CAR_Public/140618.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 120

                             Headlines


ARMOR CORRECTIONAL: Sued Over Unlawful Employment Policies
ADP INC: Faces "Ignacio" Suit in C.D. Calif.
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant in JUXTAPID Marketing Lawsuit
AMYRIS INC: Defendant in Securities Violation Complaint
APOLLO GLOBAL: Terminated as Defendant in Online Fraud Lawsuit

ARMOR AUTOMATIC: Has Refused to Pay Overtime, Suit Claims
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Securities Violations Suits in Discovery
BAPTISTA'S BAKERY: Recalls LiveGfree Multiseed Snack Crackers
BEST BUY: Court Narrows Claims in "Herron" Class Action
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Defendant in California Labor Code Complaint

CALIFORNIA: Solitary Confinement Suit Gets Class Action Status
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Filed Notice of Appeal
COMPLETE PAYMENT: Sued Over FDCPA and TCPA Violations
DAKOTA PLAINS: Defendant in Wrongful Death Complaint
DONNYCARNEY RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages

DRIVEN SPORTS: Oliver Law Group Named Co-Lead Counsel
DUBLIN 6: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
FBR & CO: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Securities Lawsuit Pending
FEDFIRST FINANCIAL: Defendant in Merger Complaint
FIRST MORTGAGE: Faces "Oneal" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Tactics
FLATBUSH KOSHER: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
FORD MOTOR: Wants Judge to Compel Arbitration in Repo Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss "Sanchez" Case Gets Partial Okay
FORD MOTOR: Court Denies Motion to Strike "Sansoe" Class Action

FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Retirees Withdrew Summary Judgment Motion
FT SUPERMARKET: Faces "Pena" Suit for Failing to Pay OT Wages
FURIEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant in Shareholder Lawsuit
GAP INC: Faces "Etman" Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
GENERAL MOTORS: Fails to Disclose Vehicles' Defects, Suit Says

GENERAL MOTORS: Two Shareholder Class Actions Move Forward
GLUTINO: Recalls Rosemary and Olive Oil Snack Crackers
HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Orders "King" Suit Parties to Submit Briefs
HILL'S PET: Recalls 62 Bags of Dry Dog Food in California
HORRY ELECTRIC: Settles Good Cents Class Action for $6 Million

IMPERVA INC: Defendant in Shareholder Lawsuit in N.D. Calif.
INDIANA: Adoptive Parents File Class Action Against DCS
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Pa. Suit Says
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Summary Judgment Briefing Set for July 2015
JANSSEN PHARMA: Balks at Punitive Damages Bid in Risperdal Suit

KBR INC: Faces "Ganoudis" Suit Over Accounting Errors
KEURIG GREEN: Monopolizes K-Cups Brewers Sale, "Ramey" Suit Says
LATE JULY SNACKS: Bid to Dismiss "Swearingen" Suit Denied in Part
LILIS 200: Faces "Lee" Suit for Failing to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
MAGNUM HUNTER: Moved to Dismiss Securities Cases

MAID BRIGADE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
MASTEC SERVICES: Has Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Claims
MEE NOODLE: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MYLAN INC: Obtains Initial Approval of "McBride" Suit Settlement
NEWS CORP: Voicemail Suit Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint

NEWS CORP: Provides Update on HarperCollins-Related Litigation
NOA INVESTMENTS: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Agreed to Settle "Ashley Toth" Claims
OMEGA FLEX: Court Dismissed Hall TracPipe CSST Complaint
PATACON PISAO: Does Not Pay OT Wages, E.D.N.Y. Suit Claims

PEPRICO INC: Faces "Caceres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PHILLIP H. MCNEILL: Trial Court Ruling in "Ira" Suit Vacated
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR: "Mielo" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
QBE: Investors Have Until End of July to Join Class Action
REDBOX AUTOMATED: 9th Cir. Tosses Class Action Over Zip Codes

REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
ROBERT COUPE: Court Dismisses "Black" Suit With Leave to Amend
RODNEY THE PRINTER: Sends Junk Faxes, "Elenowitz" Suit Claims
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Moved to Dismiss Securities Suit
SHISHA DELI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

SUSSER HOLDINGS: Defendant in Energy Transfer Merger Lawsuits
TDC CAFE: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Unpaid Wages
TEANECK, NJ: 3rd Cir. Tosses Police Officers' Overtime Claims
TESLA MOTORS: Defendant in Securities Violation Complaint
TICKETMASTER: Settles Class Action for About $400 Million

TOMMY'S SUSHI: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid OT & Damages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Files Corrective Notices in "O'Connor" Suit
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Court Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuits
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Class Action Examines Parity Laws

URBAN OUTFITTERS: Sued for Failing to Pay Employees Overtime
US BANK: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Wage-and-Hour Class Action
WELLS FARGO: D.C. Cir. Tosses Bid to Bar Claims in Mortgage Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Hides Defects in Washers, "O'Brien" Suit Says

* Shareholder Groups Call for Class Action Funder Licenses


                            *********


ARMOR CORRECTIONAL: Sued Over Unlawful Employment Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Sateria Haliburton, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., a Florida
Corporation and Xyz Entities 1 - 10, (fictitious names of
unknown liable entities), Case No. 9:14-cv-80743 (S.D. Fla., June
3, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for the alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and practices.

Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., provides healthcare
services at correctional facilities throughout Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq.
      Susan Hilary Stern, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
              sstern@shavitzlaw.com


ADP INC: Faces "Ignacio" Suit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------
Marita Ignacio, a California resident and an individual on behalf
of herself and all those similarly situated v. ADP Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-01115 (C.D. Cal., June 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for alleged improper
holding of the Plaintiff's money.

ADP Inc., a publicly held Delaware corporation, founded in 1949
and headquartered in Roseland, New Jersey. ADP maintains offices
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geraldyn Skapik, Esq.
      SKAPIK LAW GROUP
      5861 Pine Ave. A-I
      Chino Hills, CA 91709
      Telephone: (909) 398-4404
      Facsimile: (909) 398-1883
      E-mail: gskapik@skapiklaw.com


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant in JUXTAPID Marketing Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit alleging, among other things, certain misstatements
and omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID, 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 January 15, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive officers
(the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (the "Court") alleging certain
misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID
and the Company's financial performance in violation of the
federal securities laws. On February 6, 2014, the plaintiffs
agreed to a motion suspending the Defendants' obligation to
answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint until the
court appoints a lead plaintiff and an anticipated amended
complaint is filed. On March 31, 2014, one of three separate
motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was withdrawn, and a
motion was filed for the other two plaintiffs to serve together as
lead plaintiff. After the appointment of a lead plaintiff is
approved by the Court, we expect the lead plaintiff to file an
amended complaint. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against the claims made in this lawsuit."

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of therapeutics
to treat lipid disorders.


AMYRIS INC: Defendant in Securities Violation Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action complaint was filed against Amyris,
Inc., alleging securities law violations based on the Company's
commercial projections between April 29, 2011 and February 8,
2012, 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: "In May 2013, a securities class action
complaint was filed against the Company and its CEO, John G. Melo,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. In October 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The complaint, as amended, sought
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would
comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's common stock
between April 29, 2011 and February 8, 2012. The complaint alleged
securities law violations based on the Company's commercial
projections during that period. In December 2013, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In March 2014, the court
issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss with
leave to amend the complaint. The Company believes the complaint
lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Because the
case is at a very early stage and no specific monetary demand has
been made, it is not possible for us to estimate the potential
loss or range of potential losses for the case."

Amyris, Inc., formerly Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. develops and
provides renewable compounds for a variety of markets.  It
genetically modifies micro organisms, primarily yeast, and uses
them as living factories in established fermentation processes to
convert plant-sourced sugars into thousands of molecules. The
Company has two operating subsidiaries, Amyris Brasil Ltda.
(formerly Amyris Brasil S.A.), or Amyris Brasil, and Amyris Fuels
LLC, or Amyris Fuels.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Terminated as Defendant in Online Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on March 28, 2014, terminated Apollo Global
Management, LLC as a defendant in the consolidated putative class
actions alleging online fraud, 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 March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut
on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The
defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC
("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is
affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of
Affinion's common stock. In both cases, plaintiffs allege that
Trilegiant, aided by its business partners, who include e-
merchants and credit card companies, developed a set of business
practices intended to create consumer confusion and ultimately
defraud consumers into unknowingly paying fees to clubs for
unwanted services. Plaintiffs allege that AGM is a proper
defendant because of its indirect stock ownership and ability to
appoint the majority of Affinion's board. The complaints assert
claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act;
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act; and the California Business and Professional
Code, and seek, among other things, restitution or disgorgement,
injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to
those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a
putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010
that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court
has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the
caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they
proceed on the same schedule.

On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action
against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012,
plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and
defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed another putative class
action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12-cv-1721), in
the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and
containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC.
On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On June 13, 2013, the Court extended
all defendants' deadlines to respond to the Frank complaint until
21 days after a ruling on the motion to transfer and consolidate.

On July 24, 2013 the Frank court transferred the case to Judge
Bryant, who is presiding over In re: Trilegiant, and on March 28,
2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion to consolidate. On September
25, 2013, the Court held oral argument on Defendants' motions to
dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied
in part motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and Trilegiant on
behalf of all defendants, and also granted separate motions to
dismiss filed by certain defendants, including AGM. On that same
day, the Court directed the Clerk to terminate AGM as a defendant
in the consolidated action.

On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for interlocutory review of
certain of the Court's motion-to-dismiss rulings, not including
its order granting AGM's separate dismissal motion. Defendants'
response was due on May 19, 2014.

Apollo Global Management, LLC (Apollo) is a global alternative
asset manager. Its primary business is to raise and invest private
equity, capital markets and real estate funds as well as managed
accounts, on behalf of pension and endowment funds, as well as
other institutional and high net worth individual investors. It
has three primary business segments: Private equity, Capital
markets and Real estate. It also manages AP Alternative Assets,
L.P. (AAA), a permanent capital vehicle, which invests
substantially all of its capital in or alongside Apollo-sponsored
entities, funds, and other investments, and several strategic
investment accounts.


ARMOR AUTOMATIC: Has Refused to Pay Overtime, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Julio Velasquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Armor Automatic Fire Sprinkler Corp., and Nicola
Deluca, individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-03604 (D.N.J., June 5,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Armor Automatic Fire Sprinkler Corp., is a New Jersey corporation
located at 4 Biscayne Way, Monroe Township, New Jersey 08831.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cherice Patrice Vanderhall
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      1010 Norther Boulevard, Suite 328,
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      E-mail: cpv@employmentlawyernewyork.com


BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Securities Violations Suits in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation disclosed that several
putative class action federal lawsuits filed against the Company
asserting claims including securities laws violations, are
currently in discovery, 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.

BNY Mellon has also been named as a defendant in several putative
class action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in 2011 and
2012. The complaints, which assert claims including breach of
contract and ERISA and securities laws violations, all allege that
the prices BNY Mellon charged for standing instruction foreign
exchange transactions executed in connection with custody services
provided by BNY Mellon were improper. In addition, BNY Mellon has
been named as a nominal defendant in several derivative lawsuits
filed in 2011 and 2012 in state and federal court in New York. On
July 2, 2013, the court in the consolidated federal derivative
action dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs have
appealed that decision. On Oct. 1, 2013, the court in the
consolidated state derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs'
claims, and one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. BNY
Mellon was also named in a qui tam lawsuit filed on May 22, 2012
in Massachusetts state court, but the court dismissed all of
plaintiff's claims on Sept. 10, 2013. All of the pending lawsuits
are currently in discovery. To the extent the lawsuits are pending
in federal court, they are being coordinated for pre-trial
purposes in federal court in New York.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BNY Mellon) is a global
financial services company. The Company divides its businesses
into two principal segments: Investment Management and Investment
Services. It has an Other segment, which includes credit-related
activities, the lease financing portfolio, corporate treasury
activities (including its investment securities portfolio), its
equity investments in Wing Hang Bank Limited and ConvergEx Group,
business exits and corporate overhead. Its two banks are The Bank
of New York Mellon, which houses its institutional businesses,
including asset servicing, issuer services, treasury services,
broker-dealer and advisor services and the bank-advised business
of asset management, and BNY Mellon, National Association (BNY
Mellon, N.A.), which houses its wealth management business.


BAPTISTA'S BAKERY: Recalls LiveGfree Multiseed Snack Crackers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baptista's Bakery, Inc. is voluntarily recalling 4,339 cases of
LiveGfree Gluten Free Rosemary and Olive Oil Multiseed Crackers
with a best if used by date of 11-24-14 because they contain a
seasoning that is being recalled by Kerry Ingredients. Kerry
Ingredients is recalling the seasoning due to possible health
risks related to Salmonella contamination.

The affected products were distributed nationally:

    LiveGfree 4.25 oz Gluten Free Rosemary and Olive Oil Multiseed
Crackers: Best By Date 11-24-14

Consumers who have purchased this item are urged to not eat the
product, and to dispose of it or return it to the store where it
was originally purchased.

No illnesses have been reported. The recall is being initiated as
part of the Kerry Ingredients recall of its seasonings that
contained an ingredient that tested positive for Salmonella.
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. Baptista's Bakery became aware of this issue
when Kerry Ingredients contacted Baptista's to inform them that
Kerry may have shipped an ingredient that may be contaminated with
Salmonella. Baptista's Bakery, Inc. is working closely with FDA on
this issue. "Ensuring the premium quality of our products is our
highest priority," said Tom Howe, President, Baptista's Bakery,
Inc. "We stand behind the safety and integrity of our products and
are issuing this recall in order to afford maximum protection of
our customers", confirmed Laura Villarreal, Director of Quality
Assurance.

Customers with questions or concerns may contact Laura Villarreal
at 414-409-2123 between 8:00 am and 6 pm CST.


BEST BUY: Court Narrows Claims in "Herron" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Gariand E. Burrell, Jr., granted in part and
denied in part a motion to dismiss claims in the case captioned
CHAD HERRON, individually, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a
Virginia limited partnership; TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
INC., a California corporation, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 12-CV-
02103-GEB-JFM, (E.D. Cal.).

Best Buy Stores, L.P. moved in this putative class action for
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of the
California Consumer Legal Remedy Act ("CLRA") claim alleged
against it in the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.
Furthermore, Best Buy moved in the alternative for dismissal of
the damages component of the Plaintiff's CLRA claim that concerns
laptops Plaintiff did not purchase.

In his May 29, 2014 Order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/aZIZbYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Burrell ruled that the
damages component of the Plaintiff's CLRA claim is dismissed for
laptops Plaintiff did not purchase. The remainder of the motion is
denied.

The Court granted the Plaintiff 35 days from the date on which
this order was filed to file an amended complaint addressing the
deficiencies in the dismissed damages component of the CLRA claim
for laptops Plaintiff did not purchase. The Plaintiff was notified
that failure to file an amended complaint within the prescribed
time period could result in dismissal of the described component
of the CLRA claim with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

Chad Herron, Plaintiff, represented by Demetrius Xavier Lambrinos
-- dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP,
Gene Joseph Stonebarger -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com --
Stonebarger Law, Anne Marie Murphy -- amurphy@cpmlegal.com --
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Elaine Wing Ling Yan --
eyan@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger Law, APC, Jonathan C Hsieh
-- jhsieh@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett, Pitre & Mccarthy, LLP, Niall
P. McCarthy -- nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, LLP & Richard David Lambert --
rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger Law.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Rebekah Kaufman -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
Llp, John Michael Stusiak -- MStusiak@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster LLP, Penelope A. Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP & Samuel James Boone Lunier --
slunier@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP.

