CAR_Public/140617.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 119

                             Headlines


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: CUTPA Plaintiffs to Appeal Court Rulings
810 DELI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
AEROPOSTALE WEST: Court Rejects FLSA Suit Settlement
AIR DRILLING: Refuses to Credit Hours Worked Over 12, Suit Says

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Date Yet in Ill. TCPA Complaint
AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Supports Bid to Dismiss "Vickery" Suit
APPLE INC: To Face Class Actions on Labor Laws Violation
APPLE-METRO INC: Servers Seek to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
ASSURED GUARANTY: 9 Suits Consolidated for Pretrial Proceedings

AUTOLIV INC: Enters Into Settlements in US Antitrust Class Suits
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of FX Market Rigging Claims
BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Suit Returns to Sacramento Superior Court
BERTHEL FISHER: Court Narrows Claims in "Hanson" Class Action
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

CHINA CERAMICS: Faces "Pollock" Securities Suit in S.D. New York
CLIFFS NATURAL: Shareholder Wants Fair Vote on Director Nominees
CONCEPT AUTO: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages to Class, Suit Says
COVISINT CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA, ATDA Violation

DIABETIC SUPPLY: Recalls Redi-Code+ Blood Glucose Test Strips
DOLE PACKAGED: Court Partially Certifies Class in "Brazil" Suit
DOLE PACKAGED: Recalls Roasted Garlic Tomato Basil Soup in Texas
DRIVERS SOLUTIONS: Removed "Foschi" Suit to Arizona Dist. Court
DUKE ENERGY: Former Employee Seeks Class Status for OT Suit

EILLIEN'S CANDIES: Recalls Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy
ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Keeping Generic Opana ER Out of Market
ENERNOC INC: No Hearing Yet on Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Privacy Class Action
FIRST REGIONAL: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 21

FISH FAMILY: Recalls Milk Products, Cream Due to Undeclared Nuts
FORD MOTOR: Colo. Judge Narrows Fuel Economy Class Action
FRUITLAND AMERICAN: Recalls Ribeye and Carcass Products
GREENSMOOTHIEGIRL: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
GROWLIFE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in California

HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Dismisses Smedt's Second Amended Class Suit
HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
HENRICO COUNTY, VA: Firefighters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Removed "Del Campo" Suit to C.D. California
IMECA HIALEAH: Never Paid Extra Half Time OT Rate, Suit Claims

INFOBLOX INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Class Action
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant in Two Shareholder Lawsuits
J2 GLOBAL: Trial in Amended TCPA Complaint Set for Jan. 2016
J2 GLOBAL: Moved to Dismiss Amended eFax(R) Complaint
KRAFT FOODS: Removed "Morales" Class Suit to C.D. California

LA FINQUITA: Recalls Cheese Product Due to Undeclared Peanuts
LANSAL INC: Recalls Egg White Salad With Chives Due To Listeria
MOTEL 6: Judgment Reserved on Appeal Bond Bid in "Gould" Suit
MR. G'S: Exotic Dancers Seek Class Action Status for Wage Suit
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wants to Delay O'Bannon Anti-Trust Trial

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued for Capping Value of Athletic Scholarships
NATIONAL UNION: Sued Over Group Disability Insurance in Louisiana
NAVITAS NATURALS: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Powder Products
OCEAN SPRAY: Recalls Limited Quantity of Dried Cranberries
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fees Assessed on Borrowers' Accounts

OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Kirkland Malabar Pepper Due to Salmonella
ON TRAC: Removed "Tirado" Suit to Southern District of Florida
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: July Class Action Deal Objection Deadline
PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Defendant in Securities Violations Suit
PALMETTO PERSONAL: Suit Seeks Wage at FLSA-Required Overtime Rate

PEEKSKILL, NY: Faces Class Action Over "Unauthorized Transport"
PELLA CORPORATION: 7th Cir. Reverses Judgment in "Eubank" Suit
PETROLOGISTICS: Being Sold to Koch for Too Little, Suit Claims
PGG/HSC FEED: Recalls Champion Lamb Texturized Feed
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Defends Against 8 PNG Merger Suits

PRINCESS HOUSE: Recalls Plates Due to Cadmium and Lead Levels
PROGRESS ENERGY: Trial in Antitrust Lawsuit to Begin July 2015
PROGRESS ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
PROTECTIVE SERVICE: Removed "Estupinan" Suit to S.D. Florida
REACHLOCAL INC: Defendant in Unfair Competition Law Complaint

RED ONION STATE: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Officials Denied
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in NY
RITE AID: Recalls 16 oz. Pints of Mint 'N Chip Thrifty Ice Cream
SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued Over Delay in Generic Version of Zymar
SILVERLEAF RESORTS: "Parker" Suit Moved From Houston to Dallas

SMITH'S COUNTRY: Recalls Waxed Gouda Wheels Due to Health Risk
SPIRIT REALTY: Signed MOU to Settle Cole II Merger Claims
STATE FARM: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Pellegrino" Suit
STEREOTAXIS INC: Missouri Court Dismisses Securities Suit
TD AMERITRADE : Motion to Dismiss "Ross" Complaint Pending

TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Dartell" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
UNIFUND CCR: 9th Cir. Remands Claims to Calif. State Court
US SECURITY: Removed "Allan" Suit to C.D. California
VANEE FOODS: Recalls Turkey Base Product Due To Misbranding
VIZIO INC: Moved "Hinshaw" Suit to C.D. California

VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Class Actions Consolidated
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Bagged Ice Due to Possible Metal Bits
WOODRIDGE VILLAGE: Faces Class Action Over $30 Arrestees' Fees
ZALICUS INC: Defendant in 3 Merger-Related Lawsuits
ZALICUS INC: Defendant in "Harvey Stein" Lawsuit in Delaware

ZALICUS INC: Expects Additional Merger-Related Lawsuits


                            *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: CUTPA Plaintiffs to Appeal Court Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in purported class action complaints alleging, among
other things, violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act, against 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc., moved for
leave to appeal the various rulings against them, 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 30,
2014.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction
marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On
December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court
entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its
entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were
consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the
Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated
amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012,
purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those
originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently
refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed
on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company
intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank
Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to
the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the
Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.
On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants
filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting
that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing
of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the
Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several
causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations
stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim
for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the
Frank case into the Consolidated Action. The time of the remaining
defendants to answer what is left of the complaint has not yet
expired and on April 28, 2014 Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal
the various rulings against them to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit and to have a partial final
judgment entered dismissing those claims that the Court had
ordered dismissed. The Court has not yet ruled on this new motion.

The Company states: "There are no assurances that additional legal
actions will not be instituted in connection with the Company's
former post-transaction marketing practices involving third party
vendors nor can we predict the outcome of any such legal action.
At this time, we are unable to estimate a possible loss or range
of possible loss for the aforementioned actions for various
reasons, including, among others: (i) the damages sought are
indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the very early stages
and the court has not yet ruled as to whether the classes will be
certified, and (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of
pending motions. As a result of the foregoing, we have determined
that the amount of possible loss or range of loss is not
reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently
unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of
which may be beyond our control."

1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. is florist and gift shop. The Company
delivers fresh flowers and a selection of plants, gift baskets,
gourmet foods, confections, candles, balloons and plush stuffed
animals. The Company operates in three segments: Consumer Floral,
Gourmet Food and Gift Baskets, and BloomNet Wire Service. The
Consumer Floral segment includes the operations of the Company's
brand, such as 1-800-Flowers.com, Flowerama, Celebrations and
FineStationery.com. The Gourmet Food and Gift Baskets segment
includes the operations of Fannie May Confections Brands, Cheryl's
(which includes Mrs. Beasley's), The Popcorn Factory,
Winetasting.com, Stockyards.com , DesignPac and 1-800-Baskets. The
BloomNet Wire Service segment includes the operations of BloomNet,
BloomNet Technologies, BloomNet Products and Napco. On September
6, 2011, the Company, through the Winetasting Network subsidiary,
completed the sale of certain assets of its wine fulfillment
services business.


810 DELI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Caraballo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 810 Deli, Inc. d/b/a 810 Deli & Cafe and John
Zapantis, Case No. 1:14-cv-04107-KBF (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014),
alleges that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3)
liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

810 Deli, Inc., doing business as 810 Deli & Cafe, is a New York
domestic business corporation with a principal place of business
located in New York City.  John Zapantis is the chairman or chief
executive officer of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Advanced
Emissions Solutions, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Colorado, and docketed under 1:14-cv-01243, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Advanced Emissions securities between March 14,
2013 and March 12, 2014, both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Advanced Emissions
securities during the Class Period, you have until June 30, 2014
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides environmental technologies and specialty
chemicals to the coal-burning electric power generation industry,
primarily in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Refined Coal, Emission Control, and CO2 Capture.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company was employing improper
accounting practices, particularly with respect to its method for
recognizing revenue for its Emission Control business segment
contracts; (ii) the Company was experiencing increased operating
losses, primarily driven by a reduction of revenues and margins
for its Emission Control segment with a corresponding increase in
backlog; (iii) the improper accounting practices would require the
Company to restate its reported financial statements, and (iv) as
a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 13, 2014, the Company announced in a Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") Form 8-K filing that, "the Company is
currently reviewing its accounting practices, particularly its
methods of recognizing revenue for its Emission Control business
segment contracts.  The Company expects the result of this review
will likely result in increased operating losses, primarily driven
by a reduction of revenues and margins for its emission control
segment with a corresponding increase in backlog for the same
period."

On this news, shares of Advanced Emissions fell from $54.23 to
$50.90, on March 13, 2014, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


AEROPOSTALE WEST: Court Rejects FLSA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup denied preliminary approval of an
FLSA collective-action settlement in the case captioned PORTIA
DANIELS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AEROPOSTALE WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation,
AEROPOSTALE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, NO. C 12-05755 WHA, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of
the May 29, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/JbSgPAfrom
Leagle.com.

The plaintiff's counsel moved for preliminary approval of the FLSA
collective-action settlement in this overtime action.  The
Plaintiff's counsel proposed that the majority of opt-in
collective-action members give a release and covenant not to sue
to defendants in exchange for zero cash.

"This settlement is so unfair, it cannot be fixed," held Judge
Alsup.  "The Court is tentatively convinced that the opt ins would
be better off fending for themselves and escaping the negotiating
authority of plaintiff's counsel. Therefore, preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement is denied. Counsel are ordered to show
cause (i) why the conditional FLSA certification should not be
vacated, (ii) why plaintiff's counsel should not be required to
notify all opt ins by letter of the decertification and the
specific reasons therefor (costs borne by plaintiff's counsel),
and (iii) why this case should not go to trial on August 18 on the
named plaintiff's claim only (the original trial date of June 9 is
now too immediate to be practical), with a final pretrial
conference on August 13 AT 2:00 P.M.  Any submissions on this
order to show cause must be filed on or before June 10, 2014 at
noon. All counsel are further ordered to promptly submit copies of
this order to the judges presiding over the Sankey and Pakaz
actions," he added.

Portia Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R Becerra --
jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com -- Law Office of Joseph R. Becerra &
Torey Joseph Favarote -- tjf@gfemploymentlawyers.com -- Gleason &
Favarote LLP.

Aeropostale West, Inc, Defendant, represented by Rachel Caren
Schumacher -- rachel.schumacher@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, Robert James Dwyer -- robert.dwyer@kattenlaw.com --
& Stacey Dianne McKee-Knight -- stacey.knight@kattenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman.

Aeropostale, Inc, Defendant, represented by Rachel Caren
Schumacher, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Robert James Dwyer &
Stacey Dianne McKee-Knight, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman.


AIR DRILLING: Refuses to Credit Hours Worked Over 12, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Neal, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. Air Drilling Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01104-UN4 (M.D.
Pa., June 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendant generally refuses
to give the Plaintiff and other Field Employees any payroll credit
for hours worked over 12 per day.

The Defendant's companywide timekeeping/payroll system is
programmed to default to a 12-hour workday in recording Field
Employees' work hours, Mr. Neal contends.

Headquartered in Farmington, New Mexico, Air Drilling Associates,
Inc., is a corporate entity registered with the Pennsylvania
Department of State.  The Company maintains a local "satellite
location" in Muncy, Pennsylvania (Lycoming County).  The Company
provides a variety of on-site services at gas and oil drilling
sites throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Date Yet in Ill. TCPA Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date is scheduled for the TCPA class action complaint
against Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., 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 May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been scheduled."

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services to hospitals, physicians and post-acute
organizations.


AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Supports Bid to Dismiss "Vickery" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc., on April 10, 2014, filed its
reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the Vickery et al.
complaint asserting, among other things, fraud and fraudulent
inducement, 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 or about November 18, 2013, a putative class action styled
Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on behalf of themselves and a
similarly situated class v. Hondros College, Inc. and John G.
Hondros, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, case no. CV 13 817299. National Education Seminars, Inc.,
which operates as Hondros College, Nursing Programs, or HCON, was
not named in the lawsuit, but a member of HCON's board of
directors, John Hondros, was named in the lawsuit, and the
allegations made in the complaint relate to HCON's operations and
not the operations of the entity named in the lawsuit. The lawsuit
asserts claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of implied-in-fact contract, promissory
estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act, for, among other things, the alleged
provision of false or misleading information to the named
plaintiffs and other putative class members in 2011 and 2012
regarding the status of accreditation by National League for
Nursing Accrediting Commission of HCON's Associate Degree in
Nursing, or ADN, program offered at its Independence, Ohio campus.
The plaintiffs allege that the putative class consists of more
than 60 former students who in the summer or fall quarters of 2011
enrolled in the ADN or the licensed practical nursing, or LPN,
program at the Independence campus with the intention of pursuing
a degree in nursing, but who withdrew from the ADN or LPN program.

On February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint, which removed Hondros College, Inc. as a defendant and
added HCON as a defendant. On February 24, 2014, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint. On April 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On April 10, 2014, the
defendants filed their reply brief in support of the motion to
dismiss. The Company is currently unable to estimate the
likelihood or range of reasonably probable loss, if any, for this
matter. The Company does not believe, based on currently available
information, that the outcome of this proceeding, if adverse to
HCON, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition.

American Public Education, Inc. is a provider of online
postsecondary education with an emphasis on serving the needs of
the military and public service communities. The Company operates
through two universities: American Military University (AMU), and
American Public University (APU). Together, AMU and APU constitute
the American Public University System (APUS).


APPLE INC: To Face Class Actions on Labor Laws Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Apple must still face claims that it violated labor laws by
not paying its employees for time spent waiting in line and
undergoing security bag searches, after a federal judge refused to
throw out two class actions.

The lawsuits claim that Apple requires its hourly employees to
undergo off-the-clock security bag searches and clearance checks
when they leave for meal breaks and after they have clocked out at
the end of their shifts.  Because employees usually end their
shifts and take breaks around the same time, they often end up
waiting between 10 to 15 minutes off-the-clock to get through the
security screenings, according to the suits.

Apple moved for summary judgment, arguing that only employees who
have bags or Apple devices are required to undergo the screenings,
and bringing such items to work is voluntary.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup found the record to be ambiguous
about whether the screenings were mandatory, and ruled that too
many individualized factual questions regarding Apple's screening
practices existed to be able to grant the company summary
judgment.  There appears to be "a range of policies and practices
at various stores, rather than a crisp scenario," he wrote.

Among other things, Alsup noted that it is unclear how Apple's
supervisors interpret the word, "bag," whether Apple employees
must wait in line in order to determine whether they will be
subject to a security screening or waved through, and to what
extent employees are required to stand in line because they used a
bag to bring "necessities of life" into the workplace.

"Apple employees may need to bring a bag to work for reasons they
cannot control, such as the need for medication, feminine hygiene
products, or disability accommodations," Alsup wrote.

The lawsuits must be stayed, however, pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, a
similar case involving hourly paid employees who must undergo
mandatory security screenings.  Alsup anticipates that the Supreme
Court will make its decision in that case in the spring of 2015.
Both sides in the current case are expected to continue with
discovery as to the California state-law claims, however, as those
claims might survive even if the Supreme Court's ruling moots the
other claims.


APPLE-METRO INC: Servers Seek to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atavia Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple-Metro, Inc., d/b/a Applebee's, Zane Tankel and
Roy Raeburn, Case No. 1:14-cv-04120 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, unlawful
deductions, and other wages for the Plaintiff and similarly
situated co-workers -- servers, bussers, runners, bartenders,
barbacks, hosts, and other "tipped workers" -- who work or have
worked at Apple-Metro, Inc.

Apple-Metro, Inc., doing business as Applebee's, is headquartered
in Harrison, New York.  Apple-Metro; Zane Tankel, chief executive
officer; and Roy Raeburn, president, own and operate 38 Applebee's
restaurants throughout five New York City boroughs, as well as in
Westchester and Rockland Counties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  sabrahamson@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333


ASSURED GUARANTY: 9 Suits Consolidated for Pretrial Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nine putative class action lawsuits filed against Assured Guaranty
Ltd., alleging federal antitrust violations, have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings, 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.

