CAR_Public/140619.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 121

                             Headlines


374 FOOD: Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Wages Pursuant to FLSA
AIRGAS INC: Faces Suit Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
AMERICAN VALET: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
AMR CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Pilot Seniority
BAE SYSTEMS: Sex-Discrimination Suit Can Proceed as Class Action

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unfair Overdraft Assessment Procedure
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Alleged Manipulating Gold Prices
BEBE STORES: Inks MoU to Settle Lawsuit by Former Employee
BEBE STORES: Sued in Calif. Court Over Alleged TCPA Violations
BIG LOTS: Recalls Ottomans Due to Fall Hazard

BOB'S RED: Falsely Advertised Products as All Natural, Suit Says
CAFEPRESS INC: Faces Lawsuits in Cal. by Share Purchasers in IPO
CATERPILLAR INC: Settles Product Liability Suit with Bender
CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Aug. 14 Hearing for Stock Suit Settlement
CHENIERE ENERGY: Stockholders File Class Action Over Stock Awards

CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Sued for Mislabeling "Made in USA" Apparel
CONAIR CORPORATION: Sued for Not Disclosing Styling Iron Dangers
CORIZON HEALTH: Did Not Pay Nurses Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
COST PLUS: Recalls Glass Bubble Knobs Due to Laceration Hazard
CRED-X DEBT: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation

DYNCORP: Court Remands Claims in "Arias" Anti-Drug Herbicide Suit
E-TELEQUOTE INSURANCE: Removed "Nicholson" Suit to N.D. Illinois
EADIE'S CONSTRUCTION: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Teitelbaum" Class Suit in New York
EXPRESS SERVICES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation

FIRST BAPTIST: Judge Approves $2.45MM Bug Class Action Settlement
FOUR OAKS: Motions to Dismiss Suits v. Bank Unit Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Childre" Suit Over Switch Defects
GENERAL MOTORS: To Use Bankruptcy as Shield for Crash Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Issues Four More Vehicle Recalls

GENERAL MOTORS: Fires 15 Employees Amid Recall Crisis
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: West Virginia Gets $22MM in Drug Settlement
GROWLIFE INC: Faces "Romero" Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif. Court
HITACHI KOKI: Recalls Pneumatic Nailers Due to Injury Hazards
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: "El-Hallani" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Consumer Advocates Want Court to Reject MPG Accord
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Fenyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
JAG INDUSTRIAL: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Westbrook" Suit Claims
JAG SPECIALTY: Accused of False Claims on All Natural Breadsticks
JAMES LATHAM PETERS: Judge Inks $13.75MM Hepatitis C Settlement

JEFFERSON BANCSHARES: Seeks to Dismiss Tenn. Suit Over Merger
JCG INDUSTRIES: 7th Cir. Won't Rehear Workers' Class Action
KAISER PERMANENTE: "Kelly" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in "Benton"
KEFI LLC: Sept. 12 Fairness Hearing on Lizondro-Garcia Suit Deal
LATEEF INC: Jafari Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties

LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Bunk Beds with Bookcases
MANAGED FUTURES: Bid to Appeal "Ge Dandong" Cert. Denied
MATHEWS ARCHERY: Recalls Crossbows Due to Injury Hazard
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Vega" Suit for Failing to Pay OT Hours
MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

MIRKA ABRASIVES: Recalls Orbital Sanders Due to Fire Hazard
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Noe" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
NEW CENTURY TRANS: Fails to Provide WARN Act Notices, Suit Says

NTS INC: Has MoU to Settle Merger Suit in Nevada Court
NTS INC: Awaits Court Approval for Accord in Suit v. 012 Telecom
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Two More Cheerleaders File Class Action
OVASCIENCE INC: Faces "Ratner" Suit Over Securities Law Violation
PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Consumer Suit Over Product Charge Now Closed

PHIL&TEDS: Recalls Infant Car Seat Adaptors Due to Fall Hazard
POKERTEK INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in N.C. Over Merger Deal
PONGAL INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
REGIONS BANK: 11th Cir. Affirms Lower Ruling in "Pereira" Suit
S & R DELI: Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages

SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settles Workers' Suit for $500,000
SCOTT USA: Recalls Speedster Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
SKYLIGHT DINER: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Court Approves $2.2MM Securities Suit Settlement
SNOWSHOE MOUNTAIN: Court Ruling in "Anania" Suit Affirmed

