumer fraud act and under the common
law for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust
enrichment. The case was transferred for pretrial proceedings to
pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

To avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation
and without admitting any of the allegations in the complaint,
Susquehanna in good faith participated in mediation with
plaintiffs' counsel and as a result of negotiations following from
the mediation, on December 20, 2012, Susquehanna and counsel for
plaintiffs entered into a Summary Agreement, subject to
preliminary and final approval of the settlement and dismissal of
the action with prejudice by the Court.  On October 25, 2013,
Susquehanna and the plaintiffs entered into a comprehensive
agreement to settle the action.  On November 13, 2013, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and directed that
notice of the settlement be sent to prospective class members.

The aggregate settlement amount did not have a material adverse
effect on the company's results of operation, financial position,
or cash flows.

Final approval of the settlement and a judgment dismissing the
case was entered by court order dated April 1, 2014.

Distributions to class members will be made in accordance with the
terms of the approved settlement and no further material legal
proceedings are anticipated.


SWF FOOD: Liable for Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Filiberto Hernandez-Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. SWF Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown,
Divino Baez Holguin, and Jason Ferreira, jointly and severally,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03560 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and the proposed class for
unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SWF Food Corp. is times a New York business corporation with its
office in Queens County.  The Individual Defendants are corporate
officers, managers or owners of the Company.  The Defendants
operate supermarkets or grocery stores doing business as Foodtown
in various New York locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIAD OF ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Personal Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Triad of Alabama dba Flowers
Hospital allowed thousands of patients' personally identifiable
data to be stolen, a class action claims in Federal Court in
Dothan, Ala.


UBS AG: Investors Sue Over Mutual Funds That Wiped Out Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Fernandez; Augusto Schreiner; Eddie Toro Velez; Victor R.
Vela Diez De Andino; Juan Viera; Georgina Velez Montes; and Esther
Santana, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. UBS AG; UBS Financial Services, Inc.; UBS Financial Services
Incorporated of Puerto Rico; UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico; UBS
Bank USA; Carlos V. Ubinas; Miguel A. Ferrer; Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico; and Popular Securities, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01441-
CCC (D.P.R., May 30, 2014) arises out of the alleged misconduct of
financial services companies that owed Puerto Rico-based investors
the highest standard of fiduciary duty.

In violation of their duty, the Defendants steered the Class
members, most of whom are older individuals focused on preserving
their capital and generating income for retirement, to invest in
one or more of 23 closed-end mutual funds, which were sponsored or
co-sponsored by UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico
and Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, which were high-risk, volatile
investments that ultimately wiped out much of Class members' life
savings, the Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs argue that the
Defendants did so to line their own pockets with enormous fees and
commissions and without any regard for the suitability of these
risky investments for the Plaintiffs and other Class members.

The Funds are incorporated under Puerto Rico law and each is
structured to provide tax-free income for Puerto Rico residents so
long as at least 67% of the Funds' holdings are Puerto Rico
assets.  The Funds pooled capital to earn income by investing in
securities.

UBS AG is a Swiss global financial services company with its
principal places of business in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland.
UBS Financial Services, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of UBS
AG that is incorporated in Delaware with principal places of
business in New York City, and Weehawken, New Jersey.  UBS
Delaware has 17 branches in Puerto Rico and is registered as a
broker-dealer and an investment adviser.

UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico is a wholly
owned subsidiary of UBS Delaware and is registered as a broker-
dealer.  UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico is a trust company
incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
has its principal offices in San Juan, Puerto Rico.  The other
Defendants are fiduciaries of the Funds.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gerald Silk, Esq.
          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          Michael Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  hannah@blbglaw.com
                  jeremy@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
          Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
          Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
                  dberger@gelaw.com
                  mthomas@gelaw.com
                  delman@gelaw.com
                  rgerson@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          Johnston de F. Whitman, Jr., Esq.
          Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
          Margaret E. Onasch, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: myarnoff@ktmc.com
                  jwhitman@ktmc.com
                  jdancona@ktmc.com
                  monasch@ktmc.com