Best Buy Stores, LP, Defendant, represented by Jill S. Casselman
-- jscasselman@rkmc.com -- Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP &
Michael Aaron Geibelson -- mageibelson@rkmc.com -- Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi LLP.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Defendant in California Labor Code Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed against Bloomin'
Brands, Inc., alleging, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On November 8, 2013, Holly Gehl, Chris
Armenta, and Trent Broadstreet (collectively, the "California
Plaintiffs"), individuals employed by our franchisee, filed a
purported class action lawsuit against us, OSI and OS Restaurant
Services, LLC, two of our subsidiaries, and T-Bird, one of our
franchisees. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior
Court, County of Alameda. The defendants removed the matter to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in
December 2013. The complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination
compensation, and violations of California's Business and
Professions Code. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, and such other relief as the
Court determines to be appropriate. We do not believe the
California Plaintiffs have any standing to bring claims against us
or our subsidiaries as all were employed by our franchisee. We
intend to request that the court dismiss us and our subsidiaries
from this action. Should the court deny our request for dismissal
we will vigorously defend the lawsuit. However, we are unable to
predict the outcome of this case."

Bloomin' Brands, Inc. is a holding company. It is a casual dining
restaurant company with a portfolio of restaurant concepts. As of
December 31, 2012, it owned and operated 1,268 restaurants and had
203 restaurants operating under franchise or joint venture
arrangements across 48 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and 19 countries.


CALIFORNIA: Solitary Confinement Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paige St. John, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
federal judge in Oakland has granted inmates in solitary
confinement at Pelican Bay State Prison class action status in
their claims of unconstitutional treatment.

The inmates allege physical and psychological abuse when
California puts inmates in Pelican Bay's windowless isolation
cells.  The prisoners are confined 22 hours a day and, in some
cases, have been in solitary for years and decades at a time.

The Pelican Bay inmates, in their federal lawsuit, also challenged
the administrative process California uses to determine who to
send to the super-maximum security cells for an indefinite stay.

A spokesman for the state corrections department said the agency
was still reviewing the order and had no immediate comment.

In courtroom proceedings, lawyers for the state have argued that
isolation is necessary to keep the peace within prisons, and to
hinder gang activity inside and outside prison walls.  They said
that by creating a so-called "step-down" program last year that
allows some prisoners to eventually earn their way out of
isolation, the state had made sufficient improvements.

In her ruling on June 2, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken
narrowed the class action case to just those Pelican Bay inmates
who have not been accepted into the state's step-down program.

Civil rights lawyers litigating the case say they hope a victory
will set a national precedent on the use of extended isolation in
prisons across the United States.

"We pose a fundamental question: Is it constitutional to hold
someone in solitary confinement for over a decade," said
Alexis Agathocleous, staff attorney for the Center for
Constitutional Rights in New York.

The class action motion was filed by 10 Pelican Bay inmates in
solitary confinement, but California has since moved five of them
to other quarters.  Judge Wilken's order allows the remaining five
prisoners to represent the larger class of some 500 Pelican Bay
prisoners who have spent more than a decade in isolation, and some
1,100 put into solitary because of alleged gang associations.

Many of the inmates named in the suit also were organizers of a
lengthy statewide prison hunger strike last summer.

Judge Wilken refused to allow the state prison guard union to
intervene in the lawsuit.  The California Correctional Peace
Officers Assn. had argued that it had an interest in protecting
the safety of its members by preventing prisoners from leaving
solitary confinement.

Pelican Bay is in California's far northwest corner, outside of
Crescent City.  California also has isolation cells at three other
prisons.  They are not covered by the litigation.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Filed Notice of Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs to a dismissed consolidated class action lawsuit
commenced against Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd.,
alleging violations to the Securities Exchange Act, have filed a
notice of appeal, 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, "Following the receipt of the CRL from
the FDA regarding the NDA for Northera(TM) (droxidopa) in March
2012 and the subsequent decline of the price of our common stock,
two purported class action lawsuits were filed on April 4, 2012
and another purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 1,
2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina against us and certain of our executive officers."

"The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements
related to our development of Northera for the treatment of
symptomatic neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs. Following consolidation of the three lawsuits and
the appointment of a lead plaintiff, a consolidated complaint was
filed on October 5, 2012, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from November 3, 2008 through March 28, 2012. On
November 16, 2012, we and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint. On October 10, 2013, the court granted the motion
to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the
defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and briefing on the
appeal has been completed. We intend to vigorously defend against
any appeal but are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

"On May 2, 2012, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the members of our
board of directors as of the date of the lawsuit. The complaint
generally alleges that, from at least June 2011 through February
2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and otherwise
caused harm to the Company in connection with various statements
related to the development of Northera for the treatment of
Neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. On
June 25, 2012, the Court of Chancery entered an Order staying the
action until the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina ruled upon the motion to dismiss that the Company
and its officers filed in November 2012 in response to the
consolidated complaint in the class action. Following the
dismissal of the class action and the filing of the notice of
appeal, plaintiff sought to proceed with the case and the parties
entered into a scheduling stipulation, subsequently approved by
the Court, for the briefing of defendants' motions to stay the
action or dismiss the complaint. The motion to stay was filed on
February 14, 2014 and the motion to dismiss was filed February 28,
2014.

Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. is a development stage
pharmaceutical company that focuses on acquiring, developing and
commercializing products for the treatment of a variety of human
diseases. The Company is developing a therapeutic agent for the
treatment of symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (NOH),
associated with primary autonomic failure and falls related to NOH
in Parkinson's Disease (PD), as well as other norepinephrine-
related conditions and diseases, including intradialytic
hypotension (IDH), fibromyalgia, adult attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS),
freezing of gait in PD and Down syndrome. In addition, the Company
is developing a portfolio of metabolically inert antifolates for
the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and is exploring potential
applications in multiple other autoimmune disorders.


COMPLETE PAYMENT: Sued Over FDCPA and TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Sandra Zarichny v. Complete Payment Recovery Services, Inc. d/b/a
CPRS d/b/a www.paymentpost.com, Fidelity National Information
Services d/b/a FIS d/b/a www.paymentpost.com and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-03197 (E.D. Pa., June 5, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Complete Payment Recovery Services, Inc. d/b/a CPRS d/b/a
www.paymentpost.com, is engaged in the business of debt collection
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is located at 601
Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32204.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, SUITE A,
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


DAKOTA PLAINS: Defendant in Wrongful Death Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., is a defendant in a class action
alleging wrongful death and negligence for failing to provide for
the proper and safe transportation of crude oil, 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 July 15, 2013, four named plaintiffs filed
a petition in the Canadian Province of Quebec, in the district of
M‚gantic, seeking permission from the court to pursue a class
action seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages along
with costs. In its most recent iteration, filed on February 12,
2014, the petition lists four named plaintiffs and over fifty
defendants, including, us, certain of our subsidiaries, DPTS,
DPTSM, along with a number of other third parties, including CPR,
MM&A and certain of its affiliates, several manufacturers and
lessors of tank cars, as well as the intended purchaser and
certain suppliers of the crude oil. The petition generally alleges
wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the
proper and safe transportation of crude oil. We believe these
claims against us, certain of our subsidiaries, DPTS, and DPTSM
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such
claims and pursue any and all defenses available."

Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., formerly MCT Holding Corporation, is
engaged in developing and owning transloading facilities,
marketing and transporting of crude oil and related products from
and into the Williston Basin oil fields of North Dakota. The
Company provides full-service transloading and storage
capabilities.


DONNYCARNEY RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Collado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. DonnyCarney Restaurant LLC D/B/A O'Casey's, and
Clonmel Restaurant Corp. D/B/A PD O'hurley's, and Portmarnock
Restaurant Corp. D/B/A Desmond's Steak House & Grill, and
Connemara Restaurant Corp. D/B/A Kennedy's and/or Desmond's, and
Pier 45 Rest Inc. D/B/A Huds River Park Cafe, and Gbl Restaurant
Corp. D/B/A Kennedy's, and Paul Desmond Hurley, in individual and
professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-03899 (S.D.N.Y., June 5,
2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation and liquidated
damages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

DonnyCarney Restaurant LLC D/B/A O'Casey's, is a restaurant
located at 22 East 41 Street, New York, New York 10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328,
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com


DRIVEN SPORTS: Oliver Law Group Named Co-Lead Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------
The Oliver Law Group P.C., a Michigan law firm representing
plaintiffs in dietary, bodybuilding, and sports supplement class
action lawsuits nationwide, on June 3 disclosed that the Firm has
been named Co-Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit involving
Craze, a pre-workout dietary supplement manufactured by Driven
Sports, Inc.  According to an Order issued in on May 1st in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, the
consolidated class action complaint alleges that Craze contains a
known structural isomer of methamphetamine.  Driven Sports and
other Defendants allegedly failed to disclose this harmful
ingredient to class members and mislabeled craze under federal and
state law. (No: C 13-04830 EMC)

According to the May 1st Order, Driven Sports was facing two class
action lawsuits that were pending in the Northern District of
California, one of which was filed by The Oliver Law Group, along
with its co-counsel firms, in October 2013.  Because both of the
lawsuits asserted similar claims under California's Unfair
Competition Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False
Advertising Law, the two complaints have been consolidated in the
Northern District of California.

In October 2013, Driven Sports revealed that it had suspended
production of Craze several months earlier, following media
reports that questioned the safety of the supplement.  According
to USA Today, tests of Craze by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and a
lab in Sweden had found amphetamine-like compounds in the
pre-workout powder.  In October 2013, an article that appeared in
the Journal "Drug Testing and Analysis" reported that researchers
had identified a methamphetamine-like chemical in Craze, which had
never been tested in humans.  The authors of the report warned
that the health risks potentially associated with the ingredient
were unknown, and were not mentioned on the Craze label.


DUBLIN 6: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Alvarado, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class v. Dublin 6 at 115 Broadway Inc. d/b/a
Trinity Place, Bailey Restaurant Group Inc. d/b/a The Bailey Pub &
Brasserie, Cobra Caterers Inc. d/b/a Dublin 6, Donal Crosbie,
Jason O'Brien, and Kathleen Connolly, Case No. 1:14-cv-03939
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants,
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Dublin 6 at 115 Broadway Inc. d/b/a Trinity Place is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York, with a principal executive office, an address for service of
process, and a principal place of business located at 115
Broadway, New York, NY, 10006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-465-1188
      Facsimile: 212-465-1181


FBR & CO: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Securities Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by plaintiffs
in connection with the putative class action lawsuit alleging
Securities Act violations against FBR & Co., is pending, 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.

FBRCM has been named a defendant in the putative class action
lawsuit MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. v. United Western
Bancorp, Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado. The complaint, filed in March 2011
against United Western Bancorp, Inc. (the "Bank"), its officers
and directors, underwriters and outside auditors, alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Bank's September 2009
offering. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act against the lead underwriter of the offering
and FBRCM as a member of the underwriting syndicate. Although
FBRCM is contractually entitled to be indemnified by the Bank in
connection with this lawsuit, the Bank filed for bankruptcy on
March 5, 2012, and this likely will decrease or eliminate the
value of the indemnity that FBRCM receives from the Bank. On
December 19, 2012, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the class action complaint with prejudice and entered final
judgment for the underwriters. Class plaintiffs filed a timely
notice of appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging
the District Court's findings; briefing on the appeal is complete
and oral argument was heard on September 26, 2013. The 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on this appeal is pending.

FBR & Co., formerly FBR Capital Markets Corporation, is a full-
service investment banking, institutional brokerage and asset
management company. In addition, it makes principal investments,
including merchant banking investments. Its segments include
capital markets, which include investment banking and
institutional brokerage and research; asset management, and
principal investing, which includes merchant banking.  The
Company's subsidiary is FBR Capital Markets & Co.


FEDFIRST FINANCIAL: Defendant in Merger Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed on April 21, 2014, against
FedFirst Financial Corporation alleging, among other things,
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the CB Financial
merger, according to FedFirst'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 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland,
against the Company, each of FedFirst Financial's directors, and
CB Financial. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
FedFirst Financial directors breached their fiduciary duties to
FedFirst Financial and its stockholders by agreeing to sell to CB
Financial without first taking steps to ensure that FedFirst
Financial stockholders would obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration under the circumstances, by agreeing to terms with
CB Financial that benefit themselves and/or CB Financial without
regard for the FedFirst Financial stockholders and by agreeing to
terms with CB Financial that discourages other bidders. The
plaintiff also alleges that CB Financial aided and abetted the
FedFirst Financial directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order declaring the Merger
Agreement unenforceable and rescinding and invalidating the Merger
Agreement, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the
merger, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other
damages. The Company believes the factual allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend vigorously
against the allegations in the complaint.

FedFirst Financial Corporation is the holding company for First
Federal Savings Bank. FedFirst Financial's business activity is
the ownership of the outstanding capital stock of the Bank. The
Company's wholly owned subsidiaries are First Federal Savings
Bank, a federally chartered stock savings bank, and FedFirst
Exchange Corporation (FFEC). FFEC has an 80% controlling interest
in Exchange Underwriters, Inc.


FIRST MORTGAGE: Faces "Oneal" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Oneal, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. First Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-12217
(E.D. Mich., June 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime premium pay as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

First Mortgage Corporation is headquartered at 38400 Hayes Road,
Clinton Township, Michigan. It is in the business of brokering and
originating loans secured by mortgages on residential properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian E. Koncius, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KATHLEEN L. BOGAS
      31700 Telegraph Road, Suite 160,
      Bingham Farms, MI 48025
      Telephone: (248) 502-5000
      Facsimile: (248) 502-5001
      E-mail: office@kbogaslaw.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrey Krylyuk v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-03199 (E.D. Pa., June 5, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for alleged inappropriate tactics
to collect the Plaintiff's debt and for contacting the Plaintiff
on the cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing
system.

Firstsource Advantage, LLC, is headquartered at 205 Bryant Woods
South Amherst, NY 14228. It is engaged in the business of debt
collection within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A,
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


FLATBUSH KOSHER: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Balbuena, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Flatbush Kosher, Inc. d/b/a Mittelman's Supermarket,
Shavy Mittelman a/k/a Eva Mittelman, and Joseph Mittelman, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03481 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), seeks to recover from
Defendants, unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Flatbush Kosher, Inc. d/b/a Mittelman's Supermarket, is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York, with a principal place of business at 1823
Coney Island Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11230.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Wants Judge to Compel Arbitration in Repo Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that Ford Motor Credit Co.
LLC on June 2 urged a Maryland federal judge to compel arbitration
in a proposed class action filed by a consumer who alleges the
company improperly sold her vehicle after repossessing it over
defaulted payments, saying her contract included an arbitration
provision.

The automotive giant's financing arm argued that lead plaintiff
Michelle Haywood could not bring a suit over Ford Motor Credit's
post-repossession sale of the 2006 Ford Focus she used to own
because her retail installment contract stipulated that any claims
relating to the contract must be arbitrated.

"Because the claims raised in Ms. Haywood's complaint fall
squarely within the scope of the arbitration provision,
Ms. Haywood should be compelled to arbitrate her claims, and this
action should be stayed pending arbitration," Ford said in its
motion to compel arbitration.

The suit was originally filed in state court in April but removed
to federal by Ford Motor Credit in May.  It alleged that the
automotive financier withholds vital information and doesn't
properly notify consumers while repossessing and selling cars over
defaulted payments.

The complaint said that if the consumer doesn't reinstate their
credit contract with the financier or pay off the funds after
their cars' repossession, Ford Motor Credit then sells the cars to
recoup lost funds.

The company allegedly informs the customers of the deficiency
balance on their accounts and, if the balance remains after it
sells the car, Ford Motor Credit either directs the consumers to
collection agencies or files suits against the consumers to recoup
the balances, just as it did with Ms. Haywood, according to the
complaint.