SPENDSMART PAYMENTS: SMS Masterminds Faces TCPA Suit in N.Y.
STATE FARM: Bridgeview Health Obtains Partial Summary Judgment
SUMMIT FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over RCAP Merger
TELEXFREE LLC: Faces $5BB Class Suit Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme
TENDER TOUCH: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Mollinedo" Suit Says

TRAVEL CENTERS: Sued for Denying Proper Minimum Wage Compensation
UNION SAVINGS: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT
VAN RU CREDIT: Makes Unsolicited Phone Calls, "Hill" Suit Claims
VARGAS & RODRIGUEZ: Sued for Failing to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
VENOCO INC: Expects 2015 Trial in Suit Over "Marquez Proposal"

WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Boilers Due to Risk of Fire, Explosion
WILHELMINA INT'L: Judge Tells N.Y. AG of Shanklin Lawsuit


                            *********


374 FOOD: Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Wages Pursuant to FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Cosme-Duran, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. 374 Food, Inc., d/b/a Tribeca
Bagels; and Tiran Tsadok; jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04118 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid or
underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, misused tips, and
other relief under Fair Labor Standards Act.

374 Food, Inc., is a restaurant doing business as Tribeca Bagels
and located at 374 Canal Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIRGAS INC: Faces Suit Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil C. Scott, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Airgas, Inc., a Delaware Corporation headquartered in
Pennsylvania, Case No. 3:14-cv-00929-KI (D. Or., June 9, 2014)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
          BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP
          8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130
          Portland, OR 97225-3429
          Telephone: (503) 297-9031
          Facsimile: (503) 291-9172
          E-mail: justin@baxterlaw.com


AMERICAN VALET: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Echavarria, David Diaz Mendoza, Yeinson Torres, Luis
Rivera, Carlos Higueras, Isabel Villamil, Reynaldo Ramirez,
William Lopez, Alexandria Garcia, and Manuel Pimentel, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Valet
Parking Management, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida
Valet Parking Services, Statewide Valet Parking Services, Inc., a
Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet Parking Services,
National Parking Management, Inc., d/b/a Florida Valet Parking
Services, Diamond Valet Parking, Inc., a Florida corporation,
d/b/a Florida Valet Parking, Valet One Parking, Inc., a Florida
corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet Parking, Valet Parking
Professionals, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet
Parking, Park U.S. Management, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a
Florida Valet Parking, and John Bellinato, Jr., individually, Case
No. 9:14-cv-80770-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2014) is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum
wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory and
injunctive relief, under the provisions of the FLSA.

The Corporate Defendants are Florida corporations, doing business
in Florida under the fictitious names "Florida Valet Parking" or
"Florida Valet Parking Services."  The Corporate Defendants shared
services of employees, and interchanged employees, acted in the
direct interests of each other towards a collective interest, and
exercised common control over their employees.  John Bellinato,
Jr., owned, managed or operated the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
          1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd.
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 392-8074
          Facsimile: (561) 368-6478
          E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com


AMR CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Pilot Seniority
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that the judge who
oversaw AMR Corp.'s bankruptcy threw out a class action on June 3
accusing the airline and the Allied Pilots Association of
discriminating against former Trans World Airlines Inc. pilots by
refusing to consider reinstating seniority they lost 13 years ago.

The lawsuit stems from American Airlines Inc.'s acquisition of TWA
in 2001, which caused the TWA pilots to lose their seniority as
they were integrated into the combined workforce.  Those pilots
were compensated with "special job opportunities" at American's
St. Louis hub, but that location was later shut down during AMR's
bankruptcy.

An arbitrator was appointed to handle the matter, but the APA and
American agreed that relief would not incorporate the ex-TWA
pilots' seniority that was lost in 2001.  The pilots sued, arguing
that by barring any remedy related to their loss of seniority, the
union violated its duty of fair representation.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane said in a written opinion that
the pilots failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted and failed to proffer any facts supporting their
contentions that the airline and APA took actions that harmed the
plaintiffs.

"Aside from the plaintiffs' conclusory statements about the APA's
acts being discriminatory, therefore, the complaint lacks factual
allegations sufficient to state a claim as to why the APA's
position was unrelated to legitimate union objectives or so far
outside the range of reasonableness as to be irrational," the
judge said in his decision.

The named plaintiffs who brought the action -- John Krakowski,
Kevin Horner and M. Alicia Sikes -- argued that the only
reasonable relief would be to amend their seniority within the
American ranks.  But the judge disagreed, noting that reopening
the seniority list would affect all American pilots whose
interests the APA must also represent.  He also concluded that the
APA and American's actions in removing the seniority matter from
arbitration is not the same as taking away the ex-TWA pilots'
seniority -- that was lost back in 2001.