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including GICs. These
cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 ("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named both AGMH and AGM: (a) Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District,
Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington
County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009, the MDL
1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the
federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint. The Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, filed on October 9, 2013, lists neither AGM nor
AGMH as a named defendant or a co-conspirator. The complaints in
these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss
that may arise from these lawsuits.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp. When the four plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the plaintiffs
did not name AGMH as a defendant. However, the complaint does
describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities. The consolidated
complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court
granted in part and denied in part the named defendants' motions
to dismiss this consolidated complaint.

Assured Guaranty Ltd. (AGL) is a Bermuda-based holding company.
The securities insured by the Company include taxable and tax-
exempt obligations issued by the United State state or municipal
governmental authorities, utility districts or facilities; notes
or bonds issued to finance international infrastructure projects;
and asset-backed securities issued by special purpose entities.
The Company markets its credit protection products directly to
issuers and underwriters of public finance, infrastructure and
structured finance securities as well as to investors in such debt
obligations. The Company conducts its financial guaranty business
on a direct basis from two companies: Assured Guaranty Municipal
Corp (AGM) and Assured Guaranty Corp. (AGC). The Company's
principal operating subsidiaries include Assured Guaranty
Municipal Corp., Assured Guaranty Corp., and Assured Guaranty Re
Ltd.


AUTOLIV INC: Enters Into Settlements in US Antitrust Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. has entered into separate settlement agreements with
three classes of purchasers in antitrust class actions in the
United States.

Autoliv and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in multiple
putative antitrust class actions pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "MDL").
These class actions are brought on behalf of three separate
alleged classes of purchasers of occupant safety systems in the
United States, namely: direct purchasers, auto dealers and "end-
payors" (consumers).

In entering the settlement agreements, Autoliv does not admit any
liability and is settling for the purpose of avoiding the
uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of further class action
litigation in the MDL.  Pursuant to the settlement agreements,
Autoliv has agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser
settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class,
and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of
$65 million.

The direct purchaser settlement amount is subject to potential
downward adjustments to a floor of $24 million based on the volume
of Autoliv's sales represented by direct purchasers who elect to
opt out from the settlement class.  Each settlement agreement
gives Autoliv the option to void that settlement if the opt-outs
from the settlement class exceed varying thresholds.

Each settlement agreement also provides that the settlement class
members will release Autoliv, its subsidiaries, and its and their
respective current and former officers, directors and employees,
from the claims and demands that were or could have been asserted.
Each settlement is subject to certain conditions including court
approval following notice to the settlement class members.  If
approved, the settlements will resolve the claims asserted against
Autoliv and its subsidiaries on behalf of the three settlement
classes.  Autoliv expects to record an expense of approximately
$65 million in its second quarter 2014 results.

                         About Autoliv

Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com-- develops and
manufactures automotive safety systems for all major automotive
manufacturers in the world. Together with its joint ventures,
Autoliv has more than 80 facilities with over 56,000 employees in
29 countries.  In addition, the Company has ten technical centers
in nine countries around the world, with 21 test tracks, more than
any other automotive safety supplier.  Sales in 2013 amounted to
US$8.8 billion.  The Company's shares are listed on the New York
Stock Exchange and its Swedish Depository Receipts on the OMX
Nordic Exchange in Stockholm.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of FX Market Rigging Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Avi Mizrahi, writing for Forex Magnates, reports that a dozen
major global banks accused of allegedly rigging the FX markets
asked US District Judge Lorna Schofield on May 30 to dismiss all
the claims against them.  In their filing to the Manhattan Federal
Court, the banks argued that the accusers had failed to properly
prove the existence of an international conspiracy.

The case in question is a consolidated antitrust lawsuit based on
the allegations by retirement funds and other investors that
institutional traders at the major banks conspired to collectively
distort FX rates for the benefit of the banks and to the detriment
of their clients and other traders in the global market.

The allegations were brought up after a wave of announcements by
financial regulators and law enforcements agencies from around the
world confirming that investigations of the major banks are
ongoing.  As Forex Magnates previously reported, the
investigations focus on Bloomberg terminals' chat groups with
names such as "The Cartel," "The Mafia" and "The Bandits' Club,"
where bank traders allegedly shared information with their
supposed competitors, allowing them to execute their own trades
before filling client orders and sought to manipulate the
benchmark WM/Reuters FX rates.

The joint motion to dismiss the case against them was brought by
Bank of America Corp, Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc,
Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc,
HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank
of Scotland Group Plc and UBS AG.  According to the lawsuit, these
dozen banks control 84% of the global market and act as
counterparties in 98% of U.S. spot volume.

The defendants claimed in the filing: "Despite their breathtaking
scope, the complaints do not plead a single fact about a single
instance in which a single defendant engaged in even one concerted
act to manipulate any particular currency rate.  Nor do they
identify a single transaction by a plaintiff or any factual basis
for a claim that any plaintiff has been injured by an alleged
conspiracy to manipulate benchmark exchange rates."


BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Suit Returns to Sacramento Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA CARAG, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BARNES &
NOBLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-00481-JAM-DAD, (E.D. Cal.) is before the
Court on the Plaintiff's motion to remand and motion to strike
portions of the Defendants' answer to the complaint.

In an order dated May 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/VnDC0cfrom Leagle.com, District Judge John A. Mendez
granted the motion.

"As the case is remanded back to the Sacramento County Superior
Court, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike portions of Defendants' answer
is denied without prejudice," Judge Mendez added.

Cassandra Carag, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Jill Jessica Parker --
jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC & Jonathan Michael Lebe
-- jon@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Barnes & Noble, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather M. Sager
-- hsager@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP & Ayse
Kuzucuoglu -- akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA),
LLP.

Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Heather M. Sager, Vedder Price (CA), LLP & Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Vedder
Price (CA), LLP.


BERTHEL FISHER: Court Narrows Claims in "Hanson" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Linda R. Reade granted in part and denied in part a
motion to dismiss filed in the case captioned JON HANSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BERTHEL FISHER & COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
and THOMAS JOSEPH BERTHEL, Defendants, NO. 13-CV-67-LRR, (N.D.
Iowa).

Plaintiff Jon Hanson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated filed his Amended Class Action Complaint
against Defendants on November 4, 2013. The Complaint asserts
eleven claims: (1) Count I asserts that Defendants violated
California Corporations Code section 25401, or, in the
alternative, California Corporations Code section 25504; (2) Count
II asserts that Defendants violated California Corporations Code
section 25400; (3) Count III asserts that Defendants unlawfully
induced a contract by knowing misrepresentations, in violation of
California Corporations Code section 1572 and California common
law; (4) Count IV asserts that Defendants made negligent
misrepresentations in violation of California common law; (5)
Count V asserts that Defendants were negligent in violation of
California common law; (6) Count VI asserts that Defendants aided
and abetted fraud in violation of California common law; (7) Count
VII asserts that Defendants violated Iowa Uniform Securities Act
section 502.501; (8) Count VIII asserts that Defendants violated
Iowa Uniform Securities Act section 502.501A; (9) Count IX asserts
that Defendants made negligent misrepresentations in violation of
Iowa common law; (10) Count X asserts that Defendants were
negligent in violation of Iowa common law; and (11) Count XI
asserts that Defendants aided and abetted fraud in violation of
Iowa common law.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Reade held that with respect to Plaintiffs' claims against
Thomas Joseph Berthel, the Motion is granted and Counts I through
XI are dismissed against Thomas Joseph Berthel. Judge Reade
directed the Clerk of Court to dismiss Thomas Joseph Berthel from
the case. With respect to Counts II, IV and IX, the Motion is
granted and Counts II, IV and IX are dismissed. With respect to
Counts I, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, X and XI, the Motion is denied.

A copy of the May 29, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/e246umfrom Leagle.com

Jon Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by:

   J Barton Goplerud, Esq.
   HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON, PC
   5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
   West Des Moines, IA 50265
   Telephone: 866-916-9127
              515-223-4567
   Facsimile: 515-223-8887

      - and -

   Alan L Rosca, Esq.
   Daniel J Carr, Esq.
   Joseph C Peiffer, Esq.
   PEIFFER ROSCA ABDULLAH & CARR LLC
   526 Superior Avenue, Suite 401
   Cleveland, OH 44114
   Telephone: 888-998-0520
   Facsimile: 504-586-5250

Berthel Fisher and Company Financial Services, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Paul D Gamez -- pgamez@simmonsperrine.com --
Simmons, Perrine, Moyer & Bergman, PLC, Stephen J Holtman --
sholtman@simmonsperrine.com -- Simmons Perrine PLC, Aaron Richard
Hartman -- ahartman@aoblaw.com -- Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie
PA & Vincent D Louwagie -- vlouwagie@aoblaw.com -- Anthony,
Ostlund, Baer & Louwagie, PA.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
Chelsea Therapeutics too cheaply through an unfair process to H.
Lundbeck A/S, for $6.44 a share or $623 million, shareholders
claim in a class action Federal Court in Wilmington, Del.


CHINA CERAMICS: Faces "Pollock" Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pollock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei
Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su
Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang, Jianwei Liu, and China Ceramics Co.,
Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-04100 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all those who purchased the common stock of China Ceramics between
March 30, 2012, and May 1, 2014, seeking to recover damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

China Ceramics is a British Virgin Islands corporation
headquartered in Jinjing, Fujian Province, People's Republic of
China.  The Company is a leading Chinese manufacturer of ceramic
tiles used for exterior siding and for interior flooring and
design in residential and commercial buildings.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIFFS NATURAL: Shareholder Wants Fair Vote on Director Nominees
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Pope, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Shareholders of Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. v. Cliffs
Natural Resources Inc., Gary B. Halverson, Susan M. Cunningham,
Barry J. Eldridge, Mark E. Gaumond, Andres R. Gluski, Susan M.
Green, Janice K. Henry, James F. Kirsch, Stephen Johnson, Richard
K. Riederer, Timothy W. Sullivan, Case No. 1:14-cv-01234 (N.D.
Ohio, June 6, 2014), is brought by the Plaintiff to allegedly
allow a fair vote between two rival slates of director candidates
at the Company's next annual meeting on July 29, 2014.

Mr. Pope, who owned shares of CNR common stock, alleges that CNR's
current Board of Directors is attempting to prevent a fair vote by
taking self-serving actions to entrench itself and fend off the
competing slate.  He notes that the vote is important as CNR has
been underperforming for years.  He says that Casablanca Capital
LP, an activist shareholder, has nominated six new director
candidates for election to the Board in response to its expressed
concerns over CNR's poor performance and past mistakes.  CNR's
current Board, however, is using the terms of CNR's senior notes
to warn of severe adverse consequences for CNR if Casablanca's
slate of directors is elected at their expense, he adds.

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an Ohio corporation headquartered
in Cleveland, Ohio.  The Company produces iron ore and
metallurgical coal.  CNR operates iron ore and coal mines in North
America and an iron ore mining complex in Western Australia.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of CNR.

                       Bid for Injunction

In addition to his complaint, Mr. Pope also asks the Court for an
order granting a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction:

   (1) enjoining the Defendants from directly or indirectly
       proceeding with the Company's proxy solicitation and
       consents in connection with the upcoming July 29, 2014
       CNR annual shareholder vote;

   (2) rescinding, to the extent already submitted, any proxy
       cards granted to the Defendants by CNR's shareholders; and

   (3) adjourning the Annual Vote to a date at least 30 days
       after CNR's Board:

         (i) "approves" the slate of director candidates
             nominated by Casablanca; and

        (ii) amends CNR's outstanding proxy materials or
             otherwise notifies CNR's shareholders that CNR's
             Board "approves" Casablanca's director nominees and
             that CNR's "proxy puts" will no longer be triggered.

Mr. Pope tells the Court that no third-parties will be harmed in
connection with the requested injunctive relief.  To the contrary,
he contends, all parties will benefit if the requested relief is
granted because rather than risk plunging CNR into unsurmountable
debt, CNR's Board will reconsider its stance regarding
Casablanca's slate, "approve" the nominees, and avoid the "proxy
puts" entirely.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
          Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Rosenthal, Esq.
          COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
          The Hoyt-Block Building, Suite 400
          700 West St. Clair Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 781-7956
          Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
          E-mail: jfuchs@crklaw.com
                  jcohen@crklaw.com
                  jbr@crklaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
                  aapton@zlk.com


CONCEPT AUTO: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages to Class, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Alvarez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Concept Auto, Inc. d/b/a Payless Car Sales d/b/a Credit
Master and Marat Kvachuk, Case No. 1:14-cv-22114-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
June 6, 2014), accuses the Defendants of willfully and
intentionally refusing to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Concept Auto, Inc., doing business as Payless Car Sales, doing
business as Credit Master, is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.  Marat Kvachuk is
a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


COVISINT CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 30 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Covisint Corporation common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
Covisint's September 26, 2013 initial public stock offering,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 30, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Covisint, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of the
Securities Act.  Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform for
enabling organizations to securely connect, engage and collaborate
with large, distributed communities of customers, business
partners and suppliers.  In the IPO, the Company sold 6.4 million
shares of Covisint common stock to the public at $10 per share,
raising approximately $64 million in gross proceeds for the
Company.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, and the
documents referenced and incorporated therein, negligently failed
to disclose the following material facts which existed at the time
of the IPO: (i) that the Company was experiencing a greater than
expected decline in its subscription revenue due to poor sales
execution and late-stage pipeline conversion issues; (ii) that the
Company was facing increased competition in its services segment
as customers were not adding services at a rate consistent with
expectations; (iii) that the Company was experiencing a decline in
General Motors-related service revenue; (iv) that the Company was
losing healthcare customers at an increasing rate and its pipeline
of healthcare-related deals was steadily declining and included
numerous deals that were not likely to be consummated; and (v) as
a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable basis to
"expect" revenues for 2014 to increase by 20% from 2013.  These
known, but undisclosed, facts had a material adverse effect on
Covisint's operating results during its fourth quarter and fiscal
2014 full-year.  At the time of the filing of the lawsuit,
Covisint stock was trading at approximately $5.37 per share, a 46%
decline from the IPO price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Covisint common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
September 26, 2013 IPO.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins
Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions
and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA, ATDA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed against CVS Pharmacy after the plaintiffs
claimed it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Automatic Telephone Dialers Act.  The lawsuit alleges that the
pharmacy autodialed cell phone users from blocked numbers and
played pre-recorded advertising messages, urging them to visit a
nearby CVS store for flu shots and other services.  CVS and
MinuteClinic caused Carl Lowe and Kearby Kaiser to receive
unsolicited autodialed and pre-recorded voice calls, which impeded
caller identification, according to a complaint filed May 20 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

"Within the four years prior to the filing of this action,
defendants used equipment to dial the telephone number of
potential customers, including plaintiffs," the complaint states.
"The equipment defendants used to call plaintiffs and others not
only had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be
called using a random or sequential number generator . . . but was
programmed to sequentially or randomly access stored telephone
numbers to automatically connect a telephone with a recorded
message.

These calls were made with equipment capable of dialing numbers
without human intervention, according to the suit.  The plaintiffs
claim CVS's calls did not use live voice interaction, but
consisted of taped communications soliciting goods and services.

"Many of the people whose phones were called as a result of
defendants' autodialing and pre-recorded voice message practices
never actually consented to receive such calls, including
plaintiffs," the complaint states.

Many of these individuals were called more than once and the
defendant lacks an adequate system for preventing autodialed or
pre-recorded voice calls to phones for which they do not have
consent to call, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants intended to make the calls and
were well aware of the TCPA, ATDA and other federal and state
statutes' prohibitions against use of autodialers and pre-recorded
messages in calls to consumers, but made the business decision to
make these calls anyway.

"Defendants also knew that the TCPA, ATDA and other state and/or
federal laws prohibit manipulation of caller ID information, but
did this anyway," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs did not give CVS permission or consent to make
calls to their cell phones, according to the suit.

"Plaintiffs and the classes have been substantially damaged by
defendants' calls," the complaint states.  "Their privacy was
improperly invaded, many were charged for the calls and they were
annoyed."

On Oct. 27, Mr. Lowe claims CVS called him in and left a voicemail
message alerting "Anna" that her prescription was ready, then
offering flu shot services, however, he claims no one named Anna
has access to his cell phone number.

Mr. Lowe claims he has received similar calls from CVS for Anna in
the past and went to the store a year earlier to tell it to stop
calling his number.

Kaiser claimed on Sept. 11, he received a call from an anonymous
number stating that CVS's MinuteClinic was offering a 20 percent
shopping pass for those who came in to get flu shots.  Kaiser
received several similar calls in the past, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking at least $500 in damages for each
violation and an injunction forbidding CVS from making similar
calls in the future.  They are being represented by Alexander H.
Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- of Burke Law Offices LLC; and
Daniel J. Marovitch of Marovitch Law Firm LLC.