The suit alleged that, in the process, Ford Motor Credit violates
Maryland law by telling the borrowers that their cars were sold at
public sales instead of private sales, not providing the number of
bids sought and received at the private sales, and not providing
information about the purchasers.

However, in its motion, Ford Motor Credit argued that the payment
contracts contain a clear arbitration clause, including areas in
the contract requiring the consumers to sign that they have read
and understand the arbitration requirement, and thus Ms. Haywood's
claims cannot stand in court and instead must be arbitrated.

Ms. Haywood's attorney, Cory Zajdel, told Law360 on June 3 that,
because Ford Motor Credit originally brought a suit against
Ms. Haywood in Maryland state court in order to seek repayment of
the defaulted balance before she instituted her proposed class
action, the suit should stay in court.

"We are confident that [Ford's] . . . decision to litigate an
action . . . in the District Court of Maryland and the Circuit
Court of Maryland for Baltimore City on appeal, rather than
arbitrate at any time prior to judgment, will compel a finding
that [the] complaint must remain in the forum Ford . . .
originally selected," Zajdel said.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Cory L. Zajdel of Z Law LLC.

Ford Motor Credit is represented by Scott E. Peters of Thieblot
Ryan PA.

The case is Haywood v. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC, case number
1:14-cv-01671, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland Baltimore Division.


FORD MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss "Sanchez" Case Gets Partial Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN A. SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and a Class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, d/b/a
Lincoln Motor Company, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO 13-CV-01924-RBJ,
(D. Col.), alleges that Ford Motor Company's advertisements
touting the fuel economy of various models misled buyers of those
vehicles.

District Judge R. Brooke Jackson issued an order on May 29, 2014,
granting in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/qBJ4A9from Leagle.com.

Judge Jackson ruled that the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted insofar as Mr. Sanchez relies on advertisements or
statements other than those made by alleged agents of Ford at the
two Lincoln dealerships visited by Mr. Sanchez.

"Discovery is stayed pending supplemental briefing and a ruling on
defendant's motion to strike the class allegation, because if that
motion is granted, the Court probably lacks subject matter to
proceed further," Judge Jackson added. "If the motion to strike
the class is denied, then discovery may proceed insofar as it is
limited to matters related to the agency relationship between Ford
and the dealerships and the substance of the dealership
statements."

Juan A. Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Jasper Dudley Ward --
jasper@jonesward.com -- Jones Ward PLC and:

   Kurt M. Zaner, Esq.
   Zaner Harden Law, LLP
   1610 Wynkoop Street, Suite 120
   Denver, CO 80202
   Telephone: 303-563-5354
   Facsimile: 303-563-5354

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Edward Craig Stewart
-- stewart@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Jodi Munn
Schebel -- jschebel@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC &
Theresa R. Wardon -- wardon@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP.


FORD MOTOR: Court Denies Motion to Strike "Sansoe" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied a motion to strike the
complaint captioned MICHAEL J. SANSOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, NO. C 13-5043 PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

This case was filed as a proposed class action by plaintiffs
Michael J. Sansoe and Eric Frazer dba DE Landscaping against
defendant Ford Motor Company, alleging violation of the Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790, et
seq.; unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200;
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1750; and a claim for declaratory relief.  The Defendant
filed the special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16.

A copy of the May 29, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/Q0jRxlfrom Leagle.com.

Michael J. Sansoe, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Jeffrey A. Kaiser, Esq.
   Lawrence J. Gornick, Esq.
   Nicholas A. Deming, Esq.
   Dennis J. Canty, Esq.
   KAISER GORNICK LLP
   100 First Street, 25th Floor
   San Francisco CA 94105
   Telephone: 415-857-7400
   Facsimile: 415-857-7499

        - and -

   Edward D Rapacki, Esq.
   Fredric L. Ellis, Esq.
   Joseph M. Makalusky, Esq.
   Ellis and Rapacki LLP
   85 Merrimac Street, Suite 500
   Boston, Massachusetts 02114
   Telephone: (617) 523-4800
   Facsimile: (617) 523-6901

Eric Frazer, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Kaiser, Kaiser
Gornick LLP, Lawrence J. Gornick, Kaiser Gornick LLP, Nicholas A.
Deming, Kaiser Gornick LLP, Edward D Rapacki, Ellis and Rapacki
LLP, Fredric L. Ellis, Ellis Rapacki LLP, Joseph M. Makalusky,
Ellis and Rapacki LLP & Dennis J. Canty, Kaiser Gornick LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Kenneth D Miller,
The Erskine Law Group, Andrew L. Chang -- achang@shb.com -- Shook,
Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Frank P. Kelly -- fkelly@shb.com -- Shook
Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Michael Kevin Underhill --
kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Retirees Withdrew Summary Judgment Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial & Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC, and certain Retiree Defendants on February 18, 2014, withdrew
their summary judgment motion in connection with a putative class
action alleging that FreightCar America, Inc., does not have the
right to terminate welfare benefits previously provided to the
Retiree Defendants, 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 July 8, 2013, the Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois
Court"). The case names as defendants the USW as well as
approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants, and was assigned
Case No 1:13-cv-4889.

As described in the Complaint, pursuant to the 2005 Settlement
Agreement among the Company, the USW and the Retiree Defendants,
the Company agreed to make certain levels of contributions to
medical coverage for the Retiree Defendants and to continue to
provide life insurance benefits at their amount at that time under
certain of the Company's employee welfare benefit plans. The 2005
Settlement Agreement expressly provided that, as of November 30,
2012, the Company could cease making these contributions. In June
2011, the Company and the USW began discussing the possibility of
an extension beyond November 30, 2012 for the Company's
contributions to retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits at a reduced amount and on other mutually acceptable
terms. The Company engaged in voluntary negotiations for two years
with the USW and counsel for the Retiree Defendants in an effort
to reach a consensual agreement regarding such medical and life
insurance benefits, but the parties were unable to reach a final
agreement. The Company terminated, effective November 1, 2013, its
contributions for medical coverage provided to the Retiree
Defendants and the provision of life insurance benefits and is
seeking declaratory relief to confirm its rights under the ERISA
to reduce or terminate retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits pursuant to the plans that were the subject of the 2005
Settlement Agreement.

On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain Retiree Defendants
(collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"), captioned as
Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
cv-146. The complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Court alleges
that the Company does not have the right to terminate welfare
benefits previously provided to the Retiree Defendants and
requests, among other relief, entry of a judgment finding that the
Retiree Defendants have a vested right to specified welfare
benefits.

On July 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed with the
Illinois Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1404(a), as well as a Motion to Stay and/or Prevent Plaintiff from
Obtaining Defaults against the Retiree Defendants. On August 5,
2013, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Court a Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative,
to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). On January 14, 2014,
the Pennsylvania Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and,
on January 16, 2014, the Illinois Court transferred the Company's
case to the Pennsylvania Court. On January 31, 2014, the Company
filed a motion to consolidate both cases before the Pennsylvania
Court. On April 3, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court entered an order
(the "Initial Procedural Order") that, among other things,
consolidated both cases before the Pennsylvania Court, certified a
class for purposes of the consolidated actions, established
discovery parameters and deadlines and established a briefing
schedule applicable to the parties' cross motions for summary
judgment as to liability only.

On September 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and certain
putative class representatives filed a Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the "TRO
Motion") with the Pennsylvania Court. In the TRO Motion, the
plaintiffs requested that the Pennsylvania Court enter an
injunction requiring the Company to continue to make monthly
contributions at the same rate established by the 2005 Settlement
Agreement until the parties' dispute is fully adjudicated on the
merits. Following entry of the Initial Procedural Order, the
Pennsylvania Court denied the TRO Motion without prejudice.

On February 18, 2014, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed a motion
with the Pennsylvania Court seeking summary judgment as to the
Company's liability. The Company filed a procedural motion in
opposition to the summary judgment motion. Following entry of the
Initial Procedural Order, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs withdrew
their summary judgment motion.

The Company has recorded postretirement benefit plan obligations,
a substantial portion of which relates to the dispute now before
the Illinois Court and the Pennsylvania Court.

FreightCar America, Inc. (America) is engaged in manufacturing of
aluminum-bodied railcars and coal cars.


FT SUPERMARKET: Faces "Pena" Suit for Failing to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis a. Pena, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. F.T. Supermarket Services Inc. d/b/a Foodtown, Estevez
Markets Inc. d/b/a Foodtown, John Doe corporations 1 - 36,
Robin Estevez and John Estevez, Case No. 1:14-cv-03938 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 3, 2014), seeks to recover from Defendants, unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

F.T. Supermarket Services Inc. d/b/a Foodtown, is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York with a principal place of business and address for service of
process located at 70 Linden Street, Yonkers, New York 10701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-465-1188
      Facsimile: 212-465-1181


FURIEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant in Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
A putative shareholder class action lawsuit relating to a merger
transaction was filed on May 1, 2014, against Furiex
Pharmaceuticals alleging that the Company breached its fiduciary
duties, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

According to the Company: "On May 1, 2014, a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit relating to the merger was filed against us,
our board of directors, Royal Empress, Inc. and Forest
Laboratories, Inc. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, styled Steven Kollman, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
Transaction ID 55377253, Case No. 9599, alleging that members of
our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transaction and that Furiex and Forest
Laboratories aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. On May 2, 2014, a second putative shareholder class action
lawsuit relating to the merger was filed against us, our board of
directors, Royal Empress, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc. in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled Donald
Powell, On Behalf of himself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Transaction ID 55382992, Case
No. 9603, alleging that members of our board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction and that
Furiex, Forest Laboratories and their merger sub Royal Empress,
Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
Both complaints seek class certification, injunctive relief to
prevent closing of the proposed transaction, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs."

Additional similar lawsuits might be filed. The Company and its
board of directors believe that both of these lawsuits are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted
therein, but we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss at this early stage of the
proceedings.

Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a drug development collaboration
company. The Company's product pipeline includes two marketed
products and three programs in development, including late-stage
compounds, in multiple therapeutic areas. Its programs include
Priligy, Alogliptin Nesina, Alogliptin/Actose Combination,
Alogliptin/Metformin Combination, Fluoroquinolone, Mu Delta and
PPD 10558. Priligy (dapoxetine) is a drug developed for the on-
demand treatment of premature ejaculation (PE). Dapoxetine is a
short-acting, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)
designed to be taken only when needed one to three hours before
sexual intercourse is anticipated rather than every day. Nesina
(alogliptin) is a drug for the oral treatment of type 2 diabetes
(T2D). In November 2011, it acquired full exclusive license rights
to develop and commercialize the compound MuDelta under its
existing development and license agreement with Janssen
Pharmaceutica N.V.


GAP INC: Faces "Etman" Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that a disgruntled
Gap Inc. customer filed a $10 million putative class action in
California court on May 29 alleging the retailer uses deceptive
in-store and online advertising to obscure that certain
merchandise is excluded from discounts, pressuring consumers into
buying full-price items.

Plaintiff Misbah Etman accused Gap of running deceptive
advertising designed to hide the fact that many items are not
subject to discounts for a larger category of products.  To
accomplish this, Gap allegedly buries disclaimers in small font in
its advertising indicating that certain items are excluded from a
sale offer, according to the complaint.

Ms. Etman alleged that the advertising is designed to give the
false impression that all items on a particular rack, table or
shelf are discounted.  By the time customers realize at the
register that a product is actually full-price, they are too
psychologically committed to walk away from the purchase,
especially because the small price difference is often worth less
than the time, energy and emotion they have invested in their
selection, according to the complaint.

"Consequently, even though they may feel frustrated and duped,
they purchase the clothing they brought to the register and they
pay prices that are greater than the advertised prices or full
price (without the advertised discount)," the suit said.

By employing the scheme, Gap allegedly causes consumers to
purchase products they would otherwise have rejected at prices
greater than what they were led to believe they would pay.

The suit appears to be a twist on the recent trend of sale price
class actions targeting retailers' supposed practice of offering
prices that purport to be sales but which are actually the same as
or not substantially different from the regular price.

As Ms. Etman alleged, four months ago she saw an advertisement at
a brick-and-mortar Gap store that led her to believe all of the
clothing on a certain rack was on sale at a particular price.  At
the register, Gap allegedly informed her that one item was
excluded from the sale and refused to discount it accordingly.
Although Ms. Etman "felt she had been misled," she purchased the
item and paid full price, the suit said.

Gap's email advertisements likewise obscure limitations the store
places on its discounts, according to the complaint.  Ms. Etman
cited a message that allegedly touted a "40 percent off your
purchase" offer, with the disclaimer that exclusions applied
printed in "barely noticeable lettering" against a colored
background.  Once a consumer clicks on the link and begins
shopping, Gap does not identify the items that are included in or
excluded from the 40 percent sale, not even when a customer
selects an item for their online shopping cart, according to the
complaint.

"Not surprisingly, many, if not most, consumers who have been
lured onto defendant's website to shop by its false and misleading
advertising purchase products, including products defendant
refuses to sell them at prices discounted in accordance with the
advertised sale," the suit said.

As a sophisticated retailer, Gap knows or should know that its
pricing misleads consumers and diverts business that would
otherwise go to its competitors, the suit said, adding that any
consumer that has been enticed to shop in the retailer's
brick-and-mortar stores or on its website by the allegedly false
advertising has been harmed.  Consumers who paid full price were
damaged in the amount they overpaid, while expert testimony will
determine the damages suffered by those who paid discounted
prices, according to the complaint.

Gap's conduct allegedly violates California's unfair competition
law, false advertising law, Business and Professions code and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, with the aggregate damages exceeding
$10 million, the suit said.

Ms. Etman is represented by William M. Turner --
wmturner@jonesbell.com -- and Usman S. Mohammed --
usmohammed@jonesbell.com -- of Jones Bell Abbott Fleming &
Fitzgerald LLP.

The case is Misbah Etman et al. v. The Gap Inc. et al., case
number BC547161, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.


GENERAL MOTORS: Fails to Disclose Vehicles' Defects, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aletha Stafford-Chapman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, General Motors Holding,
LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, and Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00474 (S.D. Ohio, June 5, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for the alleged egregious and unprecedented
failure to disclose and to affirmatively conceal a known defect in
General Motors vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Climaco, Esq.
      CLIMACO LEFKOWITZ PECA WILCOX & GAROFOLI
      55 Public Square, Suite 1950,
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 621-8484
      Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
      E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Two Shareholder Class Actions Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that as General Motors Co. seeks to fend off wrongful-death
lawsuits and claims for economic losses arising from its ignition-
switch defects, two shareholder actions are moving forward against
its top executives, including chief executive officer Mary Barra,
and board of directors.

During GM's annual shareholder meeting on June 10, Ms. Barra said
a compensation fund administered by attorney Kenneth Feinberg
would begin accepting claims on Aug. 1 on behalf of people injured
or killed in accidents linked to an ignition-switch defect.  GM
has recalled 2.6 million vehicles due to the defect, which can
cause engines to shut down and disable power steering and airbags.
GM also has moved in bankruptcy court in New York to bar class
actions filed by its customers for economic losses tied to the
recalls.

But in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, shareholder lawsuits are forging ahead, seeking to pin
the blame for the recalls on GM's top leaders.

"The facts of the case will be that the company's executives
either knew about the need for a recall and the deaths, or were
reckless in not knowing," said Jeremy Lieberman, a partner at New
York's Pomerantz, which filed a class action on behalf of
shareholders against GM.  Also pending is a derivative shareholder
action against GM's officers and directors.

The shareholder allegations contrast with GM's own account of its
failures in handling the defects.  An internal report released on
June 5 blamed the problems on negligence by company engineers and
lawyers, many of whom have been fired, and concluded that
Ms. Barra and other top executives were kept in the dark about the
problem.