"The plaintiffs have not alleged anything that would allow the
court to infer that the APA intended to unlawfully discriminate
against the legacy TWA pilots or that the APA made this decision
without some legitimate union objective," he said.

The airline and APA have moved to dismiss a separate adversary
proceeding brought by the same named plaintiffs in bankruptcy
court, which was set to be considered by Judge Lane at a hearing
in his Manhattan courtroom on June 5.

The APA argues in that case that the claims must be dismissed
because the airline is operating in conjunction with the
provisions regarding pilot seniority that were negotiated in a
collective bargaining agreement and that the named plaintiffs
cannot prove that they have suffered any harm from the alleged
activity.

American's merger with US Airways Group Inc. became effective in
December, though the airline said at the time that it will take 18
to 24 months to fully integrate operations.  Through the merger,
AMR shareholders received 72 percent of the new entity's equity
and US Airways' shareholders received 28 percent.  Existing AMR
shareholders received 3.5 percent ownership stake in the new
company.  The merger garnered the support of AMR's creditors,
senior secured lenders and labor unions.

The APA is represented by Edgar N. James -- ejames@jamhoff.com --
Steven K. Hoffman -- skhoffman@jamhoff.com -- and Darin M. Dalma
-- dmdalmat@jamhoff.com -- of James & Hoffman PC and Filiberto
Agusti -- fagusti@steptoe.com -- and Joshua R. Taylor --
jrtaylor@steptoe.com -- of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

American is represented by Harvey R. Miller --
harvey.miller@weil.com -- Stephen Karotkin --
stephen.karotkin@weil.com -- Alfredo R. Perez --
alfredo.perez@weil.com -- and Lawrence Baer --
lawrence.baer@weil.com -- of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and Neal D.
Mollen -- nealmollen@paulhastings.com -- Todd C. Duffield and
Jennifer S. Baldocchi -- jenniferbaldocchi@paulhastings.com -- of
Paul Hastings LLP.

The named plaintiffs are represented by Allen P. Press and Bradley
P. Schneider of Green Jacobson PC.

The adversary proceeding is Krakowski et al. v. American Airlines
Inc. et al., case number 13-01283, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The bankruptcy case is In
re: AMR Corp., case number 1:11-bk-15463 in the same court.


BAE SYSTEMS: Sex-Discrimination Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McCabe, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that a
federal judge ruled that a sex-discrimination lawsuit filed
last year against BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair Inc. can move
forward as a class-action suit.

An order signed by U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen,
filed on June 10, denied a motion by BAE that disputed the
plaintiffs' ability to bring the suit forward on a class basis,
potentially including more than 100 women who are or were
employees at BAE's Norfolk yard. The liability period is still in
dispute.

The judge also denied a partial motion to dismiss that argued that
some of the incidents discussed in the suit had been "resolved or
were not brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in a timely manner."

"We believe that the decision demonstrates that the Civil Rights
Act is not a dead letter and that class actions are still needed
to enforce it," said Jennifer Reisch, the plaintiffs' co-counsel.

BAE Systems, in an email, said that as a matter of policy, it does
not comment on active litigation.

"However, we value our employees and are committed to treating
each and every one fairly and with respect and the company is
dedicated to ensuring an inclusive and diverse workplace."

The case began with the July 29, 2013, filing of a complaint in
Norfolk federal court by nine women, eight of them still employed
at BAE's Norfolk shipyard.

An amended lawsuit was filed on Dec. 17 by four of the original
nine plaintiffs, "to clarify the nature of the class claims and
class definition," among other things.

The suit alleges that the company sexually discriminated against
them by denying them equal pay and allowing a hostile work
environment.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unfair Overdraft Assessment Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry L. Bodnar, on Behalf of herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 5:14-cv-03224 (E.D.
Pa., June 6, 2014), arises from the alleged unfair and
unconscionable assessment of overdraft fees or insufficient funds
fees on transactions for which there are sufficient available
funds in customers' accounts at the time the transactions are
authorized and approved by the Bank.

Though customers' accounts have sufficient available funds to
cover the transactions, the Bank assesses overdraft fees through
the implementation of a policy and procedure by which an overdraft
fee determination is made not only at the time the transaction is
authorized and approved, but also when the transaction "settles"
and posts to customers' accounts.