The case has been assigned to District Judge John Z. Lee.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number: 1:14-cv-3687


DIABETIC SUPPLY: Recalls Redi-Code+ Blood Glucose Test Strips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diabetic Supply of Suncoast, Inc. initiated a nationwide voluntary
recall of all BMB-BA006A Advocate Redi-Code+ blood glucose test
strip lots manufactured by BroadMaster Bio-Tech Corp currently in
the market place. The Advocate Redi-Code+ BMB-BA006A blood glucose
test strips are being recalled due to a labeling error which could
result in confusion about which meter models the Redi-Code+ BMB-
BA006A blood glucose test strips are designed to be used with. In
the incorrect labeling, the test strips model (BMB-BA006A) was
omitted.

This error may lead users to believe they can use the Advocate
Redi-Code+ BMB-BA006A blood glucose test strips with the Advocate
Redi-Code blood glucose meters, model numbers TD-3223E, TD-4223E,
TD-4223F, TD-4276 manufactured by Taidoc Technology Corp. The
Advocate Redi-Code+ BMB-BA006A blood glucose test strips should
only be used with the Advocate Redi-Code+ BMB-EA001S and EA001A
blood glucose meters manufactured by BroadMaster Bio-Tech Corp.

Suncoast is recalling the test strips in an effort to avoid
confusion and the possible misuse of the Advocate Redi-Code+ blood
glucose test strips with the Taidoc meters listed, which could
result in incorrect glucose results. Falsely high or falsely low
glucose results could potentially cause missed or delayed
hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia detection and lead to no treatment
or inappropriate treatment. Delayed or inappropriate treatment of
hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic states could lead to serious health
consequences, including death.

Customers who have the affected test strips can contact Diabetic
Supply of Suncoast, Inc. directly for further information to
determine if the test strips are being used in the proper manor or
if they need to be returned to Suncoast for replacement. Test
strips will be replaced with relabeled boxes of test strips to
avoid any chance of confusion. Consumers should stop using the
test strips and contact Suncoast to find out if this recall
pertains to the test strips they have in their possession and if
so how to have them replaced for the relabeled products
manufactured by BroadMaster Bio-Tech. Customers who have the
Advocate Redi-Code blood glucose meters manufactured by Taidoc
Technology Corp should follow the product User Manual for
information about the appropriate test strips to be used with the
Taidoc meters.

Diabetic Supply of Suncoast, Inc. is notifying its wholesale
Distributors, Pharmacies, Medical Supply stores, Health Care
Providers and direct customers throughout the entire US and Virgin
Islands by letter and Press Release about the specifics of the
recall. Customers with questions may contact Diabetic Supply of
Suncoast at (561) 296-0488 between the hours of 9:00AM and 5:00PM
Monday through Friday Eastern standard time or view the
information at www.dsosi.com


DOLE PACKAGED: Court Partially Certifies Class in "Brazil" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh issued an order granting in part and
denying in part a motion for class certification in the case
captioned CHAD BRAZIL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC,
Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-01831-LHK, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the
District Court's May 30, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/wg0HD1from Leagle.com.

The Court certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons in the United States who,
from April 11, 2008, until the date of notice, purchased a Dole
fruit product bearing the front panel label statement 'All Natural
Fruit' but which contained citric acid and ascorbic acid. Excluded
from the class are (1) Dole and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
(2) governmental entities, and (3) the Court to which this case is
assigned and its staff."

The Court also certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(3): "All
persons in California who, from April 11, 2008, until the date of
notice, purchased a Dole fruit product bearing the front panel
label statement 'All Natural Fruit' but which contained citric
acid and ascorbic acid. Excluded from the class are (1) Dole and
its subsidiaries and affiliates, (2) governmental entities, (3)
the Court to which this case is assigned and its staff, and (4)
All persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the
Class."

The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of a
nationwide 23(b)(3) class.

The Court appoints Plaintiff Chad Brazil as the class
representative, and Pratt & Associates, Charles Barrett, P.C., and
Barrett Law Group, P.A. as class counsel.

The Court dismisses with prejudice the Dole products and label
statements identified in the Second Amended Complaint for which
Brazil did not move for class certification.

The Court ordered Mr. Brazil to file an amended complaint that
amends the class definitions to comport with the Court's certified
class definitions, and deletes the dismissed Dole products and
label statements. Plaintiffs may not make any other substantive
change to the complaint, unless Defendant stipulates to the
change.

Chad Brazil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Peet --
alex@lovelacelaw.com -- Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., Ben F. Pierce
Gore, Pratt & Associates, David Shelton --
David@davidsheltonpllc.com -- David Shelton, PLLC, Frank Karam --
fkaram@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, Ananda N.
Chaudhuri -- achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law
Firm, Brian K Herrington, Don Barrett, P.A., Carol Nelkin --
c.nelkin@nelkinpc.com -- Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, PC, Charles F.
Barrett, Charles Barrett, P.C., David Malcolm McMullan, Jr. --
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett, P.A., Dewitt
Marshall Lovelace, Sr. -- dml@lovelacelaw.com -- Lovelace Law
Firm, P.A., J. Price Coleman, Coleman Law Firm, Jay P. Nelkin --
jnelkin@nelkinpc.com -- Nelkin & Nelkin, P.C., John W. (Don)
Barrett -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett, P.A.,
Katherine B. Riley -- kbriley@barrettlawoffice.com -- Don Barrett,
P.A., Keith M. Fleischman -- keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The
Fleischman Law Firm, Richard Barrett, Law Offices of Richard R.
Barrett, PLLC & Stuart M Nelkin -- snelkin@nnklawfirm.com --
Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, PC.

Dole Packaged Food, LLC, Defendant, represented by William Lewis
Stern, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi --
vetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & William Francis
Tarantino -- WTarantino@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster.


DOLE PACKAGED: Recalls Roasted Garlic Tomato Basil Soup in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Packaged Foods, LLC is voluntarily recalling DOLE Garden Soup
"Roasted Garlic Tomato Basil", due to an undeclared milk allergen.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The product is a 26 oz. carton with UPC Code 3890002404, Lot
Numbers WF14113 and WF14114 ONLY, Best by Oct 23 2015 and Oct 24
2015 respectively. The UPC CODE is on the side panel and the lot
number and best by information are printed on the top of the
carton.

The recalled product was distributed only in TEXAS through retail
grocery stores.

No other Dole Packaged Foods products are affected.

No illnesses have been reported to date in association with the
recall. Dole Packaged Foods has notified the Food and Drug
Administration and is coordinating closely with it.

Consumers who purchased any of these lots are asked to return to
the place of purchase for a full refund.

The company has contacted the retailers to retrieve the affected
lots. Replacement stocks of unaffected lots are being shipped.

Retailers and consumers with questions may call the Dole Packaged
Foods Consumer Response Center at (800) 232-8888 24 hours a day.


DRIVERS SOLUTIONS: Removed "Foschi" Suit to Arizona Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Foschi v. Pennella, et
al., Case No. CV2014-008022, was removed from the Maricopa County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona (Phoenix Division).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-01253-DKD to the proceeding.

Daniel Foschi, a current employee of the Defendants, alleges that
they have willfully contravened his right to be compensated for
all wages and overtime due him in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act.

Drivers Solutions, Inc. is an Arizona corporation with its
principal place of business in Sun City, Arizona.  According to
its Web site, Drivers Solutions is "a complete delivery service
company that specializes in automotive parts distribution and
comprehensive logistics."  The Individual Defendants are owners,
officers or directors of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nicholas.enoch@azbar.org
                  kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laurent R.G. Badoux, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 445-8000
          Facsimile: (602) 445-8100
          E-mail: badouxl@gtlaw.com


DUKE ENERGY: Former Employee Seeks Class Status for OT Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Penn, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that a former
Duke Energy Florida employee wants a Pinellas County Circuit Court
judge to approve a class-action case against the utility for
allegedly failing to pay overtime to hourly workers.

The lawsuit was filed by Janet Farnham, who was hired to work for
the utility from January 2012 to April 2014 through Allied Staff
Augmentation Partners Inc., a Charlotte, N.C., firm.  Ms. Farnham
alleges Duke and Allied Staff, which also is named as a defendant
in the suit, "had a policy and practice of requiring (Farnham) and
similarly situated employees to work in excess of forty (40) hours
each work week without paying them wages and/or overtime
compensation as required by the (Fair Labor Standards Act of
1928)."

Michael Schuette, Ms. Farnham's lawyer, said his firm recently
received the case and is still reviewing how many others might be
affected by the overtime issue.  Mr. Schuette filed the lawsuit
May 13.

Neither Duke nor Allied Staff would comment because of the pending
litigation.


EILLIEN'S CANDIES: Recalls Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy
----------------------------------------------------------
Eillien's Candies, Inc. is voluntarily recalling Dark Old
Fashioned Sponge Candy because the product contains undeclared
milk.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

This recall affects all dates and all products listed below with a
"Best By" date prior to June 1st, 2015. (06-01-15)

     UPC                 Label & size
     ---                 ------------
034952573077     Eillien's Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy,
                 12oz. Tray

034952129946     Eillien's Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy,
                 6oz. Header bag

034952569278     Eillien's Holiday Dark Old Fashioned Sponge
                 Candy, 10oz. bag

034952811711     Blains Farm & Fleet Dark Sponge Candy
                 14oz. bag

034952574777     Piggly Wiggly Dark Sponge Candy
                 12oz. Tray

034952581386     Piggly Wiggly Dark Sponge Candy
                 10oz. bag

034952139563     Mrs. Kimball's Candy Shoppe Dark Sponge Candy
                 13oz. bag

034952410754     Mae's Comer Market Dark Old Fashioned Sponge
                 Candy 14oz. bag

034952410983     Mae's Comer Market Dark Old Fashioned Sponge
                 Candy 24oz. bag

034952413243     Mae's Comer Market Premium Party Tray (Large B)
                 59.5oz.

The voluntary recall was initiated after one reported illness. It
was discovered that the milk-containing product was distributed in
packaging that did not declare the presence of milk. Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by an oversight in
the labeling process.

Consumers with recalled product should return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
Eillien's Candies, Inc. at 920-336-7549 between the hours of 8am-
4pm. Monday thru Friday, central time.


ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Keeping Generic Opana ER Out of Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
Value Drug Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-02630 (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful scheme to allocate the market for
extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which Endo sells under
the brand name Opana ER.

As part of the Defendants' unlawful scheme, Endo paid Impax over
$112 million in cash in exchange for Impax agreeing to keep its
less expensive, generic version of Opana ER out of the market for
two and a half years -- from June 2010 to January 2013 -- during
which time Endo switched the market for Opana ER to a new
formulation of Opana ER, the Opana ER CRF, Value Drug alleges.

Oxymorphone hydrochloride has been marketed and sold by Endo in
the United States for almost 50 years in various dosage forms
including a rectal suppository and an intravenous drip.
Oxymorphone hydrochloride is a strong opioid agonist indicated to
treat pain and also as a preoperative medication to alleviate
apprehension, maintain anesthesia, and as an obstetric analgesic.
Oxymorphone hydrochloride was first synthesized in 1914.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Malvern, Pennsylvania.  Until May 2012, Endo Health Solutions
Inc. was known as Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc.  Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo Health
Solutions Inc.  Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. was acquired by Endo
Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. on November 4, 2010.  Prior to the
acquisition, Penwest was a Washington corporation, and Endo and
Penwest developed and marketed Opana ER together.  Impax
Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Hayward, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Eldridge Bower, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          Noah Silverman, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          Facsimile: (212) 764-6620
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  jopper@garwingerstein.com
                  nsilverman@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, L.L.P.
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 522-0077
          Facsimile: (504) 522-0078
          E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          Erin R. Leger, Esq.
          3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445-4480
          Facsimile: (318) 487-1741
          E-mail: draphael@ssrllp.com

               - and -

          Russ Chorush, Esq.
          Miranda Jones, Esq.
          HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
          600 Travis, Suite 6710
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-2000
          Facsimile: (713) 221-2021
          E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com


ENERNOC INC: No Hearing Yet on Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No hearing date has been set for the purported class action
complaint against EnerNOC, Inc., alleging that its proxy statement
filed on April 26, 2013 was false and misleading, 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 May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company (the
Plaintiff) filed a derivative and class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the
Court) against certain officers and directors of the Company as
well as the Company as a nominal defendant (the Defendants). The
complaint asserts derivative claims, purportedly brought on behalf
of the Company, for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate
assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with certain equity
grants (awarded in 2010, 2012, and 2013) that allegedly exceeded
an annual limit on per-employee equity grants purported to be
contained in the 2007 Plan. The complaint also asserts a direct
claim, brought on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of
the Company's shareholders, alleging the Company's proxy statement
filed on April 26, 2013 was false and misleading because it failed
to disclose that the equity grants were improper. The plaintiff
seeks, among other relief, rescission of the equity grants,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 30, 2013. Plaintiff
responded to the motion on October 18, 2013, and Defendants
replied on November 22, 2013. No hearing date has been set.

The Company continues to believe that the Company and the other
defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims and allegations contained in the complaint, and continues
to pursue these defenses vigorously. The Company continues to
believe that it is neither remote nor probable that the Company
will incur a loss related to this matter. There can be no
assurance, however, that the Company's defense of this matter will
be successful. The Company carries insurance for these types of
claims and currently believes that a resolution to this claim, in
excess of the deductible, would be covered by its insurance.
Therefore, the Company does not currently believe that it is
reasonably possible that the potential magnitude of the range of
any loss would be material to the Company's consolidated financial
conditions, results of operations or cash flows. However, there is
no guarantee that this claim will be covered by the Company's
insurer. A denial of the claim by the insurance provider or a
judgment significantly in excess of the Company's insurance
coverage could materially and adversely affect its consolidated
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In
addition, regardless of the outcome of this matter, the matter may
divert financial and management resources and result in general
business disruption, including that the Company may suffer from
adverse publicity that could harm its reputation and negatively
impact its stock price.

EnerNOC, Inc. (EnerNOC) is a provider of energy management
applications, services and products for the smart grid, which
include demand response, data-driven energy efficiency, and energy
price and risk management applications, services and products.


FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the British Columbia Supreme Court has
certified a class action lawsuit launched by a Vancouver woman who
claims Facebook is violating its users' privacy.

Plaintiff Debbie Douez's lawyer Christoper Rhone says the case
revolves around Facebook's January 2011 decision to feature its
users in an advertising product called "Sponsored Stories."
Through the program, companies pay Facebook a fee so when their
business is "liked" by users, that information is published to the
users' friends as proof of their endorsement.

Mr. Rhone argues no one should be able to use your likeness and
name to endorse a product without your permission, claiming it
violates B.C.'s Privacy Act.

"When their names and portraits are being taken, and put into
advertisements for the gain of the company, that's just wrong,"
Mr. Rhone said.

Ms. Douez, a Vancouver videographer, says that's exactly what
happened to her.  Two years ago she logged on to the Facebook site
"Tough Mudders" and clicked on the "like" button because it was
the only way to get more information on the fitness company's
programs.  She also "liked" Ocean Village Resort in Tofino.  The
next thing she knew, her name and photo were popping up on her
friends' Facebook pages endorsing the companies she knew little
about.  Ms. Douez, who does some marketing work herself, says
Facebook is going too far.

"I think there's a very fine line to providing a service and
manipulating the public.  And I think this is a situation where
people are being manipulated and in particular, manipulated for
commercial gain," she said.

Facebook argues users automatically give their consent when they
sign up, or when they click "like" or take so-called "social
actions" on web pages.

Some media reports have suggested you can "opt out" of endorsing
sites, but Ms. Douez doubts that.  "I did change my privacy
settings. In fact, I had the tightest privacy settings that you
could have in a profile," she said.

"Yet, in this particular case, you are not allowed to opt out."

In its ruling authorizing the lawsuit, B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Susan Griffin says one of the key questions to be decided is
whether B.C. users of social media websites run by a foreign
corporation have the protection of the B.C Privacy Act.

"Given the almost infinite life and scope of internet images and
corresponding scale of harm caused by privacy breaches, BC
residents have a significant interest in maintaining some means of
policing privacy violations by multi-national internet or social
media service providers," Ms. Griffin writes in her
74-page decision.

Ms. Griffin says the central issue in the lawsuit is whether
Facebook's terms of use and the online tools it provides its users
constitute consent to use the person's name or portrait for
advertising purposes.

Ms. Douez said other B.C. Facebook users are welcome to join the
class action suit.


FIRST REGIONAL: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                  CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                       SANTA ANA DIVISION

BUTTONWOOD TREE VALUE PARTNERS, LP,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

JACK A. SWEENEY, STEVEN J. SWEENEY,
MARILYN J. SWEENEY GARY M. HORGAN, H.
ANTHONY GARTSHORE, ELIZABETH
THOMPSON, FRED M. EDWARDS, THOMAS
MCCULLOUGH, RICHARD E. SCHREIBER,
LAWRENCE J. SHERMAN,
Defendants.