GM, represented by Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis, hasn't responded to
the shareholder lawsuits.  Neither GM spokesman Greg Martin nor
Eric Rosenthal of Detroit's Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, who
represents the executives and directors in the derivative action,
responded to requests for comment.

On June 9, GM moved to transfer the class action to U.S. District
Judge Robert Cleland, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush
who is overseeing the derivative action.  GM asserts that the
cases are related.  On June 10, Pomerantz opposed the transfer,
arguing they are not related. Even if they are, the firm insisted,
they should go before U.S. District Judge Linda Parker, an Obama
appointee who is overseeing the class action.

In the derivative action, filed on March 28, shareholders claim
that GM's officers and directors, by mishandling the ignition-
switch issue, have cost the automaker billions of dollars.

"The individual defendants' failure to timely issue the recall is
inexcusable," the suit says.  "The slow but steady leak of
information concerning the company's failings has proved
devastating for GM."

The case names GM as a nominal defendant and 17 individuals
including Barra, chairman Theodore Solso, and former chairmen and
chief executive officers Daniel Akerson and Edward Whitacre.

The other defendants are GM's directors, most of whom began
serving on the board soon after the company emerged from
bankruptcy in 2009.  On June 10, two of those directors announced
their retirements, and a third also stepped down. Another served
as a director from 2003 to 2013.

The suit lays particular blame on the board members, most of whom
sat on a public policy committee that oversaw management of safety
issues.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Kevin Seely -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
-- a partner at San Diego's Robbins Arroyo, declined to comment.

In the class action, four plaintiffs firms, including Pomerantz,
began vying for lead counsel status last month.

Pomerantz filed the class action on behalf of shareholders who
purchased GM stock between Nov. 17, 2010 -- the date of its $20.1
billion initial public offering -- and March 10, 2014.  That case,
filed on March 21, claims that GM's misstatements about the
ignition-switch issue in financial reports leading to its IPO, and
in the years afterward, resulted in "significant reputational and
legal exposure" and caused the share price to tank, "wiping out
billions in shareholder value," according to the complaint.

"They also, every quarter, would report a product warranty
liability balance, which included provisions for recall campaigns,
and those we allege were understated because they should have
included provisions for the recalls," Mr. Lieberman said.

The suit also names Ms. Barra; Akerson; GM president Daniel
Ammann; Alan Batey, president of GM North America; and James
DeLuca, GM's executive vice president for global manufacturing.

Lieberman said the alleged misstatements continue, citing GM's
insistence that only 13 people have died due to the ignition-
switch problems.  "There are a lot of unanswered questions, and we
think the company has not been transparent with investors and the
public, even in the wake of their 'mea culpa,'" he said.


GLUTINO: Recalls Rosemary and Olive Oil Snack Crackers
------------------------------------------------------
Glutino, a division of GFA Brands, Inc. based in Paramus, NJ, is
voluntarily recalling Glutino Rosemary and Olive Oil Snack
Crackers.  The recall is being initiated because the seasoning
supplier, Kerry Ingredients, recalled the seasoning blend due to
possible Salmonella contamination.

Glutino Rosemary and Olive Oil Snack Crackers products with "Best
By" date of October 26, 2014 are being recalled because they have
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism that
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, 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 Glutino Rosemary and Olive Oil Snack Crackers were
distributed nationally through retail and warehouse club stores.
The product affected is sold in a 4.25 ounce and a 20 ounce opaque
white box with a "Best By" date of October 26, 2014 stamped on the
top of the box. The recall is limited to the Glutino Rosemary and
Olive Oil Snack Crackers and does not extend to any other Glutino
products.

The affected Glutino UPCs are:

    6 78523 03861 1
    6 78523 03863 5

No illnesses have been reported to date with consumption of the
Glutino Rosemary and Olive Oil Snack Crackers. Customers who
purchased this item are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 201-421-3970 or visit www.glutino.com.

Since 1983, Glutino has been a trusted pioneer and leader in the
gluten free category. Glutino offers a wide variety of great-
tasting, gluten free foods consumers can trust. Glutino(R)
products are available in the US and Canada at local supermarkets,
natural and organic retailers. For more information on Glutino,
visit www.Glutino.com. Glutino is a division of GFA Brands, Inc.,
a Boulder Brands company.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Orders "King" Suit Parties to Submit Briefs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Alamilla and Colleen King brought a putative class action
against Defendants Hain Celestial Group, Inc., BluePrint Wholesale
LLC, and ZSBPW LLC, seeking to represent both nationwide as well
as California classes of consumers who purchased Defendants' juice
products. In addition to state law claims, brought on behalf of
the California classes, Plaintiffs seek to bring several common
law claims on behalf of the nationwide classes.

"By no later than June 13, 2014, the parties are directed to file
simultaneous briefs, not to exceed 5 pages, addressing (1)
whether, and on what basis, a class action based on the common law
of the fifty states may proceed and (2) at what stage of the
litigation this issue should be addressed," ruled District Judge
Vince Chhabria in his order dated May 29, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/aqC8kHfrom Leagle.com.

"In addition to the pending motions to dismiss, the parties should
be prepared to discuss this issue at the June 26, 2014 hearing,"
Judge Chhabria added.

The case is SAMUEL F. ALAMILLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HAIN
CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-05595-
VC, (N.D. Cal.).

Samuel F. Alamilla, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy
Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Annick
Marie Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.,
Joshua Dov Levin-Epstein -- josh@spencersheehan.com -- Sheehan and
Associates, P.C., Sarah N Westcot -- swestcot@bursor.com -- Bursor
& Fisher PA, Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher P.A. & Spencer Sheehan -- spencer@spencersheehan.com --
Sheehan and Associates, P.C..

Colleen King, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher,
Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth
Kiyul Lee -- klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Dean N. Panos
-- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner And Block LLP & Kelly Marie
Morrison -- kmorrison@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP.

ZSBPW LLC, Defendant, represented by Angel A. Garganta --
aagarganta@Venable.com  -- Venable LLP, Kimberly Irene Culp --
kculp@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Jessie F. Beeber --
jbeeber@Venable.com -- Venable LLP & Thomas Edward Wallerstein --
twallerstein@Venable.com -- Venable LLP.

BluePrintWholesale LLC, Defendant, represented by Angel A.
Garganta, Venable LLP, Kimberly Irene Culp, Venable LLP, Jessie F.
Beeber, Venable LLP & Thomas Edward Wallerstein, Venable LLP.


HILL'S PET: Recalls 62 Bags of Dry Dog Food in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. of Topeka, KS is voluntarily recalling
62 bags of Science Diet(R) Adult Small & Toy Breed(TM) dry dog
food as they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. The suspect product, part of a single production run,
was distributed to 17 veterinary clinic and pet store customers in
California, Hawaii and Nevada between April 24 and May 13, 2014.
Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

This voluntary recall is limited to 62 15.5 lb. bags of Science
Diet(R) Adult Small & Toy Breed(TM) dry dog food with the Stock-
Keeping Unit (SKU) code, "Best before" date and production code
shown below. This product was accidentally released, as revealed
during a routine inventory reconciliation. All 17 affected
customers have been contacted by Hill's and there have been no
reported illnesses related to this product to date.

Product Name     Bag Size     SKU     "Best Before" Date/
Production Code

Science Diet(R) Adult Small & Toy Breed     15.5 lbs.     9097
08 2015 M094

The SKU number is located on the bottom of the bag, both side
panels and on the back lower right hand corner below the UPC code.
As illustrated below, the "Best before" date and production code
is stamped on the top, middle of each bag.

Consumers who may have purchased any of these specific 62 15.5 lb
bags of Science Diet(R) Adult Small & Toy Breed(TM) dry dog food
should discontinue use of the product and immediately call Hill's
Pet Nutrition at 1-800-445-5777 Monday-Friday during the hours of
7am-7pm (CT). Hill's will arrange to collect the unused portion of
the product at its own expense at a time convenient for the
consumer and will provide a full refund.

This voluntary recall does not impact any Science Diet(R) Adult
Small and Toy Breed(TM) products with different "best before"
dates or any other Science Diet products.

Hill's Pet Nutrition is dedicated to providing high-quality, safe
products and regrets the need for this voluntary recall. For
further information, please contact Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. at
1-800-445-5777 Monday-Friday during the hours of 7am-7pm (CT).

Hill's Pet Nutrition Inc. manufactures Hill's(R) Prescription
Diet(R) brand pet foods, therapeutic pet foods available only
through veterinarians, and Science Diet(R) and Ideal Balance(TM)
brand wellness pet foods sold through veterinarians and pet
specialty retailers. Founded more than 70 years ago with an
unparalleled commitment to pet well-being, Hill's' mission is to
help enrich and lengthen the special relationships between people
and their pets. For more information about Hill's, our products
and our nutritional philosophy visit HillsPet.com, or visit us on
Facebook, keywords "Hill's Pet Nutrition."


HORRY ELECTRIC: Settles Good Cents Class Action for $6 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
WMBF News reports that Horry Electric has reached a $6 million
settlement in a class action suit over the company's Good Cents
program, and its requirement for a vapor barrier, which the
plaintiffs claimed promoted mold growth.

The Horry Electric Cooperative's Good Cents program allowed
homeowners to save money on their electric bill by installing
cost-cutting utilities in certain homes.  One of the requirements
of the program was the use of a vapor barrier in heated areas.
However, the suit claimed that requiring a vapor barrier for the
interior side of the exterior walls was a defective design that
promoted mold growth.

The plaintiffs alleged damages for out-of-pocket repair costs and
related construction expenses.

"Most people's home is their biggest investment," said Nate Fata
of Nata Fata, PA. of Surfside Beach, who represented the
plaintiffs along with Chris Tuck and Jay Ward of Richardson,
Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC.  "We are very pleased that
these homeowners will be compensated for damages caused by the
vapor barrier requirement."

The settlement agreement, approved on May 30 by Horry County Court
Judge Benjamin Culbertson, established a minimum recovery of
$2,000 per class member, with a maximum recovery of $12,000 if
certain criteria are met.  The suit was filed in 2011.


IMPERVA INC: Defendant in Shareholder Lawsuit in N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed Imperva,
Inc., on April 11, 2014, on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and April
9, 2014, 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 April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Imperva and
certain of its officers. The lawsuit purports to bring suit on
behalf of those investors who purchased Imperva's publicly traded
securities between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements,
purports to assert claims for violations of the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
A response to the complaint is not yet due. We do not believe a
loss is probable. Due to the early stage of the matter, no
estimate of the amount or range of possible amounts can be
determined at this time."

Imperva, Inc. is engaged in providing data security solutions
focused on providing visibility and control over business data
across systems within the data center.


INDIANA: Adoptive Parents File Class Action Against DCS
-------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Black, writing for South Bend Tribune, reports that the
Indianapolis attorneys who won a class-action lawsuit against
Indiana's Bureau of Motor Vehicles last year have turned their
attention to the 1,400 families on a "waiting list" for money
meant to help raise children adopted from the state's foster care
system.

A class-action lawsuit was filed on June 2 in LaPorte County,
against the Department of Child Services and its director,
Mary Beth Bonaventura, and on behalf of Debbie Moss, a LaPorte
grandmother profiled in a February column in The Tribune.  She is
struggling to care for her three grandchildren without the
adoption subsidies she was promised.

In a press conference on June 2, Indianapolis attorney
Richard Shevitz described a state policy enacted by former DCS
Director James Payne in 2009 in which DCS negotiated adoption
rates with many families who qualified for them, signed contracts
but then told them they would be placed on a waiting list until
the money was available -- at the same time returning millions of
dollars back to state coffers.

"This is obviously something that has real consequences for real
people," Mr. Shevitz said.

Court documents list nearly $240 million returned to the state
over five years in fiscal years 2009-2013.  Ms. Bonaventura took
over as DCS chief in March 2013.  This, the attorneys allege, was
a breach of the contracts DCS signed with the adoptive parents.

Meanwhile, Mr. Shevitz pointed out a Tribune editorial about
adoptions dropping 35 percent statewide between 2011 and 2013,
meaning the state has been paying more money to keep children in
foster care than it would have paid in adoption subsidies.  Under
state law, adoption payments are to be 75 percent of foster care
payments.

Since Ms. Moss adopted her three grandsons in July 2012, she would
have been due about $40,000 in payments from the state based on
the daily payments she had negotiated with DCS, Mr. Shevitz said.
A DCS spokesman had not yet commented on the lawsuit on June 2.

                       'Going home with you'

Ms. Moss easily recites the unexpected conversation with a judge
that led to her adopting her three grandsons from Mishawaka.
One of the LaPorte woman's daughters, the mother of the boys, had
lost parental rights because of abuse she had not deflected from
them.  Ms. Moss had acted as a foster parent to the boys, but on
this day, another of Ms. Moss' daughters was prepared to
officially adopt them.

But in his courtroom in South Bend, former Judge Peter Nemeth
scuttled caseworkers' arrangements after learning the would-be
adoptive mother would be placing the children in child care during
the day.  Was there any other relative in court who could take
them instead? he asked.  He zeroed in on Ms. Moss, she recalled
for a Tribune writer earlier this year, in his famously direct
manner.

Who was she? And since she had been fostering them, could she
raise them?

Ms. Moss told the judge about her ongoing health issues and that
she subsists on disability payments because of her cancer in
remission.

Judge Nemeth, she said, pointed out that the state would help
support the children, as former wards of the state.

"Get me a letter from your oncologist that your cancer is in
remission," Judge Nemeth told her, "and the children are going
home with you."

So Ms. Moss left the Juvenile Justice Center and showed up at her
oncologist's office across town.  After telling his staff why she
was there, the doctor came over and asked her, "What are you
doing? It'll be too much stress on you."

"I said, 'It'll be too much stress on me if I don't take them,' "
Ms. Moss recalled telling her doctor, who wrote a letter for the
judge, saying he was doing so "under protest."

Ms. Moss officially adopted her three grandchildren -- now 4, 5
and 7 -- on July 13, 2012.

                        Out of the budget

The Department of Child Services paid for an adoption attorney to
negotiate a subsidy rate, Ms. Moss recalls, starting with a measly
50 cents a day.  As a foster parent, she had been reimbursed $25 a
day per child. They negotiated $18.88 a day.  The attorneys drew
up paperwork that included the agreed-upon amount, and everyone
signed it.

Then Ms. Moss learned she was placed on a waiting list of other
adoptive parents who are told they qualify for state adoption
subsidies but won't actually receive them.

Federal money exists for some adoptive parents meeting certain
restrictive criteria, which are gradually being phased out.

President Obama's administration has so far kept enough money in
the federal budget to allow all newly adopted children to receive
federal subsidies through 2018.  Those who are ineligible for
federal money are meant to receive state subsidies.  All but
Indiana reportedly offer them.

But former DCS Director James Payne, whose oft-cited mantra was
"People should adopt for love, not money," removed adoption
subsidy money from the budget as of January 2009 while at the same
time returning to state coffers millions of unspent dollars from
the DCS budget.

"I feel for those other families," said Ms. Moss, who grew up poor
and is used to stretching a dollar.  "I would like to see one of
them (state officials) explain to me how you go to your bill
collector and say, 'I am here to pay this with love.'"

                        Repeatedly denied

"It sounds really greedy, doesn't it, when I ask for money to help
raising my own grandchildren?" Ms. Moss asked.  But she notes that
she has to rely on charity from others to meet the basic needs of
the children, which includes treating asthma in two of them and
ADHD in all of them, and she has trouble paying bills.

The 58-year-old refers to her list of food pantries, which she
visits regularly.  She tries to take in odd jobs of sewing or
doing laundry.

In January 2012, her disability payments increased $6 a month,
which then rendered her family ineligible for food stamps.  Her
appeals to be reinstated have been repeatedly denied.

"I want to see them grow into the fine young men I know they can
be," Ms. Moss said.  "But I don't get it.  How can you leave that
out of a budget?"