Bank of America is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Charlotte, NC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC
      35 East State St.,
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Alleged Manipulating Gold Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nando, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank Plc, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC
Holdings Plc, and Societe Generale, Case No. 1:14-cv-04095
(S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by combining, conspiring,
or agreeing with one another to restrain trade through collusively
manipulating prices of gold.

Bank of Nova Scotia, doing business as Scotiabank, is a Canadian
public company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It
is licensed by the New York Department of Financial Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      Anne T. Regan, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South, 8th Street,
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
              anne.regan@zimmreed.com


BEBE STORES: Inks MoU to Settle Lawsuit by Former Employee
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a suit filed by a former employee of bebe Stores,
Inc. in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County,
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the case,
according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 5, 2014.

A former employee sued the Company in a complaint filed July 27,
2006 in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County (Case
No. CIV 456550) alleging a failure to pay all wages, failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
provide meal periods, violation of Labor Code Section450,
violation of Labor Code Section2802 and California Code of
Regulations Section11040(9)(A), statutory wage violations (late
payment of wages), unlawful business practices under Business and
Professions Code Section16720 and Section17200, conversion of
wages and violation of Civil Code Section52.1. The plaintiff
purports to bring the action also on behalf of current and former
California bebe employees who are similarly situated. The company
reported on this case in previous quarterly and yearly reports. On
or about March 16, 2014, the parties entered a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") wherein a proposed settlement of the case
was reached, which is consistent with the amount previously
accrued. The parties are now pursuing the various required steps
associated with effectuating a class action settlement/resolution,
which will include court approval among other things.


BEBE STORES: Sued in Calif. Court Over Alleged TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bebe Stores Inc. is facing customer lawsuits alleging violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the
company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 5, 2014.

A customer named the Company in a complaint filed January 16, 2014
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Civil Action No. C14-267 DMR) alleging negligent
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C.
Sections et seq.), knowing and/or willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sections 227 et seq.)
and violations of California's unfair competition law (California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.) for failure
to obtain consent prior to sending text messages. The plaintiff
purports to bring the action also on behalf of all others
similarly situated.  The lawsuit seeks statutory and injunctive
relief.  The Company was served with the lawsuit on January 31,
2014.  The Company is investigating the allegations and preparing
a response.

On April 29, 2014, another customer filed a complaint against the
Company alleging similar claims to the previously mentioned case,
also purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situation. The
Company has yet to be served this second complaint.


BIG LOTS: Recalls Ottomans Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about
14,000 Wilson and Fisher brand Cayman Resin Wicker Ottoman.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The center of the ottoman can collapse during normal use, posing a
fall hazard to consumers.

Big Lots has received 19 reports of consumers falling through the
centers of ottomans.  Six reported minor injuries such as back
strain, scratches, bruises or contusions.

The Wilson and Fisher brand ottomans are dark brown resin wicker
with cream colored cushions.  They are part of a six-piece Cayman
Resin Wicker seating set consisting of two ottomans, two chairs, a
sofa and a table.  The recalled sets will have item number DA13-
015-6S-2CO and SKU 810140754, which can be found in the
instructions that accompany the sets.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/mHm7cp

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from February 2014
through March 2014 for about $320 per set.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ottomans and
return them to any Big Lots store for a $50 refund each.
Customers will be allowed to keep the remaining pieces in the
sets.


BOB'S RED: Falsely Advertised Products as All Natural, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Troy M. Sturdivant, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc., an
Oregon corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80765-WJZ (S.D. Fla.,
June 9, 2014) alleges that the Company has unlawfully,
fraudulently, negligently, unfairly, misleadingly, and deceptively
represented that at least six varieties of its Bob's Red Mill
Mixes food products advertised as being "All Natural," despite
containing unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and genetically
modified ingredients.

Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc., is an Oregon corporation
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.  The Company manufactures,
markets, advertises, and sells the Products as being "All Natural"
on the front packaging of the Products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


CAFEPRESS INC: Faces Lawsuits in Cal. by Share Purchasers in IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
CafePress Inc. is facing lawsuits filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of shares issued in the company's initial
public offering, CafePress disclosed on its May 15, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 10, 2013, a complaint captioned Desmarais v. CafePress
Inc., et al. CIV-522744 was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo naming as defendants the Company,
certain of the company's directors, the company's chief executive
officer, the company's former chief financial officer and certain
underwriters of the company's IPO. The lawsuit purports to be a
class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO
and generally alleges that the registration statement for the IPO
contained materially false or misleading statements. The complaint
purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On July
14, 2013 a similar compliant making substantially identical
allegations and captioned Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-
522976 was filed in the same court against the same defendants.