Case No.: 8:10-cv-00537 CJC (MLGx)

CLASS ACTION

                         SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: All Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
First Regional Bancorp common stock during the period from
January 30, 2007 through January 29, 2010 or subsequently acquired
or have been transferred a claim based on such purchases or
acquisitions

The Court has preliminarily approved a settlement of this Action
for $5,500,000.  The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and Class
Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.  The
Fairness Hearing before Honorable Judge Cormac J. Carney has been
scheduled for July 21, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 9B of the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Santa Ana Division, located at 411 W. 4th Street,
Santa Ana, CA 92701.

This Notice contains summary information with respect to the
Settlement which will affect your rights if you are a member of
the Class.  The terms and conditions of the Settlement are set
forth in a settlement agreement.  You may a more detailed version
of the Notice which describes the Action, the Settlement and your
rights including the right to make a claim against the Settlement
Fund online at www.FirstRegionalBancorpSecuritiesSettlement.com or
by contacting the Settlement Administrator: First Regional Bancorp
Securities Litigation, Settlement Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co.
LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990.  You may also
examine the Settlement Agreement and other important documents
regarding the settlement online at
www.FirtRegionalBancorpSecuritiesSettlement.com

If you require any further information, please contact the
Settlement Administrator or Class Counsel:

          Richard D. Greenfield
          Ilene Freier Brookler
          GREENFIELD & GOODMAN, LLC
          250 Hudson Street - 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          whitehatrdg@earthlink.net

          Jonathan W. Cuneo
          Matthew E. Miller
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          jonc@cuneolaw.com

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

DATED: May 15, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA DIVISION


FISH FAMILY: Recalls Milk Products, Cream Due to Undeclared Nuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Family Farm, Inc. of Bolton, CT is voluntarily recalling milk
products and cream because as a precautionary measure they may be
adulterated with peanut and tree nut (pistachio) allergens.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts or
tree nuts (pistachios) run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The products were distributed at Fish Family Farm's retail store
in Bolton, CT and at retail stores in Connecticut and
Massachusetts.

The following FISH FAMILY FARM INC. Dairy Products with a sell by
date of 6/23/14 are subject to the recall.  The product name is
found on product container lid and the sell by date can be found
on the top of the bottle.

    GRADE A WHOLE MILK Pasteurized and Homogenized in a glass
half-gallon container

    GRADE A 2% Reduced Fat Milk Pasteurized and Homogenized in a
glass half-gallon container

    GRADE A FAT FREE SKIM MILK Pasteurized and Homogenized in a
glass half-gallon container

    CHOCOLATE MILK GRADE A PASTEURIZED HOMOGENIZED in a glass
half-gallon container

    GRADE A PASTEURIZED HEAVY CREAM in glass pints, quarts, half-
gallons

The following Shadow Valley Farms Dairy Products with a sell by
date of 6/23/14 are subject to the recall. The product name is
found on the container lid and the sell by date can be found on
the top of the bottle.

    WHOLE GRADE A PASTEURIZED HOMOGENIZED MILK in a glass half-
gallon container

    2% GRADE A PASTEURIZED HOMOGENIZED MILK in a glass half-gallon
container

    FAT FREE GRADE A PASTEURIZED HOMOGENIZED MILK in a glass half-
gallon container

    CHOCOLATE MILK GRADE A, PASTEURIZED, HOMOGENIZED in a glass
half-gallon container

No other lots or products are affected.

No complaints or illnesses have been reported.

The dairy products may have become adulterated when they were
processed on the same equipment that had previously been used to
process products containing peanut butter (peanuts) and tree nuts
(pistachios).

Consumers are urged not to consume these products and to destroy
the products or return them to the retailer where purchased for a
refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-860-646-
9745.


FORD MOTOR: Colo. Judge Narrows Fuel Economy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a Colorado
federal judge on May 29 largely dismissed a proposed class action
accusing Ford Motor Co. of misleading consumers about the fuel
efficiency of some of its hybrid vehicles, finding that many of
Ford's allegedly false advertisements and claims amounted to no
more than unactionable puffery.

U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson preserved plaintiff
Juan Sanchez's claims that salespeople at a Ford dealership led
him to believe the car he purchased would achieve the advertised
gas mileage.  However, the judge also found that a number of the
ads Sanchez claimed were misleading weren't meant to be taken at
their word, and that Sanchez can't bring claims on behalf of a
class of buyers on ads he never saw.

"Mr. Sanchez attempts to save his claims by arguing that other
members of the class might have seen and relied upon these
statements," Judge Jackson said.  "If he cannot sufficiently
allege individual injury . . . then he cannot lean on the supposed
injuries of other members of the putative class."

Mr. Sanchez sued Ford last July, claiming he bought a 2012 MKZ
Hybrid from a dealership in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  As he was
considering which car to buy, dealership staff allegedly told him
that he would be able to match the car's advertised fuel
efficiency in the course of normal driving.  He also saw a number
of ads about the 2013 model, which claimed the car could achieve
45 combined miles per gallon, adding that the fuel-economy
information was based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
estimates, court records show.

Mr. Sanchez also claims he discussed the 2013 model with agents at
a Lincoln dealership in Denver, who told him that the new model
contained new technology that improved the car's fuel efficiency,
and that the car could reach 45 miles per hour through city and
highway driving.  In his complaint, Mr. Sanchez also pointed to a
number of ads that allegedly misrepresented the MKZ's efficiency,
but doesn't say he saw them himself, court records show.

After buying his car, Mr. Sanchez said it failed to live up to
Ford's claims, and accused the company of violating Colorado's
Consumer Protection Act, state unfair trade practice laws, breach
of express warranty and contract and intentional or negligent
misrepresentation, among others, court documents said.

Judge Jackson rejected Mr. Sanchez's argument that the Ford
agent's statements about technological improvements to the MKZ
amounted to misrepresentation, saying "they appear . . . to be
nothing more than puffery."

Ford argued in its motion to dismiss that Mr. Sanchez's
allegations about a graphic claiming the car achieved "45 combined
miles per gallon" were preempted by federal law.  While Judge
Jackson agreed that the graphic itself was preempted because it
included an EPA disclaimer, he found that a voice-over combined
with it, with phrases like "going places others aren't," was
another example of "puffery" that can't be litigated, the ruling
said.

In a separate motion, Ford moved to strike Mr. Sanchez's class
allegations; Judge Jackson invited further input from the parties
before he rules on that motion.

Mr. Sanchez is represented by Jasper Dudley Ward --
jasper@jonesward.com -- of Jones Ward PLC and by Kurt M. Zaner of
Zaner Harden Law LLP.

Ford is represented by Edward Craig Stewart --
stewart@wtotrial.com -- and Theresa R. Wardon --
wardon@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP and by Jodi
Munn Schebel of Dickinson Wright PLLC.

The case is Sanchez v. Ford Motor Company, case number 1:13-cv-
01924, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.


FRUITLAND AMERICAN: Recalls Ribeye and Carcass Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Fruitland American Meat, a Jackson, Mo. establishment is recalling
approximately 4,012 pounds of fresh beef products because the
dorsal root ganglia may not have been completely removed, which is
not compliant with agency regulations that require their removal
in cattle 30 months of age and older, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

    40-lb. cases containing two, roughly 20-lb. cryovac packages
of bone-in "Rain Crow Ranch Ribeye" bearing the establishment
number "EST. 2316" inside the USDA mark of inspection with the
following production dates: 9/5/13, 9/10/13, 9/11/13, 9/26/13,
10/2/13, 10/3/2013, 11/8/13, 11/22/13, 12/17/13, 12/26/13,
12/27/13,1/16/14, 1/17/14, 1/23/14, 1/31/14, 2/13/14, 2/14/14,
2/21/14, 2/28/14, 3/8/14, 3/20/14, 4/4/14 or 4/25/14 printed on
the box.

    Quartered beef carcasses stamped with the USDA mark of
inspection and establishment number "EST. 2316."

The products were produced and packaged on various dates between
September 2013 and April 2014. The bone-in ribeye roasts were the
source material of concern.

Fruitland American Meat advises that the bone-in ribeye roasts
were distributed to a restaurant in New York, NY, and a Whole
Foods distribution center in Connecticut which services its stores
in New England. The quartered carcasses were distributed to an
FSIS-inspected establishment in Missouri for further processing
and distribution, and to a restaurant in Kansas City, Mo. All
products would have been processed into smaller cuts with no
identifying consumer packaging.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a review of company
slaughter logs. The problem may have occurred as a result of the
way some company employees were recording information and
determining the age of various cattle. Dorsal root ganglia,
branches of the nervous system located in the vertebral column are
considered specified risk materials (SRMs) and must be removed
from cattle 30 months of age and older in accordance with FSIS
regulations. SRMs are tissues that may contain the infective agent
in cattle infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as
well as materials that are closely associated with these
potentially infective tissues. Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from
use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the BSE
agent.

Every animal received ante-mortem inspection by an FSIS Public
Health Veterinarian. This involves observing each animal at rest
and in motion and there is no indication that any of the cattle
slaughtered displayed any signs of BSE.

FSIS and Fruitland American Meat have received no reports of
adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone
concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
company sales manager James Fortner at 573-243-3107.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at askkaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-
674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


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

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

The affected products include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information visit GreenSmoothieGirl.com.

Email -- gsgchiarecall2014@gmail.com

Recall Hotline - 435-625-1596


GROWLIFE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of all purchasers of GrowLife, Inc.  common stock
between November 14, 2013 and April 9, 2014, inclusive.

Investors who purchased GrowLife common stock during the Class
Period may move the Court to appoint them as lead plaintiff, no
later than June 17, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Investors in GrowLife who wish to discuss this action
or the lead plaintiff selection process may contact Berger &
Montague, P.C., toll free at 1-888-891-2289, or by e-mail at
elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the class action complaint can be viewed on Berger &
Montague, P.C.'s website at www.bergermontague.com or may be
requested from the Court.  The case is Wolf v. GrowLife, Inc., No.
2:14-cv-04112.

        Background on the GrowLife Securities Class Action

GrowLife develops, markets and deploys products and services
addressing the needs of legal cannabis growing and retail
operations, including hydroponic growing equipment and retail
support software.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) defendants had valued GrowLife shares issued to
company insiders at far below then-current market prices, and
concealed and underreported the actual value of such payments; (2)
defendants had provided inaccurate and/or inadequate information
in GrowLife's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") about the stock-based compensation it paid
to its current and former officers and directors; (3) defendants'
improper valuations of stock-based compensation to insiders caused
GrowLife's publicly reported financials to be materially misstated
and in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4)
defendants had engaged in manipulative transactions involving
GrowLife common stock, including substantial insider stock sales
immediately before the SEC suspending trading in the company's
securities.

On April 10, 2014, the SEC temporarily halted trading of GrowLife
securities, stating that "[t]he Commission temporarily suspended
trading in the securities of PHOT because of questions that have
been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of information in the
marketplace and potentially manipulative transactions in PHOT's
common stock."

When trading of the Company's stock resumed on April 25, 2014, the
price of GrowLife shares dropped $0.29 per share, or 58% from a
previous closing price of $0.50 on April 9, 2014, to close at
$0.21 per share on April 25, 2014, on extremely high trading
volume.

                About Berger & Montague, P.C.

Berger & Montague, P.C., with over 50 attorneys, represents
plaintiffs in complex and class action litigation. The firm has
played lead roles in major cases for over 40 years, resulting in
recoveries of billions of dollars for its clients and the classes
they represent.

For more information, please contact:

     Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
     Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-3038
     Email: elechtzin@bm.net


HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Dismisses Smedt's Second Amended Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila, in an order dated May 30, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/rGKlEdfrom
Leagle.com granted a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint
in the case captioned SUZANNE SMEDT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL
GROUP, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03029-EJD, (N.D. Cal.).

Ms. Smedt filed this putative class action against Hain Celestial
alleging that several of Defendant's products have been improperly
labeled so as to amount to misbranding and deception in violation
of several California and federal laws.  The Plaintiff asserts
claims regarding eleven products she did not buy.  Specifically,
the Plaintiff argues that these representations on the packaging
of the Defendant's food products were unlawful and/or misleading:
(1) "no trans fat" (2) "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") and (3)
"all natural."

According to Judge Davila, the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring
claims as to unpurchased products and the claims are dismissed
without prejudice. The Plaintiff's claims regarding evaporated
cane juice as well as claims for unpurchased products are
dismissed without prejudice, he added.

Suzanne Smedt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore --
pgore@prattattorneys.com -- Pratt & Associates & Charles F.
Barrett -- charles@cfbfirm.com -- Charles Barrett, P.C..

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by William
Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
-------------------------------------------------
Health Matters America Inc. of Cheektowaga, New York is
voluntarily recalling Organic Traditions Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
and Sprouted Chia/Flax Seed Powder due to possible Salmonella
contamination. Health Matters America has taken immediate action
to voluntarily recall Organic Traditions Sprouted Chia Seed Powder
and Sprouted Chia/Flax Seed Powder in order to ensure the safety
of its customers.

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

The products included in this voluntary recall include:

    ORGANIC TRADITIONS SPROUTED CHIA SEED POWDER Lot numbers
BIO13SBCS275, BIO13SBCS290, BIO14SBCS290, BIO13SBCS310,
BIO13SBCS330, BIO13SBCS353, BIO13SBCS364; NET WT. 8 oz. UPC
854260006162, and NET WT. 16 oz. UPC 854260005462; and cartons
containing 50 LB. bulk bags;

    ORGANIC TRADITIONS SPROUTED CHIA & FLAX SEED POWDER Lot
numbers BIO13SFCB273, BIO13SFCB288, BIO13SFCB305, BIO13SFCB310,
BIO13SFCB345, BIO13SFCB350; NET WT. 8 oz. UPC 854260006216, and
NET WT. 16 oz. UPC 854260005479; and cartons containing 50 LB.
bulk bags;

Organic Traditions Sprouted Chia seed powder and Organic
Traditions Sprouted Chia & Flax seed powder were sold to
distributors, retailers, and through internet sales in the
following states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota,
New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

No other Organic Traditions products are affected by this recall.

Consumers that have purchased any of these products with the
stated lot numbers are asked not to consume the product and
discard it or return the product to the original point of
purchase.

Health Matters America is working closely with the FDA on this
matter. Health Matters America is committed to the highest quality
food products with a mandate to provide nutrient-dense, organic
foods for the optimal well-being of its customers.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-343-
3278, ext. 730, Monday - Friday, 9am -5pm ET.


HENRICO COUNTY, VA: Firefighters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weymouth and James Redford, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. County of Henrico, Virginia, Case No.
3:14-cv-00419-REP (E.D. Va., June 6, 2014), is brought on behalf
of those who are or were employed with the title of "Captain"
within the Henrico Fire Department.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime for the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated under the federal law, which establishes
the overtime compensation due to fire fighters and other emergency
responders based on the duties performed and irrespective of job
title.

The Henrico Fire Department is the primary fire, rescue and
emergency services agency in the County of Henrico, Virginia,
providing municipal fire prevention and suppression and other
tasks.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC
          707 East Main Street, Suite 1025
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788-0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
          E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com
                  pdean@curwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Harris Dewey Butler, III, Esq.
          Zev Hillel Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 648-6814
          E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                  zev.antell@butlerroyals.com


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Removed "Del Campo" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Berta Martin Del
Campo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, et al., Case
No. BC538899, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shannon R. Boyce, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: sboyce@littler.com


IMECA HIALEAH: Never Paid Extra Half Time OT Rate, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Gregorio Blanco Chirino and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Imeca Hialeah, L.L.C., Imeca II, L.L.C.,
Imeca Payroll, LLC, and Tony Cocchiola, Case No. 1:14-cv-22107-UU
(S.D. Fla., June 6, 2014), alleges that the Plaintiff worked an
average of 51.5 hours a week for the Defendants but was never paid
the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a
week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Imeca Hialeah, L.L.C., IMECA II, L.L.C., and Imeca Payroll, LLC
are limited liability companies that regularly transact business
within Dade County.  Tony Cocchiola is a corporate officer, owner
or manager of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


INFOBLOX INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Infoblox, Inc. common
stock during a class period of September 6, 2013 to February 10,
2014.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, and names Infoblox, Inc.,
Robert Thomas (Chief Executive Officer), and Remo Canessa (Chief
Financial Officer) as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants falsely lauded Infoblox as a
financially successful company, repeatedly emphasizing the
company's strong revenues and proclaiming that the company was
entering "fiscal 2014 with significant momentum and expect[ed]
[2014] to be another year of strong execution," when, in fact,
Infoblox had secretly implemented enormous discounting in order to
maintain market share, and was failing to close on big-ticket
deals that had previously driven its revenue growth.  While
defendants were falsely touting Infoblox's financial strength,
Infoblox insiders sold $21.25 million of their personal holdings
of Infoblox common stock.