                        'Very appalling'

As of the end of the last fiscal year, July 2013, 1,400 families
were on Indiana's "waiting list," according to DCS spokesman
James Wide.

Adoptive parents on the list are eligible for some services for
the children, such as Medicaid, and are given one-time payments of
$1,500 per child.  Those one-time payments can cover court costs
or attorney fees. (Asked about the one-time payments, Ms. Moss
said she had not received such a thing, but she noted the attorney
bill DCS paid on her behalf was exactly $4,500.)

State Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, introduced a bill for each
of the last five years that would restore the adoption subsidy to
the state budget, including last year, when Gov. Mike Pence
proclaimed that promoting adoption is a priority for him.  Each
year, the bill failed to pass.

Earlier this month, Sen. Broden indicated he plans to introduce
his bill again, and he awaits word of whether he'll find a seat on
a General Assembly summer study committee on adoption.  Whether or
not he's on the committee, he hopes it addresses the issue of the
subsidy, which he calls "a moral issue."

The senator points out the state's current fiscal cushion of $1.5
to $2 billion.

"I still think there's an information gap on the nature of this
problem," Sen. Broden says.  "I know Judge (Mary Beth) Bonaventura
understands the problem."

Mr. Wide said earlier this year there's a lot of discussion of the
issue in DCS hallways.  Told of Ms. Moss' story, he said in
February, "I can't disagree with that parent at all."

Sen. Broden's sentiments are stronger.

"It just really galls me that you sign these contracts and it
looks so official and then you're told you're on this list," he
said.  "I find it very appalling."


INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Pa. Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Tabron, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Innovative Construction Services, Inc., Richard Sommers c/o
Innovative Construction Services, Inc., Robert Pryswara c/o
Innovative Construction Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03218
(E.D. Pa., June 5, 2014),  is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Innovative Construction Services, Inc., provides construction
services.  It is headquartered at 1851 Maple Avenue Folcroft, PA
19032.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
      1878 Marlton Pike E, Suite 10,
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Summary Judgment Briefing Set for July 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Completion of summary judgment briefing of a purported class
action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that IntraLinks
Holdings, Inc., made false and misleading statements about its
financial condition, is scheduled for July 13, 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.

The Company states: "On December 5, 2011, we became aware of a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, or the SDNY or the Court,
against us and certain of our current and former executive
officers. The complaint, or the Wallace Complaint, alleges that
the defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions
about our business prospects, financial condition and performance
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the
purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the
period from February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011, or the
Allegation Period. On December 27, 2011, a second purported class
action complaint, which makes substantially the same claims as,
and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY
against us and certain of our current and former executive
officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory damages for the
Allegation Period. On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the
actions and appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the
consolidated action, or the Consolidated Class Action."

"On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that, in addition to the original allegations made in the Wallace
Complaint, alleges that we, certain of our current and former
officers and directors, and the underwriters in our April 6, 2011
stock offering issued a registration statement and prospectus in
connection with the offering that contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted material information required to be
stated therein in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on
July 31, 2012. On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion
dismissing claims based on certain allegations in the complaint,
but otherwise denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28,
2013, defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint. On October 15, 2013, the Court entered the
parties' pretrial scheduling stipulation. In December 2013, the
parties served each other with document requests and discovery is
ongoing. On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for
class certification. Pursuant to an amended scheduling order
entered by the Court on April 18, 2014, the defendants' opposition
to class certification is due by June 13, 2014, and lead
plaintiff's reply is due by July 18, 2014. Completion of summary
judgment briefing is scheduled for July 13, 2015. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously."

IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. together with its subsidiaries, is a
global provider of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions for
securely managing content, exchanging critical business
information and collaborating within and among organizations. The
Company's cloud-based solutions enable organizations to control,
track, search and exchange time-sensitive information inside and
outside the firewall, all within a secure environment.


JANSSEN PHARMA: Balks at Punitive Damages Bid in Risperdal Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the plaintiffs in Philadelphia's Risperdal mass tort are belatedly
changing their legal argument in an effort to sway a judge to
reconsider his ruling denying the plaintiffs a chance at punitive
damages, Risperdal maker Janssen Pharmaceuticals argued in a court
filing.

"After strenuously (and repeatedly) arguing that Pennsylvania law
should govern the issue of punitive damages (based on the
strategic decision that Pennsylvania does not have a statutory cap
on punitive damages), plaintiffs now maintain that the court
should determine the availability of punitive damages on a 'case-
by-case basis,'" Janssen said in its opposition to the plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration.

Several hundred Risperdal plaintiffs argued earlier this month
that Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold L. New
mistakenly determined that New Jersey law applied to the cases and
that the New Jersey Product Liability Act and New Jersey case law
bars punitive damages in cases involving U.S. Food and Drug
Administration-approved drugs.

The plaintiffs said it didn't matter where the drug's warning
label was created, but rather where the drug was marketed.  The
plaintiffs said in their motion that Risperdal was marketed off-
label in many states and that those states may have a greater
interest in seeing their laws on punitive damages applied than New
Jersey would.  The plaintiffs further argued that even New Jersey
law would allow punitive damages to apply in certain of the cases
in which the drug was marketed for uses that were not approved by
the FDA.

The plaintiffs said all of those circumstances required the court
to determine the availability of punitive damages on a case-by-
case basis.

"In an effort to evade this court's order granting partial summary
judgment in favor of Janssen as to plaintiffs' demand for punitive
damages . . . plaintiffs raise arguments under the guise of a
motion for reconsideration and request for certification for
interlocutory appeal that they ignored, overlooked, or
strategically avoided in their failed opposition to Janssen's
earlier motion," Janssen said in its opposition brief.

Stephen A. Sheller -- sasheller@sheller.com -- of Sheller P.C.,
who is representing the plaintiffs along with Kline & Specter,
said on June 10 that Pennsylvania law should apply to the punitive
damages claims because that is where the defendant is
incorporated, and that is where the plaintiffs outline much of the
conduct took place.

"But the alternative to that is to apply the law of the state
where the plaintiff was injured and where the off-label and
kickbacks occurred," Mr. Sheller said.  "That's your second
option, and either way, it certainly shouldn't be New Jersey
[law], unless it's a New Jersey resident involved."

Janssen further argued these cases are about Risperdal's warning
label and not about what the plaintiffs asserted was the company's
off-label marketing of the drug to children.  Janssen said there
has been no evidence to show its business decisions about the
creation of Risperdal's warning label occurred anywhere other than
New Jersey.  In a footnote to its brief, Janssen said the
plaintiffs conceded in their motion in opposition to Janssen's
request for summary judgment that the Risperdal label did not have
the necessary warnings.

By focusing on the multistate marketing campaign of Risperdal, the
plaintiffs are moving the relevant punitive damages inquiry from
the place where corporate decisions are made to individual state
activities.

"Stated another way, plaintiffs focus on implementation of
corporate decisions rather than the location where company
decisions are made," Janssen said.

Janssen also took issue with the plaintiffs' argument that some of
their claims for punitive damages could survive if they were
prescribed the drug before it was FDA-approved for certain off-
label uses.

One of the main injuries asserted in the lawsuits is gynecomastia,
or the development of breasts in adolescent boys.  Risperdal, an
antipsychotic medication, wasn't approved by the FDA for use in
children until October 2006. The plaintiffs argue those who took
the drug as a minor before October 2006 were not taking an FDA-
approved drug as was contemplated in the New Jersey Product
Liability Act.

"Consistent with the plain text of the statute, courts
consistently have found that the punitive damages bar applies
whenever the FDA has approved the medicine at issue," Janssen
countered in its opposition brief.

Mr. Sheller said if a drug is not approved by the FDA for a
specific use, that means it is not approved for that use.

"If [Janssen] think[s] that preempts everything under the New
Jersey punitive damages statute, then they should agree to allow
the immediate appeal, which they refuse to do," Mr. Sheller said.

Janssen said the plaintiffs' arguments didn't fall within the
proper grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration.  Janssen
said there was no new evidence presented, nor was there any change
in controlling law. The company also argued against the
plaintiffs' request for a determination that New's May 2 order
granting partial summary judgment as to punitive damages was
either a final order that could be appealed or an interlocutory
order that could be certified for appeal.

"There is no compelling reason that the single issue of punitive
damages should delay this mass tort litigation," Janssen argued.
Kenneth Murphy -- Kenneth.Murphy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle &
Reath filed the opposition brief on behalf of Janssen, a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, in In re Risperdal Litigation.
Mr. Murphy wasn't immediately available for comment.


KBR INC: Faces "Ganoudis" Suit Over Accounting Errors
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Ganoudis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. KBR, Inc., William P. Utt, Brian Ferraioli,
and Susan K. Carter, Case No. 4:14-cv-01572 (S.D. Tex., June 5,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose
that the Company had improperly estimated costs to complete
certain contracts; that the Company had accounting errors
resulting from timing of the recognition of revenues and from
understating its income tax provision; that the Company's
financial statements were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and that the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

KBR, Inc. is a Delaware corporation located at 601 Jefferson
Street, Suite 3400, Houston, Texas 77002. It is a global
engineering, construction and services company supporting the
energy, hydrocarbons, power, minerals, civil infrastructure,
government services, industrial and commercial market segments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford , IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM WATKINS NICHOLS SORRELS AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce St.
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-7211
      E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com


KEURIG GREEN: Monopolizes K-Cups Brewers Sale, "Ramey" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Ramey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Keurig, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-04071 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged anticompetitive and unlawful conduct of
monopolizing the market for the sale of single-serve brewers, as
well as the market for the sale of single servings or "portion
packs" of coffees or other beverages that are used in K-cups
brewers.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc., is a Delaware corporation located in Waterbury, Vermont.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue,
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212)686-0114
      E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com


LATE JULY SNACKS: Bid to Dismiss "Swearingen" Suit Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen denied, in part, a motion to dismiss
a first amended complaint in MARY SWEARINGEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. LATE JULY SNACKS LLC, Defendant, NO. C-13-4324 EMC, (N.D.
Cal.).  A copy of the District Court's May 29, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/FQAHkIfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant Late July Snacks, LLC filed the motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs Mary Swearingen and Robert Figy's first amended class
action complaint.

The Court stayed the action under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine in light of the Food and Drug Administration's recent
decision to reopen the comment period with the intent to issue the
guidance in final form.

Mary Swearingen, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore --
pgore@prattattorneys.com -- Pratt & Associates, David Malcolm
McMullan, Jr. -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett,
P.A. -- dbarrett@barrettlawoffice.com -- & David Shelton --
david@davidsheltonpllc.com -- David Shelton, PLLC.

Robert Figy, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt &
Associates, David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Don Barrett, P.A. & David
Shelton, David Shelton, PLLC.

Late July Snacks LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua L Solomon
-- jsolomon@psdfirm.com -- Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP & Rocky C.
Tsai -- Rocky.Tsai@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP.


LILIS 200: Faces "Lee" Suit for Failing to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johkie Lee, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. Lilis 200 West 57 Corp., 792 Restaurant Food Corp.,
Alan Phillips, Jonah Phillips and Siew Moy Low, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03936 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), seeks to recover from Defendants,
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lilis 200 West 57 Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York, doing business as "Lili's 57 Asian
Cuisine & Sushi Bar" with a principal place of business located at
200 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-465-1188
      Facsimile: 212-465-1181


MAGNUM HUNTER: Moved to Dismiss Securities Cases
------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation filed in January 2014, a
motion to dismiss securities lawsuits, which are pending for
decision, 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 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom
continues to serve as a director. On April 24, 2013, Horace
Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
the Company and certain of its officers. Several substantially
similar putative class actions have been filed in the Southern
District of New York and in the Southern District of Texas. All
such cases are collectively referred to as the Securities Cases.
The cases filed in the Southern District of Texas have since been
dismissed, but the cases in the Southern District of New York have
been consolidated and remain ongoing. The plaintiffs in the
Securities Cases have filed a consolidated amended complaint
alleging that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements in its filings with the SEC, including statements
related to the Company's internal and financial controls, the
calculation of non-cash share-based compensation expense, the late
filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the dismissal of Magnum
Hunter's previous independent registered accounting firm, the
Company's characterization of the auditors' position with respect
to the dismissal, and other matters identified in the Company's
April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged false statements
made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period,
as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the
Company's internal controls made in connection with a public
offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The
consolidated amended complaint demands that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including
damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock
price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

In January 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Securities Cases, which is pending for
decision. The Company and the individual defendants intend to
vigorously defend the Securities Cases. It is possible that
additional investor lawsuits could be filed over these events.

Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation is an independent oil and gas
company engaged in the exploration for and the exploitation,
acquisition, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and natural gas liquids, primarily in the states of West Virginia,
Ohio, Texas, Kentucky and North Dakota and in Saskatchewan,
Canada. The Company is also engaged in midstream operations,
including the gathering of natural gas through its ownership and
operation of a gas gathering system in West Virginia and Ohio,
named as its Eureka Hunter Pipeline System.


MAID BRIGADE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zulma Marrero, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Maid Brigade of Northern Westchester, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-03540 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for the alleged failure to pay overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Maid Brigade of Northern Westchester, Inc., provides cleaning
services within the New York Tri-State area. It is located at
8 Legion Drive, Valhalla, New York 10595.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTEC SERVICES: Has Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Sam-Kabba and Steve Hill, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mastec Services
Company, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03480 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and/or unpaid premium
compensation for piecework performed during hours worked in excess
of forty hours in a single workweek.

Mastec Services Company, Inc., is a telecommunications
installation and repair services contractor located at 90 13th
Ave. Ronkonkoma, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter A. Romero, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Bi-County Blvd., 112N
      Farmingdale, New York 11735
      Telephone: 631-756-0400
      Facsimile: 631-756-0547
      E-mail: promero@laborlaws.com


MEE NOODLE: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wen Bing Chen, and on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Mee Noodle Shop & Grill, Inc., Qiang Wang and Jane Doe,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03963 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), seeks to recover
from Defendants, unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mee Noodle Shop and Grill, Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 119
      Flushing, New York VT355
      Telephone:(718)762-1314
      Facsimile: (718) 762 1342
      E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


MYLAN INC: Obtains Initial Approval of "McBride" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria grated preliminary approval of a
settlement in the case captioned MICHAEL McBRIDE, MARIO VALDEZ,
PEDRO GARCIA, KENNY SPENCER, ROBERT RYAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MYLAN,
INC, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-
01533-VC, (N.D. Cal.).   A copy of the May 29, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/ufhYBUfrom Leagle.com.

The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed class satisfies
the requirements of a settlement class under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The class is defined as:

All current and former employees of Mylan, Inc., Mylan Specialty
L.P., and all affiliated parties and entities, who are or were
employed by Mylan Specialty L.P. as FFS Technicians (including
Senior FFS Technicians) and Clean Room Technicians in California
at any time from March 7, 2009 through the Preliminary Approval
Date.

Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as Claims Administrator, pursuant to
the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiffs Michael McBride, Mario Valdez, Pedro Garcia, Kenny
Spencer, and Robert Ryan are appointed the Class Representatives.
Geoffrey Spellberg and Kevin P. McLaughlin of Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver & Wilson are appointed Class Counsel.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held on October 2, 2014 at 1:30
p.m. to determine whether the Settlement should be granted final
approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class
Members.

GEOFFREY SPELLBERG -- gspellberg@meyersnave.com -- KEVIN P.
McLAUGHLIN -- kmclaughlin@meyersnave.com -- MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK,
SILVER & WILSON, Oakland, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael McBride, Mario Valdez, Pedro Garcia, Kenny Spencer, Robert
Ryan.

REBECCA EISEN -- reisen@morganlewis.com -- JENNIFER SVANFELDT --
jsvanfeldt@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant Mylan, Inc.