CATERPILLAR INC: Settles Product Liability Suit with Bender
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marinelog reports that Mobile, AL, headquartered law firm
Cunningham Bounds, LLC says that, a week before the start of a
scheduled three week jury trial, the law firm of obtained a
$46,000,000 settlement for its clients, Bender Shipbuilding and
Repair Company, Inc. and an international ship operator, in a
product liability lawsuit filed against Caterpillar, Inc. relating
to an explosion and fire onboard a vessel that was under
construction at the time.

Though a press release from the law firm refers to this vessel as
the M/V Sherman, readers with a longish memory will recall that it
was actually the Seacor Sherman, one of a series of six anchor
handling towing supply vessels ordered from Bender by Seacor
Marine LLC in October 2005.  The law firm says that the contract
price for the vessel was almost $27 million.

Bender Shipbuilding is the former owner of what is now Signal
International's Mobile shipyard.

On May 14, 2008, while the vessel was still under construction,
says the law firm, one of its 3516B Caterpillar marine engines
threw a rod during routine testing, causing a massive fire that
burned the ship to its hull.  Everyone who was on the ship at the
time of the explosion was safely evacuated.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that the Caterpillar
engine installed on the M/V Sherman was defective at the time of
its original manufacture and delivery.  The engine that failed
weighed 17,000 pounds, had thousands of parts, was the size of a
commercial truck, and was severely damaged in the fuel fed fire
that burned for almost 24 hours.  Discovery in the lawsuit
revealed that the engine failure was caused by a missing oil plug.
The missing plug was the size of a nickel, and had been left out
of the crankshaft in the innermost part of the engine when it was
manufactured.  The missing oil plug starved part of the engine of
oil, which led to the engine's catastrophic failure.

"This was a hard fought case with highly regarded and very capable
defense firms from New Orleans, Mobile, and Birmingham. The
litigation took place in four courts, involved 40 depositions,
required the testimony of over a dozen retained experts, and
lasted for almost four years.  It is a credit to the hard work,
persistence and professionalism of our entire team that we were
able to find the missing proverbial needle in the haystack, and
crack this case wide open," said Skip Finkbohner of Cunningham
Bounds.

The law firm says that "a resolution of this magnitude would not
have been possible without the early efforts of Cunningham Bounds
attorneys Steve Olen and Steve Nicholas, who handled the initial
proceedings in the federal district and bankruptcy courts.
Specifically, they fought and won critical battles over the
appropriate forum for the litigation and which laws should apply.

George W. "Skip" Finkbohner -- gwf@cunninghambounds.com -- of
Cunningham Bounds, LLC, along with his law partner, Lucy E. Tufts
-- let@cunninghambounds.com -- served as co-lead counsel for the
Plaintiffs.  Also representing the Plaintiffs were Victor T.
Hudson -- tom@alabamatrial.com -- and William W. Watts --
bill@alabamatrial.com -- of Pipes Hudson & Watts, LLP.


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Aug. 14 Hearing for Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing for a settlement reached in a securities suit
filed against Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida is set for August 14,
2014, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On October 12, 2012, Francis Howard ("Howard"), individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit
against the Company, Michael D. Pruitt, Eric S. Lederer, Michael
Carroll, Paul I. Moskowitz, Keith Johnson (the "Individual
Defendants"), Merriman Capital, Inc., Dawson James Securities,
Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"), and Creason & Associates
P.L.L.C. ("Creason"), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  The class action lawsuit alleges violations
of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all Defendants,
violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against only
the Underwriter Defendants, and violations of Section 15 against
the Individual Defendants.  Howard seeks unspecified damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, and such
other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.  On
October 31, 2012, the Company and the Individual Defendants
retained Stanley Wakshlag at Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. to represent
them in this litigation. On December 12, 2012, Howard filed a
Motion to Appoint himself lead Plaintiff and to approve his
selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as his counsel.  An Order
appointing Francis Howard and the Rosen Law Firm as lead Plaintiff
and lead Plaintiff's counsel was entered on January 4, 2013.   On
February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging
similar claims to those previously asserted.  On May 20, 2013, the
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice
of Defendants Dawson James Securities, Inc. and Merriman Capital,
Inc.