If you purchased Infoblox, Inc. (BLOX) common stock between
September 6, 2013 and February 10, 2014, you may, no later than
July 29, 2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation, and
you must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead
plaintiff.

To learn more about the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of the
complaint, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mark C. Gardy at
Gardy & Notis, LLP, Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, New York, NY
10022, Telephone: 212-905-0509, Fax: 212-905-0508, email:
mgardy@gardylaw.com

CONTACT: Mark C. Gardy
         GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
         Tower 56
         126 East 56th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Tel: 212-905-0509
         Fax: 212-905-0508
         E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
         Website: www.gardylaw.com


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant in Two Shareholder Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported shareholder class actions alleging Securities Act
violations were filed against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
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 February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder
class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were
filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014.

The lawsuits allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10,
2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the
Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had
been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy
analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9,
2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain
information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the
FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. The
plaintiffs in each suit seek unspecified monetary damages on
behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees. On April 22, 2014, two individuals each
moved to consolidate the cases and to be appointed as the lead
plaintiff. Those motions are currently pending before the Court.

Additional complaints may be filed against the Company and its
directors and officers related to its disclosures.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit. At
this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of
these lawsuits or whether the outcome will be material to the
Company. Therefore, the Company has not accrued for any loss
contingencies related to these lawsuits.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of therapeutics
to treat chronic liver diseases utilizing its bile acid chemistry.


J2 GLOBAL: Trial in Amended TCPA Complaint Set for Jan. 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
An existing purported class action against j2 Global, Inc.,
alleging, among other things, violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, is set for trial in late January 2016, 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 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Company ("Paldo"),
filed an amended complaint adding j2 Global, j2 Canada, and a
former j2 Canada employee, Tyler Eyamie ("Eyamie"), as additional
defendants in an existing purported class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from a customer's alleged use of the j2
Canada system to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. On
August 23, 2013, Paldo filed a second amended complaint to add a
second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"). j2 Global and j2 Canada
filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which
was granted. Paldo and Sabon seek statutory damages, costs,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief for the remaining TCPA
claims. Eyamie filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, which was granted on March 11, 2014. The discovery
period commenced on April 17, 2014, and will close in August 2015.
The case is set for trial in late January 2016.

j2 Global, Inc. is a provider of services delivered through the
Internet. The Company provides cloud services to businesses of all
sizes, from individuals to enterprises. The Company operates in
two segments: Business Cloud Services and Digital Media. The
Company's Digital Media business segment consists of the Web
properties and business operations of Ziff Davis, Inc. (Ziff
Davis). The Company's cloud services and solutions include fax,
voice and unified communications, email and customer relationship
management, online backup, global network and operations, and
customer support services. In February 2013, it acquired IGN
Entertainment, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Critical
Software Ltd., the United Kingdom-based Email Security and
Management company operating under the brand name iCritical.


J2 GLOBAL: Moved to Dismiss Amended eFax(R) Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc., filed a motion on April 7, 2014, to dismiss an
amended complaint alleging, among other things, breach of contract
due to the users' difficulties in the cancellation of their
eFax(R) online fax accounts, 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 December 16, 2013, Anthony Jenkins filed a purported class
action against "j2 Global, carrying on business as eFax" in the
Central District of California. An amended complaint was filed on
March 18, 2014 adding two named plaintiffs. The amended complaint
includes causes of action for breach of contract, several state
statutory violations and conversion. The claims arose either out
of alleged difficulties some users encountered in canceling their
eFax(R) online fax accounts or out of j2 Global allegedly being
unjustly enriched and converting users' funds. The potential class
representatives are seeking damages, statutory damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and injunctive
relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of
persons allegedly similarly situated. On April 7, 2014, j2 Global
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have
yet to file a responsive pleading to the motion to dismiss.

j2 Global, Inc. is a provider of services delivered through the
Internet. The Company provides cloud services to businesses of all
sizes, from individuals to enterprises. The Company operates in
two segments: Business Cloud Services and Digital Media. The
Company's Digital Media business segment consists of the Web
properties and business operations of Ziff Davis, Inc. (Ziff
Davis). The Company's cloud services and solutions include fax,
voice and unified communications, email and customer relationship
management, online backup, global network and operations, and
customer support services. In February 2013, it acquired IGN
Entertainment, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Critical
Software Ltd., the United Kingdom-based Email Security and
Management company operating under the brand name iCritical.


KRAFT FOODS: Removed "Morales" Class Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Claudia Morales, et al. v.
Kraft Foods Group, Inc., et al., Case No. BC545131, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04387-JAK-PJW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Stevens, Esq.
          Shireen Mohsenzadegan, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: pstevens@milsteinadelman.com
                  smohsenzadegan@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM
          100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 917-1030
          Facsimile: (310) 917-1001
          E-mail: rclarkson@redlawllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kelly Marie Morrison, Esq.
          Kenneth K. Lee, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
          Telephone: (213) 239-5100
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
          E-mail: kmorrison@jenner.com
                  klee@jenner.com


LA FINQUITA: Recalls Cheese Product Due to Undeclared Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
La Finquita, LLC of Stamford, CT is voluntarily recalling one lot
of La Finquita Quesito Fresco Campesino Fresh Farmer's Cheese, as
a precautionary measure, because it may be adulterated with
peanuts and tree nuts (pistachios).  People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to peanuts or tree nuts (pistachios) run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The product was distributed through retail stores in Connecticut,
New Jersey and New York.

The product is labeled as La Finquita Quesito Fresco Campesino /
Fresh Farmer's Cheese.  The product is packaged in a 14.11oz.
plastic container, UPC Code: 0 94922 76809 4, with sell by date
06/28/14.

No other products are affected by this recall.

The recall was initiated after being informed by our milk
supplier, that the milk used to manufacture the cheese may be
contaminated with peanuts and tree nuts (pistachios).

No complaints or associated illnesses have been reported.

Consumers are urged not to consume these products and to destroy
the products or return them to the retailer where purchased for a
refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (203)561-8140
/ (203)561-3929


LANSAL INC: Recalls Egg White Salad With Chives Due To Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared foods manufacturer, Lansal, Inc.(d.b.a. Hot Mama's
Foods), announced that as a precaution it is voluntarily recalling
304 containers (approximately 114 pounds) of Trader Joe's Egg
White Salad with Chives packaged in 6-ounce plastic containers due
to concerns about possible Listeria monocytogenes, an organism,
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled Egg White Salad with Chives was distributed to Trader
Joe's grocery stores in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio & Wisconsin.

The voluntary recall applies to product in a 6 ounce, plastic
container with UPC # 00666695 and a SELL BY Date of JUN 10, 2014,
stamped on the edge of the lid.

The potential for contamination was found during a routine testing
by the Company. No illnesses have been reported.

Lansal, Inc. has contacted the retailer and distributors
instructing them to remove all affected product from sale and is
working with the appropriate agencies including state Departments
of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and local authorities.

Consumers who have purchased the product code are urged not to eat
it and to dispose of it or return it to the place of purchase for
a full refund. Consumers with any questions may call toll free
(877) 877-907-7508 from 8:00A.M. to 8:00P.M. Central Daylight
Time, 7 days a week.


MOTEL 6: Judgment Reserved on Appeal Bond Bid in "Gould" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California court on November 5, 2013, granted final approval of
a class action settlement in MONICA GOULD ET AL v. MOTEL 6 INC. ET
AL, NO. 2:09-CV-08157-CAS(FMOX), (C.D. Cal.).  On December 16,
2013, classmembers Natalia S. Absey and Vera Moscaliuc (the
objectors) filed a motion to reconsider and/or vacate the Court's
order granting final approval. On January 10, 2014, the Court
denied the objectors' motion, and subsequently denied the
objectors' motion to amend the Court's order denying their motion
to reconsider and/or vacate.  The Objectors appealed. The
Plaintiffs moved, on May 8, 2014, for an order requiring objectors
to post an appeal bond.  On May 22, 2014, the objectors filed a
motion to strike the plaintiffs' motion for an appeal bond.

Judge Christina A. Snyder finds that, as a general matter, an
appeal bond is appropriate.  "Accordingly, if plaintiffs wish to
seek a bond based on their anticipated Rule 39(e) costs,
plaintiffs may . . . lodge a declaration with this Court setting
forth their expected costs, if any. At that point the Court will
determine if a bond should be required, and if so, in what
amount," she says.

The Court reserved judgment on the plaintiffs' motion for an
appeal bond. The Court also denied the objectors' motion to
strike.

A copy of Judge Snyder's May 29, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/btYeZQfrom Leagle.com.

Monica Gould, Plaintiff, represented by Farzad Rastegar, Rastegar
& Matern, Matthew John Matern, Matern Law Group & Thomas Stephen
Campbell, Rastegar & Matern.

Patricia Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
   Thomas Stephen Campbell, Esq.
   Rastegar & Matern.
   1010 Crenshaw Blvd #100
   Torrance, CA 90501
   Telephone: (310) 218-5500

        - and -

   Matthew John Matern, Esq.
   Matern Law Group
   1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
   Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
   Telephone: (310) 531-1900
   Facsimile: (310) 531-1901

Rosalinda Barragan, Plaintiff, represented by Farzad Rastegar,
Rastegar & Matern, Matthew John Matern, Matern Law Group & Thomas
Stephen Campbell, Rastegar & Matern.

Accor North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

   Michael F Marino, III, Esq.
   Rocio Herrera, Esq.
   Timothy Michael Rusche, Esq.
   Seyfarth Shaw LLP
   Los Angeles - Downtown
   333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
   Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
   Telephone: (213) 270-9600
   Facisimile: (213) 270-9601

      - and -

   Christiane Autumn Roussell, Esq.
   M Brett Burns, Esq.
   Hunton and Williams LLP
   e-mail: croussell@hunton.com
           mbrettburns@hunton.com

Motel 6 Operating L.P., Defendant, represented by Michael F
Marino, III, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rocio Herrera, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Christiane Autumn Roussell, Hunton & Williams LLP & M Brett Burns,
Hunton and Williams LLP.


MR. G'S: Exotic Dancers Seek Class Action Status for Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for PennLive, reports that four exotic
dancers who claim an East Shore club violated the law by making
them live on tips alone are asking a federal judge to grant class
action status to their lawsuit against Mr. G's Entertainment Inc.

If Judge John E. Jones III agrees, the wage lawsuit the quartet is
pursuing in U.S. Middle District Court would be opened to any
dancer who worked within the last three years at Club 22, a
Mr. G's establishment on Jonestown Road in Harrisburg.

Mr. G. is opposing the class action request by Nashanda Watson,
Jacqulene Carter, Talya Blackwell-Young and Alexis Harr.

Ms. Watson launched the legal assault in December by filing the
lawsuit and claiming Mr. G's broke the law by not paying its
entertainers even the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. She
and the other plaintiffs, who joined the lawsuit in the past few
months, contend that dancers received no pay from the club and
were expected to share any tips they received from customers with
disc jockeys and pay a "house fee."  Also, the dancers argue that
they should have been paid overtime, when they worked more than a
40-hour week.

Mr. G's has replied to the lawsuit by claiming the dancers are
"independent contractors," not club employees, and that minimum
wage and overtime laws therefore do not apply.

The women claim they were in fact employees of the club since it
set rules for their attendance, deportment and performances,
including a requirement that they change positions at least every
30 seconds during their acts.

In arguing for class-action status, Dean R. Fuchs and Lori K.
Serratelli, the attorneys for the women, cite cases in other
states where that status was granted to wage lawsuits lodged by
entertainers in adult clubs.  If that status is approved for the
Mr. G's case, they want the court to order the club to provide
names and contact information for all dancers who would be
eligible to join the lawsuit.  They also want Jones to require
that notice of the class action be posted prominently in the
dressing room of Club 22.

"All entertainers perform the same primary job duties -- to
entertain Club 22's customers by dancing on stage, performing
personal dances for customers, and spending time with customers in
semi-private rooms," a memorandum filed by Fuchs and Serratelli
states.

Court filings indicate that three more dancers have filed notice
that they intend to join the case.  Those filings don't indicate
how many others might be eligible to jump in if class action
status is granted.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wants to Delay O'Bannon Anti-Trust Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the National
Collegiate Athletic Association has made yet another late bid to
delay the trial of a class-action, anti-trust lawsuit concerning
the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses, as well
as the limits on what athletes can receive for playing sports.

The trial, which involves plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball
player Ed O'Bannon, was scheduled to begin June 9 in U.S. District
Court in Oakland.

On May 29, however, lawyers for the association -- in what they
classified as an emergency petition -- asked the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals to:

   -- Require District Judge Claudia Wilken to vacate her order
scheduling the O'Bannon anti-trust trial to begin June 9.

   -- Issue its own order that the trial in the anti-trust lawsuit
be held no earlier than a trial in a related, but now separate
lawsuit, concerning the depiction of athletes in video games.  The
video-games case, which involves plaintiffs led by former Arizona
State and Nebraska football player Sam Keller, has been scheduled
for late March 2015.

The NCAA's petition asked the appeals court to rule by 8:30 a.m.
(Pacific Time) on June 9, when the O'Bannon trial is set to
convene, but the trial could begin and then be halted by the
appeals court.

This is the fifth filing the NCAA has made in the past five weeks
that has sought to delay and/or redefine a case that is nearing
trial almost five years after it began.  One of the previous four
motions also was made with the 9th Circuit, and a three-judge
panel rejected it without comment.

At issue in this bid is the NCAA's contention that there are
issues overlapping issues between the Keller case, which includes
a monetary damages claim and would involve a jury trial, and the
O'Bannon case, which has been narrowed to a bid for an injunction
that will be decided Judge Wilken in what is known as a bench
trial.  The NCAA is arguing that elements of the O'Bannon case
related to video games will have to be heard by the jury in the
Keller case, so a ruling that Judge Wilken makes in the O'Bannon
case could affect how a jury rules in Keller case.  That, claims
the NCAA, would result in a violation of its Seventh Amendment
right to an un-encumbered jury hearing of its side in the Keller
case before Judge Wilken rules in the O'Bannon case.

This line of argument rose from maneuvering that occurred two
weeks ago, just before a deadline for the NCAA and the O'Bannon
plaintiffs to file certain pre-trial materials with Judge Wilken.
Up to that point, in addition to the injunction, lawyers for the
plaintiffs had been seeking to pursue individual monetary damages
for the roughly 20 named plaintiffs. That would have meant a trial
involving both a jury deciding the monetary damages claim and
Wilken ruling on the injunction (only judges can grant
injunctions).

Also up to that point, the Keller case had been joined with the
O'Bannon case, even though -- as a practical matter -- it was a
separate proceeding.  The Keller case involves a legal theory
involving personalities' right to control the use of their names,
images and likenesses, also known as the right of publicity.  It
also is focused almost entirely on video games, while the O'Bannon
case is an anti-trust action involving video games and an array of
other ways in which athletes' names and likenesses are used in
college sports marketing, merchandising and broadcasting.

However, just before the deadline, the plaintiffs decided not to
pursue the individual claims, which meant the case would be
decided solely by Judge Wilken, who last week formally separated
the Keller case from the O'Bannon case, rejected the NCAA's
Seventh Amendment argument and ordered the trial to begin in the
O'Bannon case as scheduled.

"The petition filed [] with the Court of Appeals makes clear the
NCAA's serious concerns about potential violations of the
Constitution resulting from the plaintiffs' last-minute
maneuvering to obtain a bench trial," the NCAA's chief legal
officer Donald Remy said in a statement.  "While the NCAA does not
take this step lightly, it could not abandon its right to a jury
trial without seeking further review."

The O'Bannon plaintiffs' lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, told USA
TODAY Sports that the NCAA's move was "a final grasp to avoid a
trial before the court on June 9.  It is directly contradictory to
the position asserted by the NCAA when it opposed consolidation of
the O'Bannon and Keller cases (much earlier in the proceedings).
It also seems to reflect an attitude of the association that it
can say whatever it wants to any court, as long as it doesn't say
the same thing to the same court."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued for Capping Value of Athletic Scholarships
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Harris, writing for The State Journal, reports that the
National Collegiate Athletic Association is under fire again, this
time by a former West Virginia University football player who
contends the athletic scholarships awarded by member schools fall
short of the actual cost of attendance.

Nick Kindler, an offensive lineman from 2009-13, filed an
antitrust class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and its member
conferences, the Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC, claiming
they agreed to unlawfully cap the value of athletic scholarships.
The suit seeks to represent former NCAA Division I football bowl
subdivision scholarship players from February 2010 on.

Mr. Kindler is represented by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sopol
Shapiro, which also represents Kindler's former teammate, Shawne
Alston, who filed a similar suit in March.  The suit complains
that college athletes "are essentially working full-time football
jobs and going to school."