UMH PROPERTIES: Wants Memphis Mobile City Flooding Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UMH Properties, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss an amended complaint related to the flooding at Memphis
Mobile City, 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 2010, a rainstorm bringing 13 inches of rain in a two-hour
period caused flooding at Memphis Mobile City. All homes owned by
the company were fully restored as were the homes of all residents
who elected to make repairs. On May 9, 2011, the company was
notified that a lawsuit had been filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on behalf of
a purported class of all individuals of Mexican national origin
who are current or former residents of Memphis Mobile City. The
complaint alleges various claims based on federal and state
discrimination and consumer protection laws, seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief. On September 30, 2012, the
magistrate judge ruled that plaintiffs who had signed a security
agreement with an arbitration clause would be obligated to
arbitrate while the other plaintiffs would not.  The plaintiffs
have filed a statement of alleged damages for each member of the
purported class.  Plaintiffs have been ordered to submit releases
to FEMA so that the company might begin to evaluate their damage
claims with respect to compensation they may have already received
from that federal agency.  Plaintiffs' counsel notified the
company in July that they have filed such releases as to many of
the plaintiffs.  FEMA is in the process of producing their
documents. On June 25, 2013, in connection with a hearing on the
company's Motion to Dismiss, the court ordered the plaintiffs to
amend their Complaint to plead their claims with specificity.
Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint containing allegations
substantially similar to the initial Complaint.  The company filed
a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint which plaintiffs
opposed.  Oral arguments on this motion took place on May 1, 2014.
The company is awaiting the Court's decision.


UNUM GROUP: Damage Award in Suit v. Unum Life Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Interest and damage award granted to plaintiffs in "Denise
Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others similarly situated vs.
Unum Life Insurance Company of America" is currently the subject
of appeals and cross-appeals, according to Unum Group's May 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine. This class action alleges that the company breached
fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group
life insurance policies when the company paid life insurance
proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts
rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that
were part of the ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and under
which the company paid death benefits via retained asset accounts.
The plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held
in retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds
earned by the company from investing those funds belonged to the
beneficiaries, and (2) payment of claims using retained asset
accounts did not constitute payment under Maine's late payment
statute, requiring the company to pay interest on the undrawn
retained asset account funds at an annual rate of 18 percent. In
February 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting both
of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for the
company. At the same time, however, the District Court held that
the company breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries by
failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates available in the
market for demand deposits. The District Court also certified a
class of people who, during a certain period of time, were
beneficiaries under certain group life insurance contracts that
were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid
death benefits using retained asset accounts. A bench trial was
held on the issue of damages in June and July of 2013. In
September 2013, the District Court awarded damages based on a
benchmark it created by averaging the interest rates paid on money
market mutual funds and money market checking accounts. Based on
these averages, the District Court found that for certain periods
of the class the company should have paid additional interest and
awarded damages of $12.1 million and prejudgment interest of $1.3
million. Subsequent to this judgment, in September 2013 the
company filed an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and
plaintiffs filed a cross appeal.


UNUM GROUP: Dismissal of Suits v. Provident, Colonial on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in suits against Provident Life and Accident
Insurance Company and State of West Virginia and Colonial Life &
Accident Insurance Company, which allege violations of Unclaimed
Property Act, appealed the dismissal of both complaints, 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 December 2012, State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v.
Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and State of West
Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Colonial Life & Accident
Insurance Company were filed in the Circuit Court of Putnam
County, West Virginia. These two separate complaints alleged
violations of the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act by
failing to identify and report all unclaimed insurance policy
proceeds due to be escheated to West Virginia.  The complaints
sought to examine company records and assess penalties and costs
in an undetermined amount. In December 2013, the court dismissed
both complaints, holding that the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed
Property Act does not require insurance companies to periodically
search the Social Security Administrations' Death Master File or
escheat unclaimed life insurance benefits until a claim has been
submitted. In January 2014, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal
of both complaints.


UNUM GROUP: Still Faces "Don" Suit for Insured in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group and Unum Life Insurance Company of America is in the
process of preparing its response to a complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, by a plaintiff seeking to represent a nationwide class
and a California class of insureds, 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 May 2013, a purported class action complaint entitled Ruben Don
v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Wedner Insurance Group,
Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance Agency, and Does 1-30, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California insureds
who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.  The plaintiff alleges the company incorrectly
administered the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits.  The complaint makes allegations against
the company for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of
Business and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief. In
June 2013, the company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  In March
2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case. Rather than
oppose the motion, plaintiff filed an amended purported class
action complaint in April 2014 entitled Ruben Don v. Unum Group
and Unum Life Insurance Company of America in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California
class of insureds who were issued long-term care policies
containing an inflation protection feature. Similar to the
original complaint, the plaintiff alleges the company incorrectly
administered the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits. The complaint makes allegations of
breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business and
Professions Code 17200, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The
company is in the process of preparing the company's response to
this complaint.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Suit for Denying Benefit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class says that their
claims administrators systematically and improperly deny benefit
claims related to mental health and substance abuse to avoid the
high costs associated with treating chronic conditions.