On September 17, 2013, Judge Cohn denied the Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss and ordered that Defendants file Answers to Plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint by October 8, 2013, and that the
trial be set for the two-week period commencing May 12, 2014. The
Company and Individual Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint on October 7, 2013.  A Scheduling
Order was entered on October 8, 2013 after a Scheduling Conference
was held, whereby a timeframe was set for Disclosures, Mediation,
Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings, Discovery, and Pre-
Trial Motions. The parties have made initial disclosures, and
document requests and interrogatories have been served. On
December 18, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Status Report
Relating to Mediation, whereby the parties disclosed details of a
class-wide settlement of this action. The parties have agreed on a
total settlement amount of $850,000, with $837,500 to be paid by
the Company's insurance carrier and $12,500 to be paid by Creason,
subject to court approval. All parties have executed a definitive
settlement agreement consistent with terms previously disclosed,
which was  filed with the court on March 31, 2014, along with a
request seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.
Preliminary approval was received from the court on April 23,
2014. The final hearing is set for August 14, 2014. The amount of
$837,500 was paid by the Company's insurance carrier into an
escrow account.


CHENIERE ENERGY: Stockholders File Class Action Over Stock Awards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Pulsinelli, writing for Houston Business Journal, reports
that stockholders of Cheniere Energy Inc. filed a class action
complaint against the Houston-based company and many of its top
executives over certain stock awards, according to a filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint alleges that a Feb. 1, 2013, stockholder vote to
nearly triple the 2011 incentive plan was improperly counted.
The complaint claims there were about 77.01 million votes for
increasing the plan, 57.9 million against and 36.25 million
abstentions.  It alleges that abstentions were not counted as part
of the overall vote, and if they had been, the increase would not
have passed.  It claims abstentions should have been counted as
"no" votes per Cheniere's bylaws and the laws of Delaware, where
Cheniere is incorporated.

Cheniere declined to comment to the Houston Business Journal
regarding the complaint.

Although Cheniere Chairman, CEO and President Charif Souki
recently made national headlines as the highest-paid executive in
the U.S., the vast majority of his total compensation came from
stock awards -- $132.93 million of $141.95 million in 2013.

The complaint seeks to "recover 25 million shares of Cheniere
stock that were improperly awarded to Cheniere's employees,
consultants and directors."

"While these awards were excessive when made, this Complaint does
not allege that they were wasteful simply because they were
extraordinary and, in large part, unprecedented," the suit states.
"Instead, this Complaint alleges that most of these awards should
never have been granted because the majority of Cheniere's
stockholders did not approve the increases to the 2011 Plan share
reserve that supposedly support them."

In light of the complaint, Cheniere has postponed its annual
meeting of stockholders from June 12 to Sept. 11, according to a
June 2 SEC filing.  The complaint had requested to expedite
proceedings before the June 12 meeting, Cheniere said in the
filing.

Cheniere was the first company to obtain all federal approvals to
export LNG to non-free trade agreement countries.


CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Sued for Mislabeling "Made in USA" Apparel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Clark, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and Macy's, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-01404-JLS-WVG
(S.D. Cal., June 9, 2014) is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of "Made in the U.S.A." labeled apparel products manufactured,
distributed, marketed and sold by the Defendants in California.

The Defendants sold the unlawfully labeled COH apparel products
with the false designation and representation that the COH apparel
was "Made in the U.S.A.," the Plaintiff alleges.

Citizens of Humanity, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company
and a leading designer and manufacturer of denim jean products.
Macy's, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.  Macy's is a high-end fashion retailer that
offers apparel, shoes, cosmetics and accessories for women, men
and children in the United States of America.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Donboli, Esq.
          JL Sean Slattery, Esq.
          DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
          12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-6244
          Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
          E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com
                  sslattery@delmarlawgroup.com


CONAIR CORPORATION: Sued for Not Disclosing Styling Iron Dangers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delia Wilson, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Conair Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-04380 (C.D. Cal.,
June 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant to obtain redress
of and to require defendant to properly inform consumers of the
potential dangers associated with using Styling Irons.

Conair Corporation manufactures, distributes, and markets Conair
Curling Irons, Conair Straightening Irons, and Conair Curling
Brushes -- "Styling Irons" -- which are hand-held, hair styling
tools that use high-heat thermal conduction to create waves,
curls, or straighten hair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
      ODENBREIT LAW APC
      16835 Algonquin Street Suite 221,
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (888) 490-3510
      E-mail: kodenbreit@kjolaw.com

          - and -

     Leslie Hurst, Esq.
     Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
     Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
     BLOOD HURST AND O'REARDON LLP
     701 B Street Suite 1700,
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 338-1100
     Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
     E-mail: lhurst@bholaw.com
             toreardon@bholaw.com
             tblood@bholaw.com


CORIZON HEALTH: Did Not Pay Nurses Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Mangus, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Corizon Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation, f/k/a
Correctional Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a Correctional Medical
Services, Case No. 8:14-cv-01358-EAK-EAJ (M.D. Fla., June 9, 2014)
alleges that during the course of their employment with the
Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Class members regularly worked
over 40 hours in each workweek but were not compensated at one and
one half time their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a workweek.