"The NCAA and Power Conference defendants have studied and
acknowledged that a so-called 'full ride' scholarship does not
cover the full cost of attending school," it stated.  "Athletes
are often a few thousand dollars short for the typical expenses of
a student.  These costs include money for gas, food and other
necessities (while) the average salary for major college football
coaches is over $2 million, with some coaches earning over $7
million.  The top football schools earn enormous amounts from
football."

The complaint says the NCAA and its member conferences "unlawfully
cap the value" of athletic scholarships: substantially below what
a player would receive for his services in a competitive market,
and at an amount below what it costs to attend school."

It quotes NCAA President Mark Emmert as acknowledging the
inadequacy of the grant-in-aid to athletes in a December 2013
interview in which he said they've "been working on that for 2.5
years.  They were talking about that long before I showed up.  We
don't need a lawsuit to do the right thing.  That's important for
people to know."

It also points out that NCAA created the problem when it imposed a
cap on grants-in-aid in 1956 and by subsequently removing the
cost-of-attendance stipend in 1976.

"Despite the NCAA's public comments concerning the needs of
college athletes, the collusive cap on grants-in-aid remains in
place," the suit states, adding that the cap "has imposed a lower
standard of living and significant hardship" on the athletes, who
it says have much less time and ability to earn money through
part-time jobs than do other students.

The suit points out total revenue for the 242 Division I schools
in 2011 was "well over $3 billion, with the majority coming from
the 120 Football Bowl subdivision schools."  It also pointed out
that some conference leaders have argued in favor of the NCAA
allowing them the autonomy to give athletes stipends to plug the
gap between their scholarship and the actual cost of attendance.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, accuses the NCAA and its members agencies of
conspiring to violate antitrust laws and restraining free trade,
and seeks an injunction barring the NCAA from enforcing the cap
and a declaratory judgment voiding the cap as well as unspecified
damages, pointing out that athletes "have been promised by their
colleges and coaches that their educational pursuits will be fully
supported with a 'full' scholarship, but, despite record revenues,
they have never fully funded this promise.  This leaves most
players and their families unprepared for the financial demands
that they must address."

It suggests NCAA and member schools have "reasonable, and less
restrictive alternatives" open to them, including offering
athletes competitive financial aid packages from which to choose.

"Such incremental competition would allay the fears (even though
unfounded) of those that decry the repercussions of an
instantaneous transition to a wide-open free market, with every
school making its own independent decisions," it said.

Without the NCAA restrictions, the suit says schools "would
compete for heavily recruited athletes like Kindler and pay at
least the full cost of attendance."  It seeks an injunction to
prohibit any agreement on capping GIAs below the cost of
attendance and past damages for players who had to pay the
difference between their scholarship and the cost of attendance as
a result of the agreement.  It also sees unspecified damages, plus
attorney fees and court costs.

A statement issued by Hagens Berman quotes Kindler as saying
change is "long overdue."

"From early on in my college playing career, I noticed that
players very often got the short end of the stick on a number of
basic issues," he said.  "The only answer I could get as to why
was, 'That's how the system is.'

"I hope that now I can help change that NCAA system for the
better.  It's the right thing to do."

Ms. Kindler graduated from WVU with an undergraduate degree in
criminology and investigations, a master's in legal studies and an
estimated $15,000 in student debt.  He's currently working to
complete an additional graduate certificate in non-profit
management at WVU, the suit stated.

An NCAA spokesman could not be reached for comment by press time.


NATIONAL UNION: Sued Over Group Disability Insurance in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Watson and Maria Watson, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a
Putative Class v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA, American International Group, Inc., d/b/a AIG
Insurance Trust, for the Account of HealthExtras, HealthExtras,
Inc., Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., Catamaran Health Solutions,
LLC, HealthExtras, LLC, Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., Alliant
Services Houston, Inc., and Virginia Surety Company, Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-01312 (E.D. La., June 6, 2014), arises from the
Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct toward the Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated in Louisiana and the United States of
America.

The Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct included a scheme, which
involved fraudulent advertising, marketing, and sale of purported
group disability insurance to Louisiana residents, who were not
members of any group for which the insurance product was
authorized.  The Plaintiffs contend that this purported insurance
coverage was marketed and sold to Louisiana residents for over a
decade, despite the knowledge by each Defendant that the product
was illegal and that the purported insurance coverage held
pursuant to the Scheme is fraudulent and illusory because there
was no intention to pay claims under that purported coverage.

New York-based National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, P.A., is a Pennsylvania corporation and has done
business at all relevant times in the state of Louisiana.
National Union was owned by American International Group, Inc. and
now is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chartis U.S., Inc.  National
Union is licensed as an insurance company and underwriter in the
state of Louisiana and the United States of America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com
                  sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
          HEMMINGS & STEVENS, PLLC
          5613 Duraleigh Road, Suite 151
          PO Box 90698
          Raleigh, NC 27675
          Telephone: (919) 277-0161
          Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
          E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com

               - and -

          Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq.
          THE AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM
          1772 Platt Place
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 215-9873
          Facsimile: (334) 213-5663
          E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com


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

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

The affected products were distributed nationally and include:

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

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

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

No other Navitas Naturals products are affected by this recall.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fees Assessed on Borrowers' Accounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lou Vega, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
public similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a
Florida corporation, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-04408 (C.D. Cal.,
June 6, 2014), concerns alleged fraudulent practices committed by
Ocwen in connection with its home mortgage loan servicing
business.

Taking advantage of the economic downturn and the increasing
number of loans in default, Ocwen services loans according to
uniform practices designed to maximize fees assessed on borrowers'
accounts when they are behind on their payments, Ms. Vega asserts.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation headquartered
in Atlanta, Georgia.  Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is Delaware
limited liability company, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ocwen Financial Corporation and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.  Ocwen Loan Servicing is licensed to service
mortgage loans in all 50 states, including California, the
District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          Michael Isaac Miller, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com
                  imiller@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq.
          David A. Parsiola, Esq.
          COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR, L.L.C.
          8397 Highway 23, Suite 100
          Belle Chasse, LA 70037
          Telephone: (504) 394-9000
          Facsimile: (504) 394-9110
          E-mail: pcossich@cossichlaw.com
                  dparsiola@cossichlaw.com


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

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

The recalled product is identified and distributed as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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


ON TRAC: Removed "Tirado" Suit to Southern District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Tirado v. On Trac Rent A
Car, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-009914-CA-01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
22096-MGC to the proceeding.

The Complaint includes a count for alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiffs' overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and one count for retaliatory discharge under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jsr@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carmen Rodriguez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
          Palmetto Bay Centre
          15715 South Dixie Highway, Suite 411
          Miami, FL 33157
          Telephone: (305) 254-6101
          Facsimile: (305) 254-6048
          E-mail: crlaborlaw@gmail.com


OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: July Class Action Deal Objection Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. and its affiliated debtors and
court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action styled In re OSG Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 12-cv-07948-SAS (S.D.N.Y.), pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 20,
2014, entered into a stipulation providing for settlement and
resolution of Lead Plaintiffs' claims against the Debtors pursuant
to the alternative plan of reorganization.  The Plan has the
support of certain holders of existing equity interests of the
Company representing approximately 30% of the existing common
stock of OSG.

On May 23, the Court approved those stipulations.

The Court also has preliminarily certified the putative class for
the purposes of the settlement.

The lead plaintiffs are Stichting Pensioenfonds DSM Nederland,
Indiana Treasuer of State and Lloyd Crawford.

As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 26, 2014,
pursuant to the Securities Class Stipulation, the Debtors have
agreed to provide in the Amended Equity Plan for allowance of the
Lead Plaintiffs' claims, on behalf of a class of persons who,
between October 29, 2007 and October 19, 2012, purchased (i)
8.125% Senior Notes due 2018 issued or traceable to the $300
million public offering on or about March 24, 2010 or (ii) OSG
common stock.

The claims will be allowed, in full, final and complete settlement
of any claims Lead Plaintiffs or members of the Putative Class
have or could have asserted against the Debtors through the
following distributions:

     (i) $7 million in cash, payable by the Debtors on the
         initial distribution date for the Amended Equity Plan;

    (ii) 15% of the Net Proceeds of the Debtors' professional
         liability action against Proskauer Rose LLP and certain
         individual defendants;

   (iii) $5 million in cash, payable by Reorganized OSG upon
         resolution of the Professional Liability Action;

    (iv) $3 million in cash, payable by Reorganized OSG on the
         first anniversary of the effective date of the Amended
         Equity Plan; (envy) proceeds of any of the Debtors'
         residual interests in certain director and officer
         insurance policies; and

    (vi) any remaining cash in a $2 million reserve, after
         accounting for satisfaction or resolution of other
         subordinated claims.

OSG revised the Plan to provide that a single Class (New Class E1)
will comprise all Subordinated Debt and Equity Claims, including
but not limited to Claim 1547 filed by the Lead Plaintiffs.  The
New Class E1 will be impaired.

OSG's original plan filed in March 2014, provided that all claims
of the Putative Class would be treated as Subordinated Claims and
classified together with Old OSG Equity Interests in Class E1,
regardless of whether the Putative Class claims were based on
purchase or sale of Debt Securities or Equity Securities.  The
Original Plan also provided that holders of Allowed Class E1
Claims would receive a pro rata share of Reorganized OSG Equity
equal to $61.4 million, subject to dilution on account of certain
events.

The First Amended Plan filed on May 2 provided that the Debt
Securities Claims would be classified in new Class E1 and Equity
Securities Claims would be in new Class E2.  The Holders of
Allowed Claim in E1 or E2 would receive its pro rata share of the
proceeds of any residual director and officer insurance, and to
the extent its Claim exceed that Pro Rata share, Cash equal to the
amount of the Allowed Claim form and subject to a reserve capped
at $2 million.

The Lead Plaintiffs objected to the treatment of their Claim
provided in both Plan versions.  The Debtors and the Lead
Plaintiffs engaged in negotiations to avoid costs and risks
inherent in litigating the Objection.

The Securities Class Stipulation resolves only the Lead
Plaintiffs' and Putative Class members' claims against the
Debtors.  The Lead Plaintiffs' claims pending in the District
Court against certain of the Debtors' current and former officers,
auditors and underwriters are unaffected.  The Securities Class
Stipulation provides for Lead Plaintiffs' agreement to support and
vote in favor of the Amended Equity Plan.  Allocation and
distribution to members of the Putative Class, as well as approval
of legal fees and reimbursement of expenses to counsel for Lead
Plaintiffs, will be resolved by the District Court, subject to
approval by the Bankruptcy Court.

A hearing will be held July 18 to consider confirmation of the
Plan.  At the hearing the Court will also consider whether the
Class Action Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and should
be approved on a final basis.

Objections to the Settlement are due July 11.

The Class is represented by Lead Counsel:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
     Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
     Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     28 South Service Road
     Melville, NY 11747

More information about the Class Action Settlement may be obtained
from the Lead Counsel or Kurtzman Carson Consultants, the claims
agent.

                     About Overseas Shipholding

Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (OTC: OSGIQ), headquartered in
New York, is one of the largest publicly traded tanker companies
in the world, engaged primarily in the ocean transportation of
crude oil and petroleum products.  OSG owns or operates 111
vessels that transport oil and petroleum products throughout the
world.


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Defendant in Securities Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit alleging, among other things,
violations of state securities laws was filed against Pacific
Continental Corporation, 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 August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with Berjac of
Oregon and Berjac of Portland, both currently in Chapter 11
bankruptcy. The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state
securities laws and aiding breach of fiduciary duty, names Pacific
Continental Bank, along with Holcomb Family Limited Partnership,
Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Trust, Jones & Roth, P.C.
and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. Claimants seek the return of the
money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus
interest, and costs and attorneys' fees, which are claimed to be
in excess of $10 million.

Pacific Continental Corporation is a bank holding company. The
Company's principal business activities are conducted through
Pacific Continental Bank (the Bank), an Oregon state-chartered
bank with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC). The Bank has two subsidiaries, PCB Service
Corporation (presently inactive), which formerly held and managed
Bank property, and PCB Loan Services (presently inactive), which
formerly managed certain other real estate owned. The Bank
operates in three primary markets: Portland, Oregon / Southwest
Washington; Seattle, Washington; and Eugene, Oregon. At December
31, 2011, the Bank operated 14 full-service offices and one loan
production office in six Oregon and four Washington cities. In
February 2013, it acquired Eugene-based Century Bank.


PALMETTO PERSONAL: Suit Seeks Wage at FLSA-Required Overtime Rate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorita Lynn Enagudia, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons v. Palmetto Personal Care Services, Inc. and
Shannon Cribb, Case No. 7:14-cv-00123-D (E.D.N.C., June 6, 2014),
is a collective action brought by a former employee seeking wages
at the overtime rate required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Palmetto Personal Care Services, Inc. is a South Carolina
corporation with its principal place of business located in Tabor
City, North Carolina.  Shannon Cribb is the President and
owner/operator of Palmetto.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class members were employed by the
Defendants to provide supervised companion care to various aged or
infirm persons in or around Tabor City, North Carolina, Ms.
Enagudia says.  She notes that more than 20% of the total weekly
hours of that work consisted of general household work or general
household services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1269
          5. W. Hargett Street, Suite 404
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821-1763
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


PEEKSKILL, NY: Faces Class Action Over "Unauthorized Transport"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that officials in an upstate New York school district stood by as
students were whisked off campus to receive physical exams and
birth control prescriptions without parental consent, parents of
one student claim in a class action.

Anthony and Eva Jackson allege that a school counselor and his
wife, who worked at a local health clinic, "agreed, conspired
and/or arranged" the trips, which occurred during school hours
beginning in June 2011 in the Peekskill City School District.

At the clinic, "plaintiffs' minor daughter was examined and
prescribed birth control pills before being transported back to
school . . . all without plaintiffs' knowledge, consent or
opportunity to opt out," the parents say in the lawsuit in
Westchester County Supreme Court.

The Jacksons say they alerted then-Superintendant James Willis to
the trips, and that Willis "did nothing, thereby implicitly but
affirmatively condoning" them.

Willis, the district and its school board are named as defendants.
Also named are James Tosto, who worked for the district as a
school counselor, and his wife, Dawn Tosto.  She is identified in
the complaint as an employee of the Hudson River Community Health
Clinic, who had access to school premises and students.  James
Tosto will retire from the district this month, according to
minutes of a January school board meeting at which the June
retirements of several district employees were approved.  The
minutes are posted online.

Peekskill, pop. 25,000, about 53 miles north of New York City, had
one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Westchester
County two decades ago, at 122 births per 1,000 females age 15-19,
according to The New York Times.  More recently, that rate is 47
per 1,000, state health statistics from 2009-11 show.

The Jacksons claim other students also were taken for exams and
given access to birth control.  They claim that James Tosto
arranged the "unauthorized transport," which Dawn Tosto provided,
from campus to the clinic.  The Jacksons say they learned of the
trips after their daughter began taking the birth control pills.
They claim the trips violated their due process rights under the
U.S. and New York constitutions.  They also contend the trips
violated provisions of state public health law that require
parental consent for health services provided to unemancipated
minors.

Because the defendants acted "willfully, maliciously,
intentionally, oppressively, and in reckless disregard of
plaintiffs' constitutional rights and the possible consequences of
their conduct," the Jacksons say punitive damages should be
awarded jointly and severally.  They also seek compensatory
damages, costs and fees.

They are represented by Mary Marzolla with Feerick Lynch
MacCartney in South Nyack.

Lorenzo Licopoli, who replaced Willis as interim district
superintendent in 2013, did not respond to an email Monday
afternoon seeking comment.

Willis, hired as superintendent in July 2011, retired last summer
in the middle of a four-year contract.  At the time, he said he
wanted to spend more time with his family, which lived out of
state.

The school board subsequently issued a statement that cited
"irreconcilable differences" with Willis, but said the parting was
amicable.  The board statement said Willis was paid six months'
severance and given health insurance benefits so long as he stayed
"retired and unemployed."


PELLA CORPORATION: 7th Cir. Reverses Judgment in "Eubank" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed the the judgment entered in the case captioned KENT
EUBANK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and LEONARD E. SALTZMAN, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PELLA CORPORATION and PELLA WINDOWS
AND DOORS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, NOS. 13-2091, 13-2133, 13-
2136, 13-2162, 13-2202.  The Seventh Circuit remanded the case for
further proceedings in conformity with its opinion.

"After eight largely wasted years, much remains to be done in this
case. For starters, Saltzman, Paul Weiss, and Weiss's firm,
Complex Litigation Group, must be replaced as class representative
(Saltzman), and as class counsel (Weiss and his firm),
respectively. And since we are rejecting the settlement agreement,
the plaintiffs named in the third amended complaint, whom that
agreement caused to be substituted for the original named
plaintiffs (other than Saltzman), must be discharged and the four
original named plaintiffs (whom we've called the "defrocked"
plaintiffs) reinstated, wrote Circuit Judge Posner in the June 2,
2014 ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/F4b2mh
from Leagle.com.