NEWS CORP: Voicemail Suit Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit filed a second
amended consolidated complaint on April 30, 2014, against News
Corporation alleging that the Company issued false and misleading
statements regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World, 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 July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers
of 21st Century Fox's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July
11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Wilder Litigation"). The plaintiff brought claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued
regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of
the World. The suit named as defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert
Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory
damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff in the litigation and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July
3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended
consolidated complaint was to be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon
filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which
among other things, added as defendants the Company's subsidiary,
NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited),
and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February
15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014.
Plaintiffs were given until April 30, 2014 to amend their
complaint. On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of
the amended consolidated complaint and also expands the class
period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. The Company's management
believes these claims are entirely without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this action. As described below, the Company
will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain payments made
by the Company that relate to, or arise from, the U.K. Newspaper
Matters, including all payments in connection with the Wilder
Litigation.

In addition, U.K. and U.S. regulators and governmental authorities
continue to conduct investigations initiated in 2011 with respect
to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice (the "DOJ") is directed at conduct that
occurred within 21st Century Fox prior to the creation of the
Company. Accordingly, 21st Century Fox has been and continues to
be responsible for responding to the DOJ investigation. The
Company, together with 21st Century Fox, is cooperating with these
investigations.

Civil claims have also been brought against the Company with
respect to the U.K. Newspaper Matters. The Company has admitted
liability in many civil cases related to the voicemail
interception allegations and has settled many cases. The Company
also announced a private compensation scheme under which parties
could pursue claims against it. While additional civil lawsuits
may be filed, no additional civil claims may be brought under the
compensation scheme after April 8, 2013.

The Company and 21st Century Fox agreed in the Separation and
Distribution Agreement that 21st Century Fox will indemnify the
Company for payments made after the Distribution Date arising out
of civil claims and investigations relating to the U.K. Newspaper
Matters as well as legal and professional fees and expenses paid
in connection with the criminal matters, other than fees, expenses
and costs relating to employees (i) who are not directors,
officers or certain designated employees or (ii) with respect to
civil matters, who are not co-defendants with the Company or 21st
Century Fox. In addition, violations of law may result in criminal
fines or penalties for which the Company will not be indemnified
by 21st Century Fox. 21st Century Fox's indemnification
obligations with respect to these matters will be settled on an
after-tax basis.

News Corporation is a diversified media and information services
company. The Company operates in five segments: News and
Information Services, Cable Network Programming, Digital Real
Estate Services, Book Publishing, and Other.  The Company's
business consists of range of media, including news and
information services, sports programming in Australia, digital
real estate services, book publishing, and pay-television (TV)
distribution in Australia, that are distributed under the brands,
including The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, Herald Sun, The Sun,
The Times, HarperCollins Publishers, FOX SPORTS Australia and
realestate.com.au.


NEWS CORP: Provides Update on HarperCollins-Related Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
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, News Corporation provided information related to litigation
involving its HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. unit.

Commencing on August 9, 2011, 29 purported consumer class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York and for the Northern District of California, which
related to the decisions by certain publishers, including
HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), to sell their
e-books pursuant to an agency relationship. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the various class actions to
the Honorable Denise L. Cote in the Southern District of New York.
The case is In re MDL Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Civil
Action No. 11-md-02293 (DLC).

On January 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, again alleging that certain named defendants, including
HarperCollins, violated the antitrust and unfair competition laws
by virtue of the switch to the agency model for e-books. The
actions sought as relief treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

As a result of the settlement agreement with the Attorneys
General, consumers in all states other than Minnesota were
ultimately barred from participating in these class actions. On
June 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of a settlement with HarperCollins, among others, for a class of
consumers residing in Minnesota, which was the only state that did
not sign onto the settlement agreement with the Attorneys General.
On December 6, 2013, Judge Cote granted final approval of the
Minnesota consumer settlement, which did not have a material
impact on the results of operations or the financial position of
the Company.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, the DOJ filed an
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against certain publishers, including HarperCollins, and
Apple, Inc. The DOJ's complaint alleged antitrust violations
related to defendants' decisions to sell e-books pursuant to an
agency relationship. The case was assigned to Judge Cote.
Simultaneously, the DOJ announced that it had reached a proposed
settlement with three publishers, including HarperCollins, and
filed a Proposed Final Judgment and related materials detailing
that agreement. Among other things, the Proposed Final Judgment
required that HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain
e-book retailers and placed certain restrictions on any agreements
subsequently entered into with such retailers. On September 5,
2012, Judge Cote entered the Final Judgment. Additional
information about the Final Judgment can be found on the DOJ's
website.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 state Attorneys
General led by Texas and Connecticut (the "AGs") filed a similar
action against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western
District of Texas. On April 26, 2012, the AGs' action was
transferred to Judge Cote. On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second
amended complaint. As a result of a memorandum of understanding
agreed upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins
was not named as a defendant in this action. Pursuant to the terms
of the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered into a
settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut and Ohio
on June 11, 2012. By August 28, 2012, 49 states (all but
Minnesota) and five U.S. territories had signed on to that
settlement agreement. On August 29, 2012, the AGs simultaneously
filed a complaint against HarperCollins and two other publishers,
a motion for preliminary approval of that settlement agreement and
a proposed distribution plan. On September 14, 2012, Judge Cote
granted the AGs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement and approved the AGs' proposed distribution plan. Notice
was subsequently sent to potential class members, and a fairness
hearing took place on February 8, 2013 at which Judge Cote gave
final approval to the settlement. The settlement is now effective,
and the final judgment bars consumers from states and territories
covered by the settlement from participating in the class actions.

News Corp. also disclosed that on October 12, 2012, HarperCollins
received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Minnesota Attorney
General (the "Minnesota AG"). HarperCollins complied with the
Demand on November 16, 2012. On June 26, 2013, the Minnesota AG
filed a petition for an order approving an assurance of
discontinuance in the Second Judicial District Court for the State
of Minnesota, wherein Minnesota agreed to cease its investigation
and not seek further legal remedies relating to or arising from
the alleged conduct. On June 28, 2013, Judge Gary Bastion signed
an order approving the discontinuance.

New Corp. also disclosed that the European Commission conducted an
investigation into whether certain companies in the book
publishing and distribution industry, including HarperCollins,
violated the antitrust laws by virtue of the switch to the agency
model for e-books. HarperCollins settled the matter with the
European Commission on terms substantially similar to the
settlement with the DOJ. On December 13, 2012, the European
Commission formally adopted the settlement.

Also according to New Corp., commencing on February 24, 2012, five
purported consumer class actions were filed in the Canadian
provinces of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, which relate to
the decisions by certain publishers, including HarperCollins, to
sell their e-books in Canada pursuant to an agency relationship.
The actions seek as relief special, general and punitive damages,
injunctive relief and the costs of the litigations. While it is
not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate
outcome of these class actions, HarperCollins believes it was
compliant with applicable antitrust and competition laws and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

In July 2012, HarperCollins Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., learned that the Canadian
Competition Bureau ("CCB") had commenced an inquiry regarding the
sale of e-books in Canada. In February 2014, HarperCollins reached
a proposed settlement with the CCB on terms substantially similar
to the DOJ settlement, and on February 7, 2014, the CCB registered
that consent agreement with the Competition Tribunal.

On February 21, 2014, Kobo Inc. ("Kobo") filed an application to
rescind or vary the consent agreement with the Competition
Tribunal, and, on March 18, 2014, the Competition Tribunal issued
an order staying the registration of the consent agreement. A
hearing currently is scheduled for June 25, 2014 to address
further proceedings related to Kobo's application.

New Corp. also said that on February 15, 2013, a purported class
of independent bricks-and-mortar bookstores filed an action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled
The Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc, et al. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., et al., which related to the digital rights management
protection ("DRM") of certain publishers', including
HarperCollins', e-books being sold by Amazon.com, Inc. Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint on March 21, 2013. The case involved
allegations that certain named defendants in the book publishing
and distribution industry, including HarperCollins, violated the
antitrust laws by virtue of requiring DRM protection. The action
sought declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees. On April 1, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, and on December 5, 2013, the Court granted the
motion in its entirety. The time to appeal the dismissal has
passed.  The case is The Book House Of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc. et
al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01111-
JSR, can be found on PACER.

News Corp said it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the unresolved HarperCollins matters.  During the fiscal
years ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, the legal and professional
fees and settlement costs incurred in connection with these
matters were not material, and as of March 31, 2014, the Company
did not have a material accrual related to these matters.

News Corporation is a diversified media and information services
company. The Company operates in five segments: News and
Information Services, Cable Network Programming, Digital Real
Estate Services, Book Publishing, and Other. The Company's
business consists of range of media, including news and
information services, sports programming in Australia, digital
real estate services, book publishing, and pay-television (TV)
distribution in Australia, that are distributed under the brands,
including The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, Herald Sun, The Sun,
The Times, HarperCollins Publishers, FOX SPORTS Australia and
realestate.com.au.


NOA INVESTMENTS: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jovan Valencia, and other similarly situated individuals v. NOA
Investments, LLC d/b/a Ciao Piada and Levin De Grazia, Case No.
1:14-cv-22047 (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2014), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime and straight wages pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

NOA Investments, LLC is a Florida profit corporations having their
main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
      JARA & ASSOCIATES, PA
      1200 Brickell Avenue, 1450
      Miami, FL 3313
      Telephone: (305) 372-0290
      Facsimile: (305) 675-0383
      E-mail: franklin@jaralaw.com


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Agreed to Settle "Ashley Toth" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Bancshares, Inc., and Ashley Toth entered into a
settlement agreement providing that Northwest will create a
settlement fund for distribution to the settlement class members
after certain court-approved reductions, 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 7, 2012, Ashley Toth ("Plaintiff") filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania against Northwest Savings Bank ("Northwest").
Plaintiff's complaint alleged state law claims related to
Northwest's order of posting ATM and debit card transactions and
the assessment of overdraft fees on deposit customer accounts.
Northwest filed preliminary objections to the putative class
action complaint on June 29, 2012. On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff
filed an amended putative class action complaint containing
substantially the same allegations as the initial putative class
action complaint. On November 5, 2012, Northwest filed preliminary
objections to the amended putative class action complaint.
Plaintiff filed her opposition to Northwest's preliminary
objections on December 6, 2012, and Northwest filed its reply in
support of the preliminary objections on January 3, 2013. On June
25, 2013, the court entered an order, granting in part and
overruling in part, Northwest's preliminary objections.

On November 18, 2013, the parties participated in a mediation and
reached an agreement in principle, subject to the preparation and
execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
release, to fully, finally and completely settle, resolve,
discharge and release all claims that have been or could have been
asserted in the action on a class-wide basis. The proposed
settlement contemplates that, in return for a full and complete
release of claims by Plaintiff and the settlement class members,
Northwest will create a settlement fund for distribution to the
settlement class members after certain court-approved reductions,
including for attorney's fees and expenses. The proposed
settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval.

Northwest Bancshares, Inc. is a savings and loan holding company.
The primary activity of the Company is the ownership of all of the
issued and outstanding common stock of Northwest Savings Bank, a
chartered savings bank (Northwest).


OMEGA FLEX: Court Dismissed Hall TracPipe CSST Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
The judge in the Hall TracPipe CSST putative class action case
granted in January 2014, Omega Flex, Inc.'s motion to dismiss all
of the plaintiff's claims, 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.

Finally, two putative class action cases have been filed against
the Company; one in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida titled Hall v. Omega Flex, Inc. and one in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio titled Schoelwer v. Omega
Flex, Inc. In both cases, the lead plaintiffs claimed that they
are exposed to an increased likelihood of harm if one of the
plaintiffs' houses that contain TracPipe CSST is struck by
lightning, that could damage the CSST causing a release of fuel
gas in the house and causing a fire. However, none of the lead
plaintiffs have suffered any actual harm. In January 2014, the
judge in the Hall case granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
of the plaintiff's claims due primarily to a lack of jurisdiction
because there is no actual case or controversy posed by these
claims. The plaintiff in Schoelwer voluntarily dismissed her
claims in January 2014.

Omega Flex, Inc. is engaged in the manufacturing of corrugated
flexible metal hose and braid products for the processing
industries and other specialized applications.


PATACON PISAO: Does Not Pay OT Wages, E.D.N.Y. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Tlachino-Toxqui, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Patacon Pisao #2 Corp. and Jonathan
Hernandez, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-03466
(E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), arises from violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and
the party plaintiffs for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation, and such other relief available by law.

Patacon Pisao #2 Corp., is a New York business corporation with
its office in Queens County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      Law OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway Ste 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com


PEPRICO INC: Faces "Caceres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Caceres, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. Peprico Inc. d/b/a Cacio E. Pepe, Giosto Priola,
Salvatore Corea, and Alessandro Peluso, Case No. 1:14-cv-03937
(S.D.N.Y. Jun 03, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants,
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Peprico Inc. d/b/a Cacio E. Pepe, is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of New York, with a principal
place of business and an address for service of process at 182 2nd
Ave, New York, NY 10009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-465-1188
      Facsimile: 212-465-1181


PHILLIP H. MCNEILL: Trial Court Ruling in "Ira" Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson, vacated a trial
court order on class certification in the case captioned DONALD J.
ROBERTS IRA, ET AL. v. PHILLIP H. McNEILL, SR., ET AL., NO. W2013-
01072-COA-R3-CV.

"This is the second interlocutory appeal from a class
certification," wrote Justice J. Steven Stafford in the Appeals
Court's May 30, 2014 memorandum opinion, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/FAMlTzfrom Leagle.com.  "In Roberts v.
McNeill, No. W2010-01000-COA-R9-CV, 2011 WL 662648 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Feb. 23, 2011) ("Roberts I"), we vacated the trial court's class
certification and remanded for reconsideration."

Plaintiffs/Appellees are former owners of preferred stock in
Equity Inns, Inc., who filed suit against Defendants/Appellants,
the board of directors, for breaches of the fiduciary duties
allegedly owed to the preferred shareholders during the
negotiation and approval of a merger. Upon remand from Appeals
Court, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification with respect to "the proposed preferred class
stockholders." Having previously enumerated three preferred
classes of stockholders, the purported certification creates an
ambiguity as to the global class.

"The trial court's certification of three subclasses does not cure
the ambiguity in the global class, and we cannot proceed to review
under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in the absence of a
clearly defined class," held Justice Stafford.  "Accordingly, we
vacate and remand for further consideration."

John S. Golwen -- jgolwen@bassberry.com -- Annie T. Christoff --
achristoff@bassberry.com -- Johathan E. Nelson --
jenelson@bassberry.com -- Memphis, Tennessee, and Edward J. Fuhr
(pro hac vice) -- efuhr@hunton.com -- Matthew P. Bosher (pro hac
vice) -- mbosher@hunton.com -- Trevor S. Cox (pro hac vice),
Richmond, Virginia, for the appellants, Phillip H. McNeill, Sr.,
Howard A. Silver, Raymond E. Schultz, Robert P. Bowen, and Joseph
W. McLeary.


Alan G. Crone -- acrone@croneMcEvoy.com -- Memphis, Tennessee, and
Lee A. Weiss (pro hac vice), Garden City, New York, for the
appellees, Donald J. Roberts IRA, Dr. James M. Byers IRA Rollover,
Patrick Svoboda IRA and Svoboda Realty Inc. Defined Benefit Plan,
Jack Fulton, and Eric Clarke, as Trustee of Clarke Revocable
Trust, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated.


PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR: "Mielo" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Case No.
2:14-cv-00721 (W.D. Pa., June 5, 2014), arises from the alleged
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act specifically for
failure to provide facilities that are not fully accessible to,
and independently usable by individuals with mobility
disabilities.