Ms. Mangus worked for the Defendant as an hourly paid, non-exempt
licensed practical nurse from March 2012 to October 2012.

Corizon Health, Inc., formerly known as Correctional Medical
Services, Inc., and doing business as Correctional Medical
Services, is a Delaware corporation that provides healthcare
services at over 400 correctional facilities nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COST PLUS: Recalls Glass Bubble Knobs Due to Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 251,400 Glass Bubble Knobs.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The knobs can break and expose sharp pieces of glass, posing a
risk of laceration to the consumer.

The firm has received five reports of broken knobs resulting in
five reports of hand and/or finger lacerations.

The recall involves glass bubble knobs used on cabinet doors and
drawers.  The knobs were sold in two sizes and six colors
including: blue, amethyst, pink, green, smoke and clear.  The
larger knobs are about 1.25 inches in diameter.  The smaller knobs
are about .75 inches in diameter.  The glass knobs are attached to
bronze-colored hardware.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/SiTgWt

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold
exclusively at Cost Plus World Market and World Market stores
nationwide from October 2010 to April 2014 for between $2 and $4.

Consumers should immediately stop using the glass knobs and return
them to any Cost Plus World Market or World Market store for a
full refund.


CRED-X DEBT: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Heeley, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Cred-X Debt Recovery, LLC, and National Credit Adjusters, LLC,
Case No. 4:14-cv-01065-JAR (E.D. Mo., June 9, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Eason, Esq.
          EASON LAW FIRM
          124 Gay Ave., Suite 200
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 932-1066
          Facsimile: (314) 667-3161
          E-mail: james.w.eason@gmail.com


DYNCORP: Court Remands Claims in "Arias" Anti-Drug Herbicide Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In VENANCIO AGUASANTA ARIAS, HUSBAND, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, AS
GUARDIAN OF HIS FOUR MINOR CHILDREN, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Appellants, v. DYNCORP, ET AL.,
Appellees, NO. 13-7044, CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 13-7045, Appellants
are a group of Ecuadorian provinces and individual farmers who
alleged that they were injured by an anti-drug herbicide spraying
operation in Colombia, conducted by an American company. In a
series of rulings, the district judge dismissed all claims. Some
of those are appealed.

The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit,
on May 30, 2014, issued an opinion remanding for consideration the
individual plaintiffs' claims for battery, nuisance, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. In all other
respects, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

The Appeals Court held that the Plaintiffs' claims for battery,
nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress stand
on different footing; none of those claims requires proof of
physical harm, and it sees no reason why expert testimony should
be necessary to prove these claims. Accordingly, the Appeals Court
concluded that the district court erred in dismissing these claims
-- at least on the basis of a failure to produce expert testimony.

A copy of the Appeals Court's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/eJb0tXfrom Leagle.com.

Christian Levesque -- clevesque@conradscherer.com -- argued the
cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Terrence
Collingsworth -- tc@conradscherer.com -- and Eric Hager --
ehager@conradscherer.com

Eric G. Lasker -- elasker@hollingsworthllp.com -- argued the cause
for appellees. With him on the brief were Joe G. Hollingsworth --
jhollingsworth@hollingsworthllp.com -- and Rosemary Stewart --
rstewart@hollingsworthllp.com


E-TELEQUOTE INSURANCE: Removed "Nicholson" Suit to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Nicholson, et al. v. e-TeleQuote
Insurance, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CH-07617, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04269 to the
proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          David Mitchell Poell, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          70 W. Madison Street, 48th floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 499-6300
          Facsimile: (312) 499-6301
          E-mail: dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com
                  DPoell@sheppardmullin.com


EADIE'S CONSTRUCTION: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Allard, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly
Situated v. Eadie's Construction Company Inc., Eadie's Industrial
Inc., and Keith Eadie, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-02236-DCN
(D.S.C., June 9, 2014) alleges that despite working over 40 hours
per workweek, the Plaintiff regularly did not receive overtime
compensation in the amount of at least one and a half times his
regular hourly rate.