PETROLOGISTICS: Being Sold to Koch for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
PetroLogistics too cheaply through an unfair process to Koch
Industries, for $14 a share or $2.1 billion, shareholders claim in
a federal class action in Wilmington, Del.


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

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

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

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

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

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


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Defends Against 8 PNG Merger Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Eight purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of PNG
unitholders challenging the merger with Plains All American
Pipeline, L.P., according to Plains All American'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.

Two lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in
September 2013 and were consolidated under the caption In re PAA
Natural Gas Storage, Limited Partnership Unitholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 8908-VCL (the Consolidated Delaware Action). Two lawsuits
were filed in Texas state court in September 2013 and were
consolidated under the caption Vicars v. PNGS GP, LLC, et al.,
Cause No. 2013-52687 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Harris County) (the
Consolidated Texas Action). Four lawsuits were filed in Texas
federal court in October 2013 and were consolidated under the
caption The DuckPond Trust, et al., v. PAA Natural Gas Storage,
LP., et al., 4:13-cv-03170 (S.D. Tex.) (the Consolidated Federal
Action).

Plaintiffs in these Actions generally alleged that (i) the
individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to PNG
unitholders; (ii) the PNG Merger unfairly benefitted certain
members of PNG's board of directors; and (iii) PNG's general
partner, PNG and other of our affiliates aided and abetted the
alleged fiduciary breaches by the individual defendants. In
addition, the Consolidated Texas Action included purported
derivative claims on behalf of PNG based on the alleged breaches
of duties by the individual defendants. All of the PNG unitholder
suits were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs with no
settlement payments or concessions by PNG.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is engaged in the
transportation, storage, terminalling and marketing of crude oil
and refined products, as well as in the processing,
transportation, fractionation, storage and marketing of natural
gas liquids (NGL). The term NGL includes ethane and natural
gasoline products, as well as propane and butane, products, which
are also commonly referred to as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
The Company's operations are conducted directly and indirectly
through its primary operating subsidiaries. Through its general
partner interest in PAA Natural Gas Storage, L.P., it also owns
and operates natural gas storage facilities. The Company operates
in three segments: Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and
Logistics. In December 31, 2013, it completed the merger of PAA
Natural Gas Storage, L.P with a wholly owned subsidiary of Plains,
with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary
of PAA.


PRINCESS HOUSE: Recalls Plates Due to Cadmium and Lead Levels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Princess House, Inc., Taunton, MA, a nationwide direct sales
distributor of tableware and house goods, said that as a result of
internal compliance and independent product testing, it has very
recently become aware that a small quantity of its Marissa
Tangerine Appetizer Plates, when put into certain food service
use, may allow cadmium and lead in the decorative plate decal to
escape at levels exceeding U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") and/or California Proposition 65 guidance levels.

While not all Plates distributed by the Company have this
condition, Princess House is voluntarily recalling all these
Plates distributed through its consultant and hostess network. No
illness or injury related to this situation has been reported to
date.

Only the Tangerine Appetizer Plates are affected by this voluntary
recall and all other Marissa collection tableware are not
involved.

Product featured below depicts the Marissa Tangerine Appetizer
Plate that is the subject of this voluntary recall:

If you are a consumer with one or more of these Plates, you can
obtain information about product return and exchange for product
of equal or greater value by contacting your sales consultant or
hostess or by contacting Princess House directly at (877) 233-
1647. You can also review the voluntary recall page on the
Princess House website at www.princesshouse.com.

If you are a Princess House consultant or hostess, refer to the
mailing provided by the Company or contact the Company directly as
outlined.

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


PROGRESS ENERGY: Trial in Antitrust Lawsuit to Begin July 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
A certified class action complaint filed against Progress Energy,
Inc., alleging unfair price advantages, is set to begin trial on
July 27, 2015, 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 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial
and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio
in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs
alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and
unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by
entering into non-public option agreements in exchange for their
withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization
Plan (RSP) implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal
judge certified this matter as a class action. Trial has been set
to begin on July 27, 2015. It is not possible to predict whether
Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the
damages which may be incurred in connection with this lawsuit.

Progress Energy, Inc. is a utility holding company engaged in the
regulated electric utility business. It owns, directly or
indirectly, its utility subsidiaries, Progress Energy Carolinas,
Inc. (PEC) and Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). The Company's
segments are PEC and PEF, which are engaged in the generation,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of
North Carolina and South Carolina and in portions of Florida,
respectively. The Corporate and Other segment includes amounts
applicable to the activities of the Parent and Progress Energy
Service Company, LLC (PESC) and other miscellaneous non-regulated
businesses (Corporate and Other). Effective July 2, 2012, Duke
Energy Corporation merged with the Company.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc., disclosed 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 decision is pending
on the motion to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit alleging, among
other things, that the Company made materially false and
misleading representations in its Registration Statement filed on
July 7, 2011.

Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Duke Energy Board of Directors
who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy Board of
Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy
officers are defendants in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit
consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012, and is
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal
Securities Act and Exchange Act claims based on allegations of
materially false and misleading representations and omissions in
the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly
incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the
post-merger change in CEO. The claims are purportedly brought on
behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Duke Energy securities between June 11, 2012 and July 9,
2012. On July 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended the
District Court Judge deny the defendants' motion to dismiss. On
October 2, 2013, the District Judge heard defendants' objections
to this recommendation. A decision is pending on the motion to
dismiss. Mediation of the claims was scheduled for May 14, 2014.

Progress Energy, Inc. is a utility holding company engaged in the
regulated electric utility business. It owns, directly or
indirectly, its utility subsidiaries, Progress Energy Carolinas,
Inc. (PEC) and Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). The Company's
segments are PEC and PEF, which are engaged in the generation,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of
North Carolina and South Carolina and in portions of Florida,
respectively. The Corporate and Other segment includes amounts
applicable to the activities of the Parent and Progress Energy
Service Company, LLC (PESC) and other miscellaneous non-regulated
businesses (Corporate and Other).  Effective July 2, 2012, Duke
Energy Corporation merged with the Company.


PROTECTIVE SERVICE: Removed "Estupinan" Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants removed the purported class action lawsuit titled
Estupinan v. Protective Service Victory Corp., et al., Case No.
14-10454 CA 01, from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
22102-JLK to the proceeding.

In his complaint, Plaintiff Fernando Toro Estupinan seeks to
recover backpay he alleges he is owed for alleged violations by
the Defendants of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He seeks recovery
for alleged underpayment of the minimum wage, overtime, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stanley Kiszkiel, Esq.
          9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 94
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
          Telephone: (954) 862-2288
          Facsimile: (954) 862-2287
          E-mail: sklaw@kiszkiellaw.com


REACHLOCAL INC: Defendant in Unfair Competition Law Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
ReachLocal, Inc., is a defendant in a purported class action
alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California's unfair
competition law, 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 May 2, 2014, a lawsuit, purporting to be a class action, was
filed by one of the Company's former clients in the United States
District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law.
While the case is at an early stage, the Company believes that the
case is substantively and procedurally without merit.

The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and
claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Although
occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, management
believes that the final disposition of existing matters will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

ReachLocal, Inc. offers online marketing and reporting solutions,
including search engine marketing, display advertising,
remarketing and online marketing analytics, each targeted to the
small and medium-sized businesses (SMB) market.


RED ONION STATE: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Officials Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul Hamza Wali Muhammad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed a civil rights action captioned ABDUL HAMZA WALI MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, ET AL;, Defendant(s), CASE NO.
7:14CV00272, (W.D. Va.) alleging that prison officials at Red
Onion State Prison are failing to accommodate his religious
dietary beliefs properly.  The court has conditionally filed the
action, pending plaintiff's consent to pay the $350.00 filing fee.

Upon review of the record, however, Chief District Judge Glen E.
Conrad finds that the plaintiff's motion for interlocutory
injunctive relief and his request for certification of the case as
a class action must be denied.  In a memorandum opinion May 30,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NvzVVGfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Conrad held that Mr. Muhammad offers no
indication whatsoever that he is entitled to receive a religious
diet defined by a 1991 court order to officials at another
[Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC")] prison . . .  As
such, he cannot satisfy the four requirements for the
extraordinary relief he seeks, and the court must deny his motion
for preliminary injunction.

Abdul Hamza Wali Muhammad, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 30 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Regional
Management Corp. pursuant to the Company's public stock offerings
on September 20, 2013 at $27.50 per share and on December 5, 2013
at $31 per share (collectively, the "Offerings"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 30, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Regional Management, certain of its officers
and directors and the investment banks that underwrote the
Offerings with violations of the Securities Act in connection with
preparing and utilizing a materially false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectuses to conduct the Offerings.
Regional Management is a subprime consumer finance company,
providing various loan products primarily to subprime borrowers
with limited access to consumer credit from banks, thrifts, credit
card companies, and other traditional lenders.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectuses used to effectuate the Offerings failed to adequately
disclose the Company's (a) increasing deterioration of
underwriting standards, leading to higher percentages of
delinquencies and loan charge-offs; (b) failure to adequately
reserve for loan losses; and (c) repeated debt refinancing tactics
used to increase loan amounts and interest rates, a practice the
U.S. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was then actively
investigating and clamping down on.  In addition, defendants
misstated the Company's fourth quarter and fiscal 2012 financial
reports and failed to report defects in its internal controls.  As
these unscrupulous tactics and false financial statements came to
light, the stock price declined approximately 50% from what the
Offerings were priced at just months earlier.

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


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

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

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

Rite Aid Corporation is one of the nation's leading drugstore
chains with nearly 4,600 stores in 31 states and the District of
Columbia and fiscal 2014 annual revenues of $25.5 billion.
Information about Rite Aid, including corporate background and
press releases, is available through the company's website at
www.riteaid.com


SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued Over Delay in Generic Version of Zymar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartig Drug Company Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kyorin
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Allergan, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00719-UNA (D. Del., June 6, 2014), is an antitrust class action
lawsuit relating to Zymar or Zymaxid products.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in a scheme to
unlawfully exclude or delay generic competition in the market for
gatifloxacin opthalmic formulations (generic versions of Zymar or
Zymaxid).

The Defendants manufacture, market and sell brand name
pharmaceuticals Zymar and Zymaxid, which are used to treat
bacterial infections, particularly bacterial conjunctivitis or
pinkeye.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Clayton Athey, Esq.
          Eric Joseph Juray, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 King Street
          P.O. Box 1328
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 888-6500
          Facsimile: (302) 658-8111
          E-mail: jcathey@prickett.com
                  ejjuray@prickett.com

               - and -

          Brent W. Landau, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1604 Locust St., 2nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-3270
          Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
          E-mail: blandau@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mcoolidge@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
          FRANK & BIANCO LLP
          275 Madison Ave. #705
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1853
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: gfrank@frankandbianco.com


SILVERLEAF RESORTS: "Parker" Suit Moved From Houston to Dallas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Parker, et al. v. Silverleaf
Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00085, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02075-P to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq.
          Genevieve B. Estrada, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM PLLC
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528-4455
          Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
          E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark A. Shoffner, Esq.
          Cristina Iliana Torres, Esq.
          Marc D. Katz, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          1717 Main St., Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 659-4400
          Facsimile: (214) 659-4401
          E-mail: mshoffner@andrewskurth.com
                  cristinatorres@andrewskurth.com
                  marckatz@andrewskurth.com


SMITH'S COUNTRY: Recalls Waxed Gouda Wheels Due to Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smith's Country Cheese of Winchendon, MA is recalling 21 wheels of
Waxed Gouda, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Waxed Gouda wheels were distributed in Massachusetts by wholesale
distributors and further sold to retail stores.

The wheels are coated in red wax and wrapped in saran wrap with
various weights of whole wheels at 10 lbs and half wheels at 5
lbs. May have been cut and packaged at retail level for consumer
size units. There are labels on the front that read Smith's
Farmstead Gouda for whole wheels and Mountain Gouda for half
wheels. On the back of the wheel there is a weight label with a
julian date in the lower right hand corner that reads 4037.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling by the FDA which
revealed that the finished products contained the bacteria.

Consumers who have purchased Smith's Farmstead Gouda waxed wheels
are urged not to consume and to return them to Smith's Country
Cheese, Inc. at 20 Otter River Road, Winchendon, MA 01475 for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Smith's Country
Cheese, Inc. at 1-800-700-9974 Monday through Friday between 9:00
am to 5:00 pm EST.


SPIRIT REALTY: Signed MOU to Settle Cole II Merger Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., signed a memorandum of understanding
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims in the putative
class action in connection with the Cole Credit Property Trust II,
Inc., merger, 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 connection with the Merger, a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland against and purportedly on behalf of the Company
captioned Kendrick, et al. v. Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al.
The complaint names as defendants Spirit, the members of the board
of directors of Spirit, the Operating Partnership, Cole II and the
Cole Operating Partnership, and alleges that the directors of
Spirit breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair
process leading to the Merger Agreement, failing to disclose
sufficient material information for pre-merger Spirit stockholders
to make an informed decision regarding whether or not to approve
the Merger, agreeing to a Merger Agreement at an opportunistic and
unfair price, allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement, and engaging in self-interested
and otherwise conflicted actions. The complaint alleges that the
Operating Partnership, Cole II and the Cole Operating Partnership
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
seeks a declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties or aided and abetted such breaches and that the Merger
Agreement is unenforceable, an order enjoining a vote on the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescission of
the transactions in the event they are consummated, imposition of
a constructive trust, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other relief.

On June 4, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the named defendants in the
merger litigation signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU")
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein.
The MOU provides, among other things, that the parties will seek
to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the
release and dismissal of all asserted claims (the "Stipulation of
Settlement"). The Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the
court on January 22, 2014 for approval, however, the asserted
claims will not be released and dismissed until such stipulation
of settlement is approved by the court. There can be no assurance
that the court will approve the Stipulation of Settlement. The
Company does not expect that the terms of the settlement, if
approved by the court, would have a material adverse effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. is a Maryland corporation and operates
as a self-administered and self-managed REIT that seeks to
generate and deliver sustainable and attractive returns for
stockholders by investing primarily in and managing a portfolio of
single-tenant, operationally essential real estate throughout the
United States that is generally leased on a long-term, triple-net
basis primarily to tenants engaged in retail, service and
distribution industries.


STATE FARM: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Pellegrino" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In LOUIS PELLEGRINO; CHRISTINE PELLEGRINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
AFFILIATED INSURANCE COMPANIES, NO. 13-3571, Louis and Christine
Pellegrino appealed a District Court order granting State Farm
Fire and Casualty Company's motion to dismiss the Pellegrinos'
First Amended Class Action Complaint.

In an opinion dated June 2, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/UX82YWfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that the District Court
properly dismissed the Pellegrinos' breach of contract claim.
Because the Pellegrinos' bad faith and Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law claims require proof that State Farm
breached its contract, the Third Circuit concluded that the
District Court properly dismissed these claims as well.


STEREOTAXIS INC: Missouri Court Dismisses Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court granted Stereotaxis, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
purported securities class action alleging Securities Act
violations, 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 7, 2011, a purported
securities class action was filed against the Company and two of
the Company's past executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri by Kevin Pound, a purported
shareholder of the Company. On December 29, 2011, the court
granted an unopposed motion appointing Local 522 Pension Fund as
Lead Plaintiff in the action and granting Lead Plaintiff leave to
file an Amended Complaint, which Lead Plaintiff filed on March 19,
2012. The Amended Complaint alleged that, during the period from
February 28, 2011 through August 9, 2011, the Company and certain
of its officers made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition and future business
prospects, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Amended Complaint
sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such other
relief as the Court may deem appropriate. On May 18, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On July
24, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed its response to the motion to
dismiss, and on August 30, 2012, the Company filed its reply brief
in support of the motion to dismiss. On March 18, 2014, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered judgment in
favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
did not file a notice of appeal prior to the deadline of April 17,
2014."

Stereotaxis, Inc. is a United States-based company that develops
probes, devices, therapeutic and magnetic surgery delivery
systems.


TD AMERITRADE : Motion to Dismiss "Ross" Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
According to TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, 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, its
motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit is pending.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary
damages and equitable relief. On January 19, 2010, the defendants
submitted motions to dismiss the complaint. The motions are
pending.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a provider of securities
brokerage services and technology-based financial services to
retail investors, traders and independent registered investment
advisors (RIAs).


TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Dartell" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Dartell v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00089, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Virgin Islands to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03620 to the
proceeding.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
a class of those who purchased the common stock of Tibet in its
Initial Public Offering on January 24, 2011, or thereafter.  The
Complaint seeks to recover damages to the Class members caused by
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a British Virgin Islands
corporation that purportedly engages in the research, development,
manufacturing, marketing and selling of modernized traditional
Tibetan medicine in the People's Republic of China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel H. Holt, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOEL HOLT
          2132 Company Street, Suite 2
          St. Croix, VI 00820
          Telephone: (340) 773-8709
          Facsimile: (340) 773-8677
          E-mail: holtvi@aol.com

               - and -

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


UNIFUND CCR: 9th Cir. Remands Claims to Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, Unifund CCR Partners, a debt collection agency, sued
Kimberly Grant in Los Angeles County Superior Court for collection
of unpaid credit card debt. Ms. Grant did not respond to the
complaint. After the motion, the Superior Court entered default
judgment in favor of Unifund.  Ms. Grant filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the District Court for the Central District of
California on September 30, 2011, against Unifund CCR Partners and
Unifund Corporation ("Grant I"). This action asserted claims for
violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and state-law
claims for abuse of process and conversion.  On October 5, 2011,
Ms. Grant filed a motion in California state court to vacate the
prior state court judgment, claiming that she had never been
served with the complaint. The superior court denied the motion,
and Ms. Grant did not appeal.

The district court in Grant I granted Unifund's motion for summary
judgment on February 6, 2012. The court divided Grant's claims
into two classes. The first class was made up of those claims that
were premised on the allegation that Unifund "did not give
plaintiff proper written notice in order to alidate the alleged
debt before suing her, in violation of section 1692g(a) of the
FDCPA."  The Grant I court granted Unifund summary judgment on the
merits with regard to this first class of claims because Ninth
Circuit law requires only that a debt collector provide undisputed
evidence that a letter informing the debtor of the debt was mailed
to the debtor and not returned as undeliverable. Unifund provided
such evidence. The second class of Grant's claims were those
premised on Ms. Grant's remaining four allegations: "(1) that
plaintiff was never served with the summons and complaint in the
state court action; (2) that plaintiff does not owe the debt at
issue in the state court action; (3) that Unifund [] improperly
garnished her money; and (4) that the . . . Affidavit[s] submitted
in support of the request for default judgment w[ere] `false and
fraudulent.'"  The court held that these allegations constituted a
de facto appeal from Ms. Grant's state judgment.  Accordingly, the
Grant I court decided that "pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, the Court cannot entertain any claims premised on those
alleged wrongs," and therefore granted Unifund's summary judgment
with regard to them. Mr. Grant did not appeal that judgment.

On March 15, 2012, Grant filed a putative class action (Grant II)
in Los Angeles County Superior Court, naming Unifund CCR LLC and
Unifund Corp. as defendants. Ms. Grant's allegations are
substantially identical to those in Grant I. Defendants removed
Grant II under claim of federal question jurisdiction. The
district court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that it
was barred by res judicata. Grant moved for reconsideration,
arguing that the court should have remanded the action to state
court rather than dismiss with prejudice because the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine had deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction.
The district court denied Grant's motion for reconsideration. Ms.
Grant appealed both rulings.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms
the district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of the first class
of claims, but reverses and remands the second class of claims to
the district court with instructions to remand them to California
state court. Each party shall bear their own costs.

The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court was correct to
dismiss with prejudice Grant's first class of claims, however, it
found that the district court erred in dismissing with prejudice
the second class of claims.

The case is KIMBERLY GRANT, individually and on behalf of the
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. UNIFUND CCR, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
Defendant, And UNIFUND CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation and
UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, a New York partnership, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 12-56641.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 2, 2014 memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/VOmi8dfrom Leagle.com.


US SECURITY: Removed "Allan" Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shmenia Allan v. US Security
Associates Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS1406319, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Riverside).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:14-cv-01150-VAP-SP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Zareh Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1018
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 857-5900
          Facsimile: (323) 935-4919
          E-mail: bkokozian@kokozianlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com
                  lander@kbarnes.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julie Westcott O'Dell, Esq.
          Julie E. Patterson, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
          E-mail: julie.odell@bryancave.com
                  jepatterson@bryancave.com


VANEE FOODS: Recalls Turkey Base Product Due To Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vanee Foods, a Broadview, Ill. establishment is recalling
approximately 3,156 pounds of turkey base because of misbranding
and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The turkey
base which contains milk was misbranded as chicken base that does
not include milk.  As the product contains milk, a known allergen
which was not declared on the label, the product is being
recalled.

The product subject to recall is:

    Imperial Sysco Turkey Base in 1-lb. tubs labeled as Chicken
Base with SUPC # 4944450, 6 per case with case codes 01734-6700
ending in 0784-5; the outer cases are labeled as Turkey Base

The product, produced on March 19, 2014, bears the establishment
number "P-19339" inside the USDA mark of inspection both on the
product and on the cases containing the product.  After
production, the products were shipped to food service distribution
centers in Pennsylvania, Florida, Oregon, Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Virginia.

The problem was discovered after one of the company's customers
found tubs labeled as chicken base in cases labeled as containing
turkey base.  Following a quality check by the company, the
company found that turkey base had mistakenly been packaged into
tubs labeled for chicken base.

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

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Alex Vanee, Vice President of Operations at (708) 236-7021.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-
674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


VIZIO INC: Moved "Hinshaw" Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Kirk Hinshaw v. Vizio
Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2014-00719115, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Santa Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-
00876-DOC-AN to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
          SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          David I. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
          BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG
          & RHOW
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: dih@birdmarella.com
                  eer@birdmarella.com


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Class Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate two
purported securities class action alleging securities violations
against Vocera Communications, Inc., 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 August 1, 2013, a purported securities class action entitled
Michael Brado v. Vocera Communications Inc., et al. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of its officers, its
board of directors, a former director and the underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering. A second purported securities
class action, entitled Duncan v. Vocera Communications Inc., et
al., was filed on August 21, 2013, also in the Northern District
of California, against the same parties. On September 27, 2013,
the Court ordered the matters related. The suits purport to allege
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements in the registration statement for
the Company's initial public offering and in subsequent
communications regarding its business and financial results. The
suits are purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 3, 2013, and
seek compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs, as well as
equitable and injunctive or other relief. The plaintiffs' motion
for consolidation of the actions and for appointment of lead
plaintiff has been granted, and the Company anticipates that the
plaintiffs will file an amended consolidated complaint. No
responses to the current complaints are due at this time.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company said
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flow. The
Company has not established any reserve for any potential
liability relating to this lawsuit, because this contingency is
not considered probable and reasonably estimable.

Vocera Communications, Inc. provides Voice Communication,
Messaging and Care Transition solutions.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Bagged Ice Due to Possible Metal Bits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling Wegmans Ice in
18 lb. (UPC 77890 29200) and 7 lb. (UPC 77890 29197) bags sold
between January 1 and June 10, 2014. This recall has been
initiated because the ice may contain metal pieces from a broken
part in the machine that produces the ice, posing a possible
choking hazard.

The affected bags of Wegmans Ice were sold in Wegmans' stores
located in Pennsylvania (excluding Erie), New Jersey, Virginia,
and Maryland. (Note: This recall does not affect Wegmans Ice sold
in the company's New York State, Massachusetts or Erie, PA
stores.)

Wegmans estimates that approximately 6,000 bags of potentially
affected ice were sold. The company also confirmed that automated
phone calls will be placed to customers who purchased Wegmans ice,
using their Shoppers Club card.

There have been no reported injuries associated with this recall,
nor have there been any reports from consumers that metal pieces
were present in bags already purchased. The problem was discovered
by Wegmans during a routine maintenance check of the equipment.

Customers may return the product to Wegmans for a full refund.
Consumers who have questions or concerns about this recall should
contact Wegmans Consumer Affairs Department toll free at 1 (855)
934-3663 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Visit
www.wegmans.comdisclaimer icon for a list of all product recalls.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is an 84-store supermarket chain with
stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland,
and Massachusetts. The family-owned company, founded in 1916, is
recognized as an industry leader and innovator. Wegmans has been
named one of the '100 Best Companies to Work For' by FORTUNE
magazine for 17 consecutive years. In 2014, Wegmans ranked #12 on
the list.


WOODRIDGE VILLAGE: Faces Class Action Over $30 Arrestees' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that during oral arguments over the constitutionality of a Chicago
suburb's $30 fee on all arrestees, the 7th Circuit's Judge Richard
Posner called it "ridiculous" to charge a person simply for being
arrested.

Jerry Markadonatos filed a class action against the village of
Woodridge, a wealthy and predominantly white Chicago suburb,
claiming that the fee violates arrestees' due process rights
because it may be imposed whether there is probable cause or not.

A divided panel upheld the fee earlier this year, but the circuit
voted to rehear the case en banc today in front of a packed
courtroom.

"Would people be entitled to a hearing at $300?" Judge Ann
Williams asked.  "Thirty dollars could be a lot of money to
someone out of work."

"That might be a little different," defense attorney Paul Rettberg
said.  "In terms of society today, $30 is a very small amount."

Rettberg repeatedly faltered in response to the court's questions.
More than once, a judge asked "why we're here," provoking laughter
in the courtroom.  He stood in silence when Judge Diane Wood
pointed out that an innocent person could be charged.

Plaintiff's attorney James Burnham also seemed unprepared to argue
whether or not $30 was a fundamental right.  When pointedly asked
by Judge Frank Easterbrook, he began to say "no" before
backtracking to state that "there's a fundamental right to be free
from arbitrary governmental action as it relates to property."

Nonetheless, Easterbrook accused Burnham of "making a mockery" of
Supreme Court precedent that states that there is only a
substantive due process violation when a fundamental right is
violated.

Judge Posner stated point blank that "there's no basis for
charging a person to be arrested." He bristled at Rettberg's
analogy to filing fees: "Arrest is not a privilege. Paying for
being arrested is ridiculous."  Posner also offered a more
sympathetic reading of the ordinance, stating that it was not
unconstitutional so long as the fee applied to bail or bond.

"What's frustrating to me is that neither side is discussing the
bond aspect," Posner said.  "If it applies only to bond, what's
the big deal? Can't a fee be charged for bail or bond?  It's a
service."

Burnham rebuffed this suggestion, which Posner raised multiple
times throughout the hearing.  Many audience members were
chuckling by the third or fourth time that Posner brought up the
bail issue, which neither side argued in its brief or considered
dispositive.

Only in the final seconds of his rebuttal did Burnham effectively
respond:  "The village wrote the ordinance broadly. The court
shouldn't impose a savings reading to help the village with an
argument that it never raised itself."

Judge Diane Sykes, who concurred with the judgment for Woodridge
before, asked Burnham why a town could "impose a fee for
impounding a dog or cat" given that "lots of fees are imposed
without hearings."

"You choose to have a dog," Burnham said. "Arrest is unique in
that the government can arrest you at any time.  A fee cannot be
imposed for the naked fact of arrest."

Sykes found the question of standing decisive in the first panel
hearing and raised the issue again since the ordinance has now
been repealed.  However, Burnham insisted that the class still has
standing to seek reimbursement for the fees they already paid.


ZALICUS INC: Defendant in 3 Merger-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
Three putative class action lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary
duties in connection with a proposed merger, were filed against
Zalicus Inc., 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 15, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization with Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
a privately held biopharmaceutical company ("Epirus") and
BRunning, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Zalicus ("Merger
Subsidiary"), pursuant to which the Merger Subsidiary will be
merged with and into Epirus (the "Merger") at the effective time
of the Merger, with Epirus continuing after the Merger as the
surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zalicus. On
May 7, 2014, the Company and Epirus entered into Amendment No. 1
to the Merger Agreement.

The percentage of the combined company that Zalicus stockholders
will own following the closing of the Merger is subject to
adjustment based on the level of Zalicus's net cash as of a
certain determination date prior to the effective time of the
Merger. On a pro forma basis, based upon the number of shares of
Zalicus common stock to be issued in the Merger, following the
closing of the Merger (i) current Zalicus stockholders will own
approximately 19% of the combined company and current Epirus
equityholders will own approximately 81% of the combined company
if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to
the effective time of the Merger is equal to or in excess of
$12,000, (ii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately
17% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will
own approximately 83% of the combined company if Zalicus's net
cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective
time of the Merger is in excess of $9,000 but less than $12,000,
and (iii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 14%
of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own
approximately 86% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as
of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the
Merger is equal to or less than $9,000. Zalicus is exploring
different alternatives to increase its level of net cash.

Between April 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in
the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior
Court, Suffolk County, against Zalicus, BRunning, Inc., the
members of Zalicus' board of directors and Epirus.  These actions
are: Paul Patrick Laky v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-
1380; Michael Ma v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1381;
Harrypersaud v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1455.  The
Massachusetts Actions allege that the Zalicus board breached its
fiduciary duties, and that Epirus, Zalicus and BRunning aided and
abetted the purported breaches, in connection with the proposed
merger. The Massachusetts Actions seek relief including, among
other things, to enjoin defendants from proceeding with the
merger, to enjoin defendants from consummating the merger unless
additional procedures are implemented, and an award of all costs
of the Massachusetts Actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees.

Zalicus Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and
develops treatments for patients suffering from pain and immuno-
inflammatory diseases.


ZALICUS INC: Defendant in "Harvey Stein" Lawsuit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Zalicus Inc., is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging, among other things, that the Company's board breached
their fiduciary duties, in connection with a proposed 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 15, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization with Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
a privately held biopharmaceutical company ("Epirus") and
BRunning, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Zalicus ("Merger
Subsidiary"), pursuant to which the Merger Subsidiary will be
merged with and into Epirus (the "Merger") at the effective time
of the Merger, with Epirus continuing after the Merger as the
surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zalicus. On
May 7, 2014, the Company and Epirus entered into Amendment No. 1
to the Merger Agreement.

The percentage of the combined company that Zalicus stockholders
will own following the closing of the Merger is subject to
adjustment based on the level of Zalicus's net cash as of a
certain determination date prior to the effective time of the
Merger. On a pro forma basis, based upon the number of shares of
Zalicus common stock to be issued in the Merger, following the
closing of the Merger (i) current Zalicus stockholders will own
approximately 19% of the combined company and current Epirus
equityholders will own approximately 81% of the combined company
if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to
the effective time of the Merger is equal to or in excess of
$12,000, (ii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately
17% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will
own approximately 83% of the combined company if Zalicus's net
cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective
time of the Merger is in excess of $9,000 but less than $12,000,
and (iii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 14%
of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own
approximately 86% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as
of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the
Merger is equal to or less than $9,000. Zalicus is exploring
different alternatives to increase its level of net cash.

On May 1, 2014, Harvey Stein v. Zalicus, Inc. et al., Case No.
9602, was filed by a purported stockholder of Zalicus in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Zalicus, Zalicus'
directors and Epirus.  The Delaware Action alleges that the
Zalicus board breached their fiduciary duties, and Epirus and
BRunning aided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection
with the proposed merger. The Delaware Action seeks relief
including, among other things, to preliminary and permanently
enjoin the proposed merger, to enjoin consummation of the proposed
merger and rescind the merger if consummated (or to award
rescissionary damages), and an award of all costs of the Delaware
Action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

Zalicus Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and
develops treatments for patients suffering from pain and immuno-
inflammatory diseases.


ZALICUS INC: Expects Additional Merger-Related Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Zalicus Inc., disclosed 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 as a result of a Merger
Agreement and the Merger, the Company may become subject to
additional putative class action lawsuits on behalf of
shareholders challenging the fairness of the merger consideration
or making other claims regarding the merger consideration, the
sale process or disclosures relating to the Merger. Such lawsuits
may seek to prevent consummation of the Merger or to rescind any
such transaction that has occurred.

On April 15, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization with Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
a privately held biopharmaceutical company ("Epirus") and
BRunning, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Zalicus ("Merger
Subsidiary"), pursuant to which the Merger Subsidiary will be
merged with and into Epirus (the "Merger") at the effective time
of the Merger, with Epirus continuing after the Merger as the
surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zalicus. On
May 7, 2014, the Company and Epirus entered into Amendment No. 1
to the Merger Agreement.

The percentage of the combined company that Zalicus stockholders
will own following the closing of the Merger is subject to
adjustment based on the level of Zalicus's net cash as of a
certain determination date prior to the effective time of the
Merger. On a pro forma basis, based upon the number of shares of
Zalicus common stock to be issued in the Merger, following the
closing of the Merger (i) current Zalicus stockholders will own
approximately 19% of the combined company and current Epirus
equityholders will own approximately 81% of the combined company
if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to
the effective time of the Merger is equal to or in excess of
$12,000, (ii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately
17% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will
own approximately 83% of the combined company if Zalicus's net
cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective
time of the Merger is in excess of $9,000 but less than $12,000,
and (iii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 14%
of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own
approximately 86% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as
of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the
Merger is equal to or less than $9,000. Zalicus is exploring
different alternatives to increase its level of net cash.

Zalicus Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and
develops treatments for patients suffering from pain and immuno-
inflammatory diseases.


                             *********

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  * * *