US NATIONAL BANK: Sued Over $8.25M Taken by Reserve Entertainment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the U.S. National Bank
Association wrongly allowed co-venture partner The Reserve
Entertainment Group to abscond with $8.25 million from an escrow
account despite a clear request the funds to be frozen, a lawsuit
filed in Los Angeles, Calif. claims.


US IMMIGRATION: Judge Rules Over Detention of Immigrants
--------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Constitution does not allow the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agency to detain immigrants for longer than six months
in Massachusetts without a bond hearing, a federal judge ruled.

Mark Reid, a Jamaica-born U.S. resident, brought the class action
on behalf of immigrants detained for longer than six months
without a bond hearing after he was detained in Massachusetts for
more than a year while ICE tried to deport him for non-violent
drug convictions.  Reid was released earlier this year after he
was granted a bond hearing, and continues to fight to stay in the
U.S.

U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor found that immigrants detained
beyond six months are deprived of their due process rights.

"The burden on the executive branch officials to manage our
labyrinthine immigration system is heavy.  The need to detain
certain individuals pending removal cannot be denied," Ponsor
wrote.  "But, where the government applies a statute without
consideration for constitutional guarantees, the rights of
vulnerable aliens are at risk."

Ponsor rejected ICE's argument that the Constitution allows the
agency to detain immigrants without providing them with a bond
hearing.

"First, there can be no doubt that members of the class are
suffering irreparable harm each day they are detained beyond six
months without the opportunity to argue for release," Ponsor
found.

"Such detention is an emotional and physical ordeal for class
members and is particularly severe for those who have colorable
claims for release on bail during the pendency of their removal
proceedings," he wrote.

Ponsor ordered the government to provide timely bond hearings to
the class members, who must also be notified of the lawsuit.
Ponsor also ordered the government to submit a report detailing
the bond hearings held before the order by July 31.

"In light of Judge Ponsor's well-reasoned rulings and the growing
chorus of federal courts that have rejected the government's
draconian interpretation of its detention authority, we call on
the Obama Administration to adopt the rule in this case
nationwide," said Ahilan Arulanantham, senior staff attorney at
the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, which served as co-counsel.
"Immigrants deserve the opportunity to ask a judge for the chance
to return to their families while they challenge their
deportations."


VERIZON NEW YORK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Manhattan
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Verizon New York stiffed
"local managers" for overtime, though they work 70 or more hours
per week, a manager claims in a federal class action in Manhattan.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Inflated Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that insiders at Vertex
Pharmaceuticals dumped $30 million of their own stock at prices
inflated by false and misleading statements, after which the price
dropped by 10 percent, shareholders say in a federal class action.


VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl M. Dier, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-03418-BMC (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2014) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


W P CAREY INC: Moved to Dismiss "Gaines" Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
W. P. Carey Inc., on April 11, 2014, filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint filed by Ira Gaines against the Company
alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

According to the Company, "On December 31, 2013, Ira Gaines and
entities affiliated with him commenced a purported class action
(Ira Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global
Incorporated, Index. No. 650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)
against us, WPC REIT, CPA(R):16 - Global, and the directors of
CPA(R):16 - Global. On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs asked the
court to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the vote of
the stockholders of CPA(R):16 - Global pending the completion of
expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction hearing. On
January 13, 2014, after a hearing, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the
vote of CPA(R):16 - Global's stockholders, and the Merger was
completed on January 31, 2014. On March 14, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that added Carey Asset Management Corp.
as a defendant and alleges (i) breaches of fiduciary duty by the
individual defendants, all of whom were members of the board of
directors of CPA(R):16 - Global, (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty
by us, and (iii) that the entity defendants other than us aided
and abetted the individual defendants in breaching their fiduciary
duties. The amended complaint demands that (i) a class be
certified and plaintiffs named as class representatives, (ii) the
CPA(R):16 Merger be rescinded or rescissory damages be awarded,
(iii) damages be awarded, and (iv) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and
other costs be reimbursed. On April 11, 2014, we filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. We believe that the plaintiffs'
claims are without merit and are defending the case vigorously."