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board is headquartered at Northwest
Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17124.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QBE: Investors Have Until End of July to Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Chinwe Akomah, writing for Insurance Business, reports that
"several" institutional investors of QBE have requested more time
to collate trade data and paperwork for a potential shareholder
class action against the insurer, according to Maurice Blackburn
Lawyers.

The law firm, in April, asked investors to come forward if they
were troubled by the company's share price fall late last year.
It gave them until May 31 to do so.

A Maurice Blackburn Lawyers spokesman on June 3 told Insurance
Business that the deadline for investors to come forward is now
the end of July.  "We've had some feedback from several
institutional investors requesting more time to go through the
paperwork and collate their trade data," he explained, "So we have
accommodated that by extending the deadline to the end of July.
We knew there'd have been significant holdings in QBE during the
period and that is reflected by the response we're getting."

The law firm said the shareholders were concerned QBE was "less
than frank and timely" in informing the market of the troubles in
its North American business, which the firm said were at the heart
of last year's loss.

"If QBE has breached its obligations or misled the market,
investors that bought QBE shares in the period leading up to
December 9, 2013 paid an inflated price for those shares.  Those
investors will be entitled to compensation," class actions
principal Jacob Varghese said in April.

At the time, a QBE spokesman stated: "QBE has rigorously complied
with its continuous disclosure obligations at all times.  No
proceedings have been issued in relation to any proposed action,
and QBE will not be making any further comment at this time."


REDBOX AUTOMATED: 9th Cir. Tosses Class Action Over Zip Codes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal appeals court has dismissed a proposed class action
filed on behalf of Redbox customers in California, after
concluding the kiosk retailer didn't illegally ask for their ZIP
codes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held on June 6
that Redbox Automated Retail LLC, which rents out DVDs and video
games for $1 per day from red kiosks, does not violate
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 because its
credit card transactions, which require customers to enter their
ZIP codes, are used as deposits in case they fail to return the
products.

"The credit card information permits Redbox to collect the
additional amount owed should the customer choose to keep the
movie or game for additional days or if it is never returned,"
Circuit Judge Richard Clifton wrote.

The panel rejected the plaintiffs' view that no deposit actually
occurred because Redbox doesn't actually charge the credit card at
the time the customer enters his or her ZIP code.

"The credit card of the Redbox customer is given as a pledge or
security, whether or not any funds are actually drawn by Redbox
from the customer's account in advance," Judge Clifton wrote.
"Nothing indicates that the Legislature intended such a
distinction, and plaintiffs have not provided a logical
explanation for such a distinction."

Redbox attorney Eric Miller -- EMiller@perkinscoie.com --
co-chairman of the appellate practice at Seattle's Perkins Coie,
declined to comment.  Robin Workman of San Francisco's Qualls &
Workman, who represented the named plaintiffs, did not return a
call for comment.

The decision was the latest to carve out case law over the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act, which prohibits retailers in California
from collecting certain personal identification information when
customers use their credit cards for purchases.  In 2011, the
California Supreme Court found in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores
Inc. that ZIP codes were "personal identification information"
under the act.

In a dissent, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote that Redbox,
which caps rentals at $25 no matter what happens to the DVD or
video game, asks customers for their ZIP codes as part of their
purchase -- not to ensure a deposit.  He also disagreed with U.S.
District Judge Jacqueline Nguyen's dismissal of the case, which
was based on a separate finding that the Song-Beverly Act did not
apply to kiosk or online transactions.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 3 disclosed
that an investor of Regional Management Corp. has filed a federal
securities fraud class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint alleges that
the company and certain of its officers and directors violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 in connection with the company's
September 20, 2013 stock offering at $27.50 per share and December
5, 2013 offering at $31 per shares.  Regional Management is a
specialty consumer finance company that provides loan products
primarily to subprime customers with limited access to consumer
credit from banks, thrifts, credit card companies, and other
traditional lenders.

Regional Management Accused of Failing to Disclose Material Facts
in Its Registration Statement

According to the complaint, as of May 30, 2014, shares of Regional
Management had declined roughly 50% since the company's Offerings.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that at the time the
Registration Statement and Prospectuses were prepared, Regional
Management knew and failed to disclose that: (i) the company had
been increasing its refinancing of loans in an amount greater than
the original loan amount; (ii) its underwriting standards had
deteriorated, leading to higher percentages of delinquencies and
charge-offs thereby negatively impacting the company's 2013 and
first quarter 2014 net earnings and; (iii) Regional Management
misstated its fourth quarter and fiscal 2012 financial reports,
significantly overstating the company's previously reported
interest income, insurance premiums, revenues, net income, and
assets.

Regional Management Shareholders Are Encouraged to Contact
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Robbins Arroyo LLP

If you invested in Regional Management and would like to discuss
your shareholder rights, please contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the
information form on the firm's shareholder rights blog
http://www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/regional-
management-corp/

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in securities
litigation and shareholder rights law.  The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients
realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the
companies in which they have invested.


ROBERT COUPE: Court Dismisses "Black" Suit With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard G. Andrews dismissed the case captioned
JONATHAN D. BLACK, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT COUPE, et al., Defendants,
CIV. NO. 14-214-RGA, (D. Del.) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1915(e)(2)(8)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).

Jonathan D. Black is an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center, Smyrna, Delaware.  He alleged that he is in constant pain
due to Defendants' deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. He also alleged unlawful conditions of confinement. Tge
Plaintiff sought injunctive relief to compel defendants to: (1)
furnish him with constitutionally adequate medical care; (2)
furnish him with shoes (instead of sneakers), (3) halt corrections
staff from interfering with medical orders under the guise of
security; and (4) halt cell searches that result in trashing the
cell and destroying personal property. He also sought class action
status and requested for counsel.

"Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint,"
Judge Andrews held.

A copy of the District Court's May 29, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
is available http://is.gd/3NqHhnat from Leagle.com.

Jonathan D. Black, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna,
Delaware, Pro Se, Plaintiff.


RODNEY THE PRINTER: Sends Junk Faxes, "Elenowitz" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Elenowitz, Individually, and on Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Rodney the Printer, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
03548 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
specifically for transmitting one or more facsimiles advertising
the commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or
services, without having obtained prior express invitation or
permission to transmit those facsimiles.

Rodney the Printer, Inc., is a New York corporation engaged in the
business of providing printing and binding services located in
Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      1200 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Flr.,
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 354-0030
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Moved to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I filed a Motion to Dismiss the
claims in a consolidated putative class action complaint seeking
class certification and alleging, among other things, that the
Company made false and misleading statements, concerning a variety
of subjects, including oil and gas reserves, according to the
Trust'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 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of
SandRidge. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a
substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same
court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court
consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation")
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 23, 2013 the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, in which the Trust was named as an additional
defendant. The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts a variety of
federal securities claims against the Trust and SandRidge and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, among
other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers
of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011
to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust with respect to certain of the allegations, are responsible
for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material
information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and
gas reserves, SandRidge's capital expenditures, and certain
transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with
SandRidge's former CEO Tom Ward. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial public
offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint was corrected by way of a
Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 30, 2013.

The Trust and SandRidge each filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims
asserted against the Trust in the Corrected Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The
Trust will estimate and provide for potential losses that may
arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are
probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment
will be required in making any such estimates and any final
liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different
than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the
Trust may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation, and
has not established any reserves relating to the Securities
Litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future
distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation
if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any
rights it may have to indemnities that may be applicable or any
claims it may make in connection with the Securities Litigation.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (The Trust) is a statutory trust.
The Trust was created to acquire and hold the Royalty Interests
for the benefit of Trust unitholders. SandRidge conveyed to the
Trust the Royalty Interests in specified oil and natural gas
properties in the Mississippian formation in Alfalfa, Garfield,
Grant, Major and Woods counties in Oklahoma (the Underlying
Properties). These Royalty Interests were derived from SandRidge's
interests in a 36 wells and the equivalent of 123 horizontal
development wells to be drilled in the Mississippian formation
(Trust Development Wells) within an area of mutual interest (AMI),
consisting of approximately 49,600 gross acres (42,000 net acres)
in the counties where the Underlying Properties are located.


SHISHA DELI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Mizhquiri, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. Shisha Deli, Inc., Ahmed Rated, and Steve Rattis
Mohammed, Case No. 1:14-cv-03941 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), seeks
to recover from the Defendants, unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Shisha Deli, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of New York, doing business as Health Corner, with
a principal place of business located at 637 9th Avenue, New York,
NY 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-465-1188
      Facsimile: 212-465-1181


SUSSER HOLDINGS: Defendant in Energy Transfer Merger Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action lawsuits were filed on May 6, 2014,
challenging Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s proposed acquisition
of Susser Holdings Corporation, according to Susser'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 Susser: "On May 6, 2014, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware challenging the proposed acquisition of the Company by
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.: John Bruce Copeland, III, On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
Susser Holdings Corporation, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 9613-
VCG; and Natalie Gordon, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Susser Holdings Corporation, et
al., Defendants, C.A. No. 9620-VCG. Both complaints name as
defendants the Company, the members of our Board of Directors, and
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. and related entities. The
complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the
members of our Board of Directors and against the Company and
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. and related entities for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints allege that the
proposed merger consideration is inadequate and unfair, that the
process leading up to the proposed acquisition is unfair, and that
the merger agreement contains preclusive deal protection devices.
The complaints seek to enjoin the proposed acquisition or rescind
the acquisition to the extent it is consummated, rescissory
damages, an accounting, a constructive trust, attorneys' fees,
expert fees and costs, and other equitable relief."

The Company believes that the allegations of the complaints are
without merit.

Susser Holdings Corporation is a non-refining operator of
convenience store in Texas, and a non-refining motor fuel
distributor. As of January 1, 2012, its retail segment operated
541 convenience stores in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma, offering
merchandise, food service, motor fuel and other services.


TDC CAFE: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Aguilar, Carlos Martinez, and Alex H. Jimenez, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. TDC Cafe
Corp. d/b/a Star Gate, Costakis A. Constantinous, Demetrios
Poubouridis and Helen Kaporis, Case No. 1:14-cv-03940 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 3, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants, unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

TDC Cafe Corp. d/b/a Star Gate, is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of New York, with a principal place of
business, and an address for service of process, located at 1580
Third Ave, New York, NY 10128.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-465-1188
      Facsimile: 212-465-1181


TEANECK, NJ: 3rd Cir. Tosses Police Officers' Overtime Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has rejected
claims by a New Jersey town's police officers that they were
short-changed on overtime pay and for time spent at roll call and
changing into uniforms.

The appeals court, in Rosano v. Township of Teaneck, held on
June 10 that a federal judge in Newark properly dismissed a Fair
Labor Standards Act claim by 88 current and retired police
officers because Teaneck's department qualifies under the
statute's limited exemption for public safety personnel.

In an issue of first impression, the appeals court held that the
department was entitled to the exemption merely by meeting the
factual criteria specified in FLSA Sec. 207(k), even without
announcing an intent to invoke it.

The court held that Teaneck police are not entitled to additional
pay for 10-minute muster sessions at the start and end of each
shift because they are compensated for that time as part of their
negotiated salaries.  Nor are they entitled to be paid for
changing clothes at the start and end of each shift, because their
labor contracts never provided for such pay and because their
failure to raise the issue before establishes a long-standing
pattern of acquiescence.

The suit was filed in 2009 by the Teaneck Policemen's Benevolent
Association Local 215, in addition to the individual officers, as
a putative class action.  But an amended complaint omitted the
union as a party, and class certification was never sought.
Under their collective bargaining contract, Teaneck officers work
either five consecutive days before having two days off, or six
days on and three days off.  The shifts are combined so that
officers work an average of 39.25 hours per week over the course
of a calendar year.

U.S. District Judge Katharine Hayden granted summary judgment for
Teaneck, finding it met the Sec. 207(k) exemption, which creates
an overtime threshold of 43 hours for those on a five-day schedule
and 55 hours for those on a nine-day schedule.

Judge Hayden also found the plaintiffs not entitled to extra pay
because attending muster for 10 minutes before and after each
shift is required in their contract.  She also found the officers
not entitled to extra pay for donning and doffing uniforms,
because they had the option of changing clothes at home.

At the Third Circuit, the officers relied on cases from 1994 and
2004 in which employers were denied a Sec. 207(k) exemption for
failure to declare intent to apply it.  But Chief Judge Theodore
McKee and Judges D. Michael Fisher and Dolores Sloviter said those
cases were foreclosed by a First Circuit case from 2010, Calvao v.
Town of Framingham, which rejected the need to expressly state
intent.

Regarding extra pay for roll call, Judge Fisher cited contract
language requiring police to attend muster before and after each
shift, a reasonable reading which "lends itself to the conclusion
that muster time is a required component of an officer's daily
tour schedule, a fact that both parties were aware of at the time
employment-related negotiations took place."

The officers also claimed on appeal that Judge Hayden wrongly
applied FLSA Sec. 203(o), which says employees are foreclosed from
seeking compensation for donning and doffing where a collective
bargaining agreement is in place and such pay is excluded under
the terms of the agreement or by custom or practice.  The appeals
court found Sec. 203(o) applies because, in 30 years of labor
contracts between Teaneck and its police, donning and doffing was
never compensated nor was the subject of a grievance.

Teaneck's lawyer, Angelo Genova -- agenova@genovaburns.com -- of
Genova, Burns, Giantomasi & Webster in Newark, says the court's
holding that no announcement of intent is required for a public
sector employer to apply Sec. 207(k) "will be read by a lot of
public officials" and may chill future FLSA claims by public
sector employees.

The court's finding has added significance because general
stagnation of wages is producing a proliferation of FLSA claims in
the public and private sectors, says Mr. Genova, who was assisted
by Peter Berk of his firm.

The lawyer for the police officers, Marcia Tapia of Loccke,
Correia, Schlager, Limsky & Bukofsky in Hackensack, did not return
a call requesting comment on the decision.


TESLA MOTORS: Defendant in Securities Violation Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, Inc., is a defendant in a putative securities class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "In November 2013, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, alleging violations of, and
seeking remedies pursuant to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The current
complaint, which makes claims against Tesla and its CEO, Elon
Musk, seeks damages and attorney's fees on the basis of
allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk made
false and/or misleading representations and omissions, including
with respect to the safety of Model S. This case is brought on
behalf of a putative class consisting of certain persons who
purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013 and November
17, 2013. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to
defend against it vigorously. As we are currently unable to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it is not possible for us to
determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss
has been incurred nor can we estimate the range of any potential
loss."

Tesla Motors, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells
electric vehicles and advanced electric vehicle powertrain
components.


TICKETMASTER: Settles Class Action for About $400 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Roy Trakin, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
credit will be offered to 50 million ticket buyers who were
charged "order processing fees" that were secretly profit centers
for the company.

Ticketmaster has agreed to a tentative settlement in a class-
action suit that stretches back more than a decade.  If approved,
the deal would issue about $400 million in credit to 50 million
ticket buyers, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal on
June 3.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2003, alleges that Ticketmaster,
now owned by Live Nation but then part of IAC/InterActive Corp.,
misled consumers by charging "order-processing fees" and a UPS
"delivery fee" that the company didn't spend on either.

The suit was filed by five ticket-buying plaintiffs, who were also
charged separate "convenience fees" and "facility fees," both of
which they understood to be profit centers for Ticketmaster.  They
were unaware that the other fees were also profit generators for
the company, and if they had, they wouldn't have paid them.

Live Nation has never publicly admitted wrongdoing in the case.  A
final approval hearing is slated for January in Los Angeles
Superior Court.  Live Nation expects that the settlement would
only cost it $35 million.

As part of the settlement, Ticketmaster changed the language on
its website to clarify that order processing and delivery charges
may include a profit for Ticketmaster.