W. P. Carey Inc. (W. P. Carey) is a real estate investment trust
that provides long-term financing through sale-leaseback and
build-to-suit transactions for companies worldwide and manages a
global investment portfolio. W. P. Carey invests primarily in
commercial properties domestically and internationally. The
Company operates in two business segments: Investment Management
and Real Estate Ownership.


WAL-MART: Faces Overtime Class Action in Los Angeles
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Wal-Mart stiffs workers for
overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court in Los Angeles.


WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls About 8,400 Boilers Over Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Ian Simpson, writing for Reuters, reports that Weil-McLain is
recalling about 8,400 boilers after reports of cracked manifolds
raised the risk of fire or explosion, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission said on June 10.  The Michigan City, Indiana, company
is recalling its Ultra models 80, 105, 155 and 230 MBH gas-fired
boilers used for space heating, the commission said in a
statement.  The firm has received 11 reports of manifold caps
cracking, potentially releasing gas. No fires or injuries have
been reported, it said.  About 7,900 of the U.S.-made boilers were
sold in the United States and 540 in Canada.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Johns" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Laurie B. Johns and Joshua R. Johns, individually and on behalf of
a class of persons similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00254 (S.D. Ala., June 5, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com


WYETH INC: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the Third Circuit has upheld dismissal of a New Jersey-based
securities class action against a Pfizer subsidiary that allegedly
kept secret the failings of an experimental Alzheimer's disease
treatment.

The plaintiffs fell short of making out claims that Wyeth Inc., in
a joint venture with drugmaker Elan Corp., misled investors about
the successfulness of the testing of the drug, bapineuzumab, by
announcing that the process was advancing to the next stage.

"Interpretations of clinical trial data are considered opinions,"
which "are only actionable under the securities laws if they are
not honestly believed and lack a reasonable basis," Circuit Judge
Anthony Scirica held June 6 in City of Edinburgh Council v.
Pfizer.

Two pension funds brought the suit under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 on behalf of investors who bought
Wyeth stock from May 2007 to July 2008.

Wyeth, which was acquired by Pfizer in 2009, and Elan, an Irish
pharmaceutical company, together developed bapineuzumab and began
clinical trials in 2006.  They quickly progressed to phase two of
a three-phase process regulated by the federal Food and Drug
Administration.

The plaintiffs relied heavily on a May 2007 press release
announcing its intention to begin the next phase of testing later
that year, which put stock prices on the rise.  The release stated
that this decision was based partly on interim phase-two test
results but warned, "No conclusion . . . can be drawn until the
study is completed and the final data are analyzed and released in
2008."

They claimed that, despite the move to phase three, the drug was
showing little efficacy and causing severe side effects, in some
cases death, according to the opinion.

The plaintiffs pointed to a previous statement from 2006 by Wyeth
head of research Robert Ruffolo Jr. that the drugmakers "could
advance directly into Phase III in the first half of 2007, but the
results would have to be spectacular."  The May 2007 announcement
that testing would proceed to phase three led the plaintiffs to
believe that it was going well, they claimed.

The suit also alleged that Mr. Ruffolo and fellow Wyeth executive
Kenneth Martin profited from the cover-up by exercising and
selling stock options the day after the May 2007 announcement.
In June and July 2008, Wyeth and Elan announced that, despite
benefits to some patients, the drug had failed to meet objectives,
leading to the suit.

In April 2013, U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton in Newark
dismissed it, finding the plaintiffs failed to allege any
affirmatively false or misleading statements.

On June 6, Judge Scirica, along with Circuit Judges D. Brooks
Smith and Patty Shwartz, affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs'
reliance on the May 2007 release "fails because it is based on a
selective reading of that document."

The release stated that the Phase Two interim results were only
part of the reason for proceeding to the next phase and "made no
statement about the strength of the interim results,"
Judge Scirica said.  He called Mr. Ruffolo's statement, that test
results would have to be "spectacular" to move into Phase Three,
mere "puffery."

That previous statement, coupled with the May 2007 announcement,
was not a basis to draw conclusions about the test results, Judge
Scirica said.  "Had the interim results been 'spectacular,' it is
reasonable to assume the companies would have trumpeted that fact
in the May 2007 release -- or at least given some indication the
data were positive."

The drugmakers never even announced what minimum results
bapineuzumab would need to achieve prior to Phase Three, and the
plaintiffs themselves asserted that there was a difference of
opinion within Wyeth and Elan, the court said.

"A company's failure to accurately disclose clinical trial data
may be actionable under the securities laws, but the cases the
[plaintiffs] cite are distinguishable because they involve
plausible allegations of affirmative false statements about a
drug's efficacy and safety," Judge Scirica wrote.

He added that moving to Phase Three "cost millions of dollars and
required FDA approval, rendering it improbable that defendants
would have continued if they did not believe their interpretation
of the interim results or if they thought the drug a complete
failure."

Other statements by company officials, including that bapineuzumab
had the potential to be a breakthrough drug, also made no claims
about the Phase Two results, Judge Scirica said.

The court also rejected claims that Wyeth and Elan had a duty to
update investors on the status of the Phase Two testing, and
affirmed dismissal of insider-trading claims.

It's at least the fourth investor class suit against the
drugmakers over bapineuzumab to be thrown out.  The panel noted
that three other putative class actions were dismissed: by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Southern
District of New York and the Northern District of California.

Daniel Berger -- dberger@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer in New
York, who argued for the plaintiffs, said a petition for en banc
review is under consideration but declined further comment.

John Villa -- jvilla@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly in
Washington, D.C., who argued for the defendants, deferred comment
to Pfizer spokesman Steve Danehy.

Mr. Danehy said the suit "had no merit" and the "company's
disclosures relative to the development of a medicine to treat
Alzheimer's were accurate and appropriate at all times."


ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS: Judge Refuses to Certify Class on Payday-Loan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge refused to certify a nationwide class of
payday-loan applicants who say ZaaZoom Solutions ripped them off
using personal information to cash electronic checks.

Lead plaintiff Amber Marsh sued ZaaZoom and its alleged
accomplices in 2011, claiming that they "lured" her into applying
for a payday-loan online and then used her bank information to
enroll her in membership programs for online coupons without her
permission.

ZaaZoom allegedly used remotely created checks, or RCCs, drawn on
the applicants' accounts to pay for the membership programs.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick entered default judgment
against ZaaZoom Solutions, Zaza Pay, MultiEcom, Online Resource
Center, Automated Electronic Checking and Data Processing Systems
on Dec. 2, 2013.  A month later, he approved a $527,750 settlement
of the claims against the First Bank of Delaware, one of the two
defendant banks.

Separate motions to dismiss whittled the allegations to five
claims against payment processor Jack Henry & Associates, three of
them falling under the unlawful, fraudulent and unfair prongs of
California's Unfair Competition Law.  The other two claims alleged
conversion and negligence.  Marsh's federal negligence claim
against the First National Bank of Central (FNBCT) Texas also
survived.

Orrick certified a California class in March, but found that a
nationwide class "would violate due process to apply California
law to non-Californians."

"The Ninth Circuit has found it proper for plaintiffs to make a
'renewed motion for certification only after the plaintiffs
created subclasses with proper representatives for each,'" Orrick
said.

In a renewed motion for a nationwide class, Marsh against asked
Orrick for certification under California negligence and
conversion law, or in the alternative, certification either under
Texas law or under the law of the state of each nationwide
plaintiff.

Orrick denied the motion Monday, reiterating that California law
cannot be applied to a nationwide class.

"Marsh again fails to show that due process would allow California
law to be applied to a nationwide class," he said.  "For
California's law to be applied that way, it must have a
significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts to the
claim asserted by each member of the plaintiff class, contacts
creating state interests, in order to ensure that the choice of
its law is not arbitrary or unfair.  The problem for Marsh is that
she only provides facts about the actions of the ZaaZoom
defendants and not the defendants that are at issue in this
motion: Jack Henry and FNBCT."

Texas law does not apply, Orrick said, adding that he will not
certify a class with so many plaintiffs from so many different
states because it would make the case unmanageable.

"I decline to certify a nationwide class that will have 50
subclasses applying the laws of 50 different jurisdictions," he
said.  "The court would be forced to go through -- and to have the
jury go through -- - an individual analysis of each state's
negligence law in order to determine defendant's liability for
negligence with regard to each individual defendant.  Such a class
would fail to meet the predominance or superiority requirements of
Rule 23."