Ebay Inc.'s StubHub, the country's biggest ticket reseller,
started "all-in pricing" for its tickets this year, advertising
the total cost to consumers upfront to eliminate surprise fees at
checkout.  Live Nation offers upfront pricing as well.

If the Ticketmaster settlement is approved, some 50 million fans
in the U.S. who purchased tickets that included an "order-
processing fee" on Ticketmaster's website from Oct. 21, 1999,
through Feb. 27, 2013, will be eligible to receive a total of $386
million in discounts on future purchases.  Ticketmaster will issue
up to 161 million credits for $2.25 each and up to 4.9 million
credits for $5 each, according to a court document, and will make
tickets for certain events available free to class members on a
first-come, first-served basis at the end of each year for the
next four years if members redeem less than $10.5 million of the
coupons each year.

The plaintiffs' lawyers are seeking nearly $15 million in fees,
plus up to $1.5 million in expenses.


TOMMY'S SUSHI: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jian She Guo and Run Guo Zhang, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Tommy's Sushi, Inc. d/b/a Oriental Cafe, Xu
Qian Dong a/k/a Danny Dong, Huang Na, John Doe, Jane Doe, Case No.
1:14-cv-03964 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for the alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and practices.

Tommy's Sushi, Inc. d/b/a Oriental Cafe is a domestic corporation,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York on
May 16, 2011, with a principal address at 1580 First Avenue, New
York, NY 10028.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 119
      Flushing, New York VT355
      Telephone:(718)762-1314
      Facsimile: (718) 762 1342
      E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


TRACFONE WIRELESS: Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid OT & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pozada and Carlos Herrera, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-22082 (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TracFone Wireless, Inc., is a foreign for-profit corporation doing
business in the State of Florida and Miami-Dade County. It is
America's #1 National prepaid wireless service provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Clark Davis, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
      623 Beard Street,
      Tallahassee, FL 32303
      Telephone: (850) 222-4770
      Facsimile: (850) 222-3119
      E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net

             - and -

      Cynthia N. Sass, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA N. SASS
      601 W. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd,
      Tampa, FL 33603
      Telephone: (813) 251-5599
      Facsimile: (813) 259-9797
      E-mail: csass@sasslawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Files Corrective Notices in "O'Connor" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas O' Connor and Thomas Colopy filed a class-action complaint
against Uber Technologies, Inc. and two of its executives,
alleging violations of statutory employee reimbursement and
California Business and Profession Code Section 17200 et seq. and
other causes of action for unremitted gratuity.  Uber licenses a
software application which is used by drivers and riders to
facilitate an "on demand" car service. Plaintiffs are former
drivers and users of the App.

In late July 2013, Uber began requiring drivers to agree to a
Software Licensing and Online Services Agreement that contained an
arbitration provision. Plaintiffs filed a "Renewed Emergency
Motion for Protective Order to Strike Arbitration Clauses," which
sought to strike, or in the alternative, modify the Arbitration
Provision. The Court issued an order granting in part the Renewed
Motion ("Order I") requiring certain modifications to the
Provision, which it affirmed in its order denying Uber's Motion
for Reconsideration ("Order II").

Before the Court are Uber's proposed revised agreements and
corrective notices submitted pursuant to Orders I and II.

In an order dated May 29, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Wamv5m from Leagle.com, District Judge Edward M.
Chen directed that "Uber shall provide in the notices and in its
Revised Licensing Agreement an email address to which opt out
notices may be sent and contact information for Plaintiffs'
counsel. The paragraph in the Revised Licensing Agreement
describing the opt out procedure should be in bold. Uber shall
make these changes in addition to the corrections the Court has
already made (highlighted) and submit the revised documents for
the Court's approval."

The case is DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-3826 EMC, (N.D.
Cal.).

Douglas O'Connor, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Olivier --
monique@dplolaw.com -- Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, John
Earl Duke --jduke@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Sara
Smolik -- ssmolik@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. &
Shannon Liss-Riordan --sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C..

Thomas Colopy, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Olivier,
Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, John Earl Duke, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C., Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. &
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon
Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Caitlin Victoria May -- cmay@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
and Bockius LLP, John C. Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC, Stephen A. Swedlow --
stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP & Stephen Luther Taeusch -- staeusch@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Travis Kalanick, Defendant, represented by Robert Jon Hendricks,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson,
PC & Stephen Luther Taeusch, Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Ryan Graves, Defendant, represented by Robert Jon Hendricks,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson,
PC & Stephen Luther Taeusch, Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry --
mcherry@cherry-law.com -- Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Court Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on April 16, 2014, ordered the dismissal of the
shareholder class action lawsuit alleging claims under U.S.
securities laws, with prejudice, in favor of Ubiquiti Networks,
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.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (the
"Company"), certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging claims under
U.S. securities laws. On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, and on March 26, 2014, the court issued an
order granting the motion to dismiss with leave to amend the
complaint. Following the plaintiffs' decision not to file an
amended complaint, on April 16, 2014 the court ordered the
dismissal of the shareholder class action lawsuit with prejudice,
and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the other
defendants, and against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs may appeal
the court's decision.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (Ubiquiti) is a communications technology
Company. designs, manufactures and sells broadband wireless
solutions worldwide. The Company offers a portfolio of wireless
networking products and solutions, including systems, high
performance radios, antennas and management tools, designed for
wireless networking and other applications in the unlicensed radio
frequency (RF) spectrum.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Class Action Examines Parity Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Miller, writing for Behavioral Healthcare, reports that
those who go to bat with health insurers on behalf of their
clients might need to take a closer look at how care standards are
applied in coverage policies, according to attorney D. Brian
Hufford, partner in the New York office of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.
Parity in the context of insurance coverage has many nuances, and
advocates must be able to make a case for care based on clinical
standards.

"Do a careful review on what kind of burden is imposed by
insurance companies so you're able to establish the necessary
record when there are improper denials of coverage," Mr. Hufford
says.

Parity laws haven't automatically made access to care easier. In
fact, the rules are still being tested in court.

Zuckerman Spaeder filed a federal class action lawsuit May 21
against UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company and United Behavioral
Health on behalf of plan members affected by mental health
conditions or substance abuse disorders whose coverage was denied.
The legal team believes United is not applying parity rules
correctly in some situations and wants the insurer to resolve the
current complaints and change its policy for the future.

"The key thing we're seeking is injunctive relief," Mr. Hufford
says "We're seeking to have United reprocess claims they denied in
the past."

                  Overly restrictive standards

He says there is very little precedent in mental health parity
cases right now.  The UnitedHealthcare suit, which was filed in
California, calls into question the nonquantifiable restrictions
of coverage, such as limits on the number of office visits the
insurer would cover for a patient, or coverage for residential
treatment for a patient with an eating disorder, for example.

He says United is using overly restrictive care standards as
criteria for its coverage -- inconsistent with nationally
recognized scientific evidence, medical standards, and clinical
guidelines -- thereby, placing an undue burden on mental-health
patients that wouldn't be applied to patients with other medical
conditions.

In some situations, patients were eligible for coverage for a
certain level of care, but the insurer required "clear evidence"
from the patient or the provider that the specific care was
necessary.  Without that evidence, care was denied.  While
insurers are looking to stretch the healthcare dollar as far as it
will go, their utilization-management programs in this specific
case do not reflect current care standards and place an unequal
burden on mental-health patients, he says.

"If you have diabetes, we never see an insurer require clear and
compelling evidence that you need care," he says.

In the case, Zuckerman Spaeder's argument says UnitedHealthcare is
applying the wrong standards to residential care -- using the
acute inpatient standard rather than looking at the best level of
care for the patient's needs, Mr. Hufford says.  The same applies
to its standard for rehabilitation, in which, it is using
withdrawal as the criteria for a patient entering inpatient rehab.

"In withdrawal, you need treatment for the medical condition of
withdrawal.  And then there is rehab, where you're not in
withdrawal, but need treatment to get sober to prevent sliding
back," he says.  UnitedHealthcare, however, made withdrawal part
of the criteria to cover rehab treatment.  "But someone in rehab
should not be in withdrawal," he says.

Mr. Hufford says the suit seeks to uphold legal requirements that
mental health conditions and substance abuse disorders are treated
consistent with the treatment of other medical conditions.  It
details violations of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act (Federal Parity Act) and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Sued for Failing to Pay Employees Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Flor Khan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., and Urban Outfitters
Wholesale, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02601 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and other penalties, injunctive
and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.

Urban Outfitters, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation located at
5000 S. Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It operates at
least 39 retail establishments across the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Courtland Wayne Creekmore, Esq.
      SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
      1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor,
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 891-9800
      Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
      E-mail: ccreekmore@scalaw.com


US BANK: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Wage-and-Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq. -- mmoffitt@allenmatkins.com -- at Allen
Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, reports that the highly
anticipated decision of the California Supreme Court in Duran v.
U.S. Bank is a big win for employers and class action defendants.
On May 29, the Supreme Court in Duran affirmed the appellate
court's decision in its entirety.  Duran is the first case that
squarely addresses the use of statistical sampling for
establishing liability in class actions.  The use of this
statistical evidence -- by which the results of a sample of
putative class members are extrapolated and applied as true to all
putative class members -- was previously accepted only in the
context of establishing damages.

Background

Duran was a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit involving claims of
misclassification and nonpayment of overtime, brought by employee
loan officers.  After certifying a class of 260 plaintiffs, the
trial court devised a trial plan to determine the extent of the
defendant's liability, by extrapolating from a random sample of
approximately 20 class members (plus the two named plaintiffs).
The court ultimately heard testimony from 21 plaintiffs about
their work habits. The defendant was not permitted to introduce
evidence about the work habits of any plaintiff outside this
sample. Based on testimony from this small sample group, the trial
court found that the entire class had been misclassified.  The
court again used statistical sampling to assess damages, and
assessed damages at a total of $15 million, averaging over $57,000
per class member.

Statistical Sampling to Establish Liability is Improper

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding
that the trial court's use of statistical sampling to establish
liability was improper, as it precluded the defendant employer
from presenting relevant evidence and violated its due process
rights.  The Supreme Court also found that the trial court's
chosen statistical methodology was flawed because it arbitrarily
sampled a small group of employees without regard to whether the
sample was statistically significant or representative of the
class as a whole.  The Supreme Court further noted that even the
statistical sampling used to calculate damages was improper, as
the methodology had an unacceptably high margin of error at 43
percent.  The Supreme Court not only reversed the trial court's
findings on liability and damages, but also decertified the class.

Still No Case Law to Support This Trial Plan

There are several important takeaways from the Duran opinion.

Most importantly, the court found that the statistical evidence
used to establish liability was improper, meaning there is still
no case law or other legal authority affirming the use of this
evidence at the liability stage of a case.

The Supreme Court also noted that if an appropriate statistical
sampling method were ever developed, defendants must still be
permitted to introduce evidence in their defense, even if such
evidence involves individual issues or defenses.  Refusal to allow
this evidence, as the trial court in Duran did, would constitute a
violation of due process rights.

The Duran decision also means that no class action plaintiffs to
date have been able to devise a trial plan that is both workable
and preserves a defendant's due process rights.  The class action
process is a procedural mechanism that was devised to make
lawsuits with numerous plaintiffs (class members) more manageable.
As the Supreme Court suggested, however, what makes a case more
manageable in the beginning of a case does not necessarily
translate well at trial.


WELLS FARGO: D.C. Cir. Tosses Bid to Bar Claims in Mortgage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Legal Times, reports that Wells Fargo
Bank struck out in an attempt to avoid liability in a pending
federal mortgage fraud suit, failing to convince an appeals court
that a prior settlement with the feds got the bank off the hook.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 10 rebuffed
the bank's request to bar all claims against it in a suit brought
by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York in October 2012.

The complaint is based on the bank's origination and underwriting
of thousands of federally insured mortgages.  That suit came just
six months after Wells Fargo shelled out $5 billion to settle
similar claims in a suit brought by the United States, 49 states
and the District of Columbia for alleged misconduct in issuing
home mortgages insured by the feds.

"The United States broke its promise to Wells Fargo when it filed
its new lawsuit," Douglas Baruch, a partner at Fried, Frank,
Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, wrote in a D.C. Circuit brief in
September.  He called the government's action a "brazen attempt to
impose massive fraud liability on Wells Fargo only six months
after expressly promising that it would not do so."

The bank asked the court to bar all of the United States' claims
in the New York litigation.  The D.C. Circuit in an unsigned order
declined to do so, upholding a February 2013 decision by U.S.
District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia.

The appellate panel -- judges Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith
and Patricia Millett -- focused on a paragraph in the settlement
that stated Wells Fargo was only released from claims where the
"sole basis" was the bank's submission of a false or fraudulent
annual certification.

"The 'sole basis' sentence expressly confines the release of
claims to those for which liability is predicated on the specific
conduct of filing false annual certification," the court wrote.
Also, a follow-up paragraph "eliminates any further doubt," by
reiterating that the release only applies to claims based on false
certification where the individual loan did not also violate other
requirements.  Further, the release "expressly preserved" the
right of the government to go after Wells Fargo for other mortgage
violations.

"Wells Fargo's efforts to escape those contractual limitations
fail," the appeals court wrote.  However, the court did
acknowledge that "some portions of the New York complaint tread on
the verge of the released claims."

If the government oversteps going forward, the court said, "Wells
Fargo may seek appropriate relief."


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Hides Defects in Washers, "O'Brien" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colin O'Brien, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Whirlpool Corporation, Case No. 2:14-
cv-12220 (E.D. Mich., June 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
fraudulently concealed the defects of Maytag Centennial Washers
from the public through false and misleading statements and the
concealment of material facts.

Whirlpool Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered at
2000 N. M. 63, Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2692.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc E. Lipton, Esq.
      LIPTON LAW CENTER
      18930 West Ten Mile Road,
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Telephone: (248) 557-1688
      E-mail: marc@liptonlawcenter.com


* Shareholder Groups Call for Class Action Funder Licenses
----------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Wilkins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that businesses groups have called for class action funders to
hold a financial services license.  However, the comments have
sparked concern from shareholder groups that access to legal
action could be restricted.

The Governance Institute, which represents company secretaries,
risk managers and executives, said a recommendation by the
Productivity Commission to require third-party litigation funders
to hold a license would improve accountability for investors.

"This is an unregulated industry where the interests of some can
override the interests of many," Governance Institute chief
executive Tim Sheehy said.

"Currently, the majority of litigation funders are not licensed,
nor are the law firms who act as promoters, yet funded class
actions are an accepted mechanism for those seeking recompense,"
he said.

The Productivity Commission made the draft recommendation as part
of its 15-month inquiry into Australia's system of civil dispute
resolution.  It said funders should be required to hold a
financial services license -- or a separate license under the
Corporations Act -- and meet ethical and professional standards,
as well as capital adequacy rules.  It said their conduct should
be regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission.

While shareholder groups have welcomed greater scrutiny of private
funders, they said a license could restrict access to class
actions.

"The reason this is being put forward is to stop companies being
sued," Australian Shareholders Association chairman Ian Curry
said.  "Companies don't want shareholders taking action against
them.  Directors don't want to be in a position where they can be
sued under these arrangements."

Mr. Curry said class actions were not a financial service but a
last resort for disgruntled investors.

"It is sad we need litigation at all, but the fact is that over
the past decade there have been a number of financial challenges,
collapses and failures that litigation funders have come into
demand."

Class action law firm Maurice Blackburn said it supported greater
ethical standards but was concerned a license would create
"unnecessary barriers" for investors seeking legal action.

"In practice, it is not apparent that these should go beyond
existing requirements under general consumer law and the current
conflict-of-interest regulations," its submission said.

The Consumer Action Law Centre said private litigation funders
were an efficient means of providing access to justice.


                             *********

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  * * *