* Madison County Appropriate Jurisdiction in Asbestos Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that a Madison County, Ill., asbestos judge denied several
defendants' motions to dismiss based on the forum non conveniens
doctrine, arguing the defendants failed to sufficiently argue that
Illinois is inconvenient for all parties involved.

Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs of the Madison County Circuit Court
denied the dismissal requests on May 23 in four separate asbestos
personal injury lawsuits.  Judge Stobbs explained that the
defendants did not dispute that Illinois has jurisdiction over the
cases, meaning Madison County is a constitutionally appropriate
forum for the actions.

Jack Warden filed his lawsuit in July 2012, alleging he was
exposed to asbestos-containing products that caused him to develop
lung cancer.  Mr. Warden died from his illness in March 2013.

Seven of the 25 remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss,
arguing Utah was the proper location for litigation.

Wilma Munsey-Hunt filed her lawsuit in January 2013, alleging she
was exposed to the defendants' asbestos-containing products
through her husband, causing her to develop lung cancer.  She died
from her injuries in May 2013.

Of the 40 remaining defendants in the case, 11 of them filed
motions to dismiss, alleging a court in Tennessee would be the
more proper venue.

Both cases were set for trial on Dec. 1 but were re-set for the
April 6 trial docket.

Plaintiff Robert Glenn Murphy served in the U.S. Navy from 1961 to
1965 in various locations, including Illinois, California and
Hawaii.  While in the Navy, Mr. Murphy served onboard the USS
Epperson DD 719 and the USS John S. McCain DLS as a boiler man 3rd
class, where he claims he was exposed to asbestos through his
duties.  After leaving the Navy, Mr. Murphy lived in Alaska, where
he worked as an insurance adjustor, postal worker, firefighter and
school bus driver.  However, he contends that all asbestos
exposures occurred while serving in the Navy.

Seven of the 24 remaining defendants moved for dismissal, alleging
Alaska is the proper location for litigation.

Norman Brown, now deceased, alleged asbestos exposure while
serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1952 through 1972.  After
leaving the Air Force, Mr. Brown alleged he worked as a systems
analysis for El Paso County in El Paso, Texas, from 1972 to 1973.
He then worked for El Paso Natural Gas Company from 1973 to 1985.
He claimed he was exposed to asbestos while installing electrical
components, cables and wiring in both positions.  Mr. Brown also
performed personal automotive work at his home from 1956 to 1985,
alleging asbestos exposure from automotive brakes and clutches.

Mr. Brown died from his asbestos-related injuries in January 2013.

Of the 20 remaining defendants, 13 filed motions for dismissal,
alleging litigation would be more appropriate in the state of
Texas.

Judge Stobbs ruled that each defendant failed to show that the
plaintiffs could have filed their claims against all defendants in
their respective states.  The defendants also failed to specify
which court in the alternate states would be a more appropriate
jurisdiction for the cases, he ruled.  He added that the
defendants must prove that there is more than one forum with the
power to hear the case in order to prevail.

"[N]ot only must a moving party demonstrate that a plaintiff's
initial forum is inconvenient to the moving party, but they also
must demonstrate that another forum is more convenient to all
parties involved," Judge Stobbs wrote.

Therefore, the defendants cannot prevail on their forum non
conveniens dismissal request without first successfully showing
that another forum would be more convenient for the parties, he
explained.

"It is the defendants' burden to satisfy these basic fundamental
elements, in order to show that the relevant public and private
interest factors overwhelmingly favor dismissal and deferral of
the case to another forum," Judge Stobbs wrote.

Judge Stobbs also stated that because only a select number of the
remaining defendants in each case moved for dismissal based on
forum non conveniens, the court would still have to try the case
with respect to the remaining defendants even if the motions were
granted.

"This result defeats the stated purpose of the forum non
conveniens rule, which is to 'unburden' the court with litigation
that could be more conveniently tried in some other forum," he
wrote.

"Additionally, the defendants' suggestion that the court dismiss
the entire case against all parties, even if they have not joined
in the motion to dismiss, is not 'practical,' because those
defendants who have not filed or joined in the motion cannot be
compelled to accept service, waive any available statute of
limitations defense or consent to jurisdiction and venue in the
proposed alternate forum.  This result would not better serve the
ends of justice."

In addition, while it is not necessary for all defendants to join
in the motion, those requesting dismissal must present sufficient
evidence proving another forum is convenient to all parties, the
order explains.


                             *********

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  * * *