Eadie Industrial Inc. and Eadie Construction Company Inc. are
South Carolina for-profit corporations.  Keith Eadie is the owner
and manager of the Corporate Defendants.  The Defendants
specialize in industrial and municipal drain & vacuum work.  They
offer vacuum services, hydro blasting, ditch renovations, hydro-
excavation, water blasting, installation of underground utilities,
and video inspection along with other site work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Teitelbaum" Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Teitelbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-03626 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.


EXPRESS SERVICES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Flores, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Express Services, Inc. d/b/a Express Personnel
Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-03298 (E.D. Pa., June 9, 2014) alleges
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


FIRST BAPTIST: Judge Approves $2.45MM Bug Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Pratt, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that a
Polk County District Court judge on June 4 approved a $2.45
million class-action settlement against the operators of two
downtown Des Moines apartment towers whose low-income and disabled
residents endured an infestation of bedbugs.

The settlement's approval marked the final chapter of a legal
battle for about 225 people who live or once lived at Elsie Mason
Manor and Ligutti Tower.

Sue Rogers, who was bitten by the bugs, said many people in the
class action took pride in knowing they helped change the living
conditions for other residents.

"We were never in it for the money," Ms. Rogers said.  "We just
wanted (the bedbugs) out."

Polk County District Judge Robert Blink on June 4 approved the
settlement between the class-action group and First Baptist
Elderly Housing Foundation, First Baptist Housing Foundation and
American Baptist Homes of the Midwest.

Residents, former residents and some family members of deceased
former residents are expected to receive payments within seven to
10 days, said Jeff Lipman, one of the attorneys handling the
group's claim.

The amounts will range from about $200 to $11,000.  Payouts will
be determined by a matrix based on the amount of time people lived
in the buildings between October 2007 and August 2013.  Problems
with bedbugs began in 2007.

As part of the settlement, the former owners made no admissions
related to negligent conduct, but the class maintained its
position that they were negligent.

With the aid of a team of lawyers, residents used a 2009 state law
called the "Private Right of Action" to make their case.  The law
allows consumers to sue businesses that engage in deceptive
practices, unfair practices or misrepresentation, or that fail to
disclose material facts.  Iowa was the last state in the U.S. to
enact such a law.

The residents' legal fight has been through a gauntlet of
proceedings since 2010.  The lawsuit ended up at the Iowa Supreme
Court, which had been asked to decertify the class-action status.
The court deadlocked, which meant a lower court's ruling allowing
the class-action status stood. The case was settled before it went
to trial.

A group of about 10 residents, including Dusty Donaldson and Sue
Rogers, shook hands and expressed relief outside the third-floor
courtroom after the hearing.  "I think that we accomplished
something that we were committed to," said Donaldson, who expects
to receive about $7,000.  "It's going to help out; I'm only on
Social Security."

Mr. Donaldson still has scars from the bites he received, he said.

David Zwickey, CEO and president of American Baptist Homes of the
Midwest and John Bloem, chairman of the First Baptist Elderly
Housing Foundation, testified during the hearing that the
settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate.  They were not asked
to discuss how or why the infestation occurred.  They primarily
talked about the finances of their organizations.

After the hearing, Mr. Bloem said that he was pleased that the
legal case was done.  "We maintained that we were doing right from
the start what was recommended," he said.

The bedbugs were probably brought to the facilities when tenants
moved in, Mr. Bloem said.

Developer Frank Levy assumed control of the properties last year
and has implemented a strict system for monitoring the pests. The
buildings are being renovated.

Mr. Lipman, the attorney, said it's likely the settlement will
make other landlords act quickly at the first sight of bedbugs.
"The message is that if you do not take this problem seriously,
then the landlord is going to be held accountable," he said after
the hearing.

Some of the $2.45 million will be put into a fund to assist legal
groups who aid the indigent.

Judge Blink also approved $800,000 for attorney fees.


FOUR OAKS: Motions to Dismiss Suits v. Bank Unit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The motions to dismiss three cases over alleged "payday lending"
practices by the Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company are awaiting
decision, according to Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc.'s May 15, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2013, multiple putative class action lawsuits were
filed in United States district courts across the country against
a number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in
"payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, pending in the Northern
District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, name
the Bank as one of the defendants. The lawsuits allege that, by
processing Automated Clearing House transactions indirectly on
behalf of "payday lenders," the Bank is illegally participating in
an enterprise to collect unlawful debts and is therefore liable to
plaintiffs for damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The lawsuits also allege a variety of state law claims. The Bank
moved to dismiss each of these lawsuits. The Middle District of
North Carolina granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
The motions to dismiss in the three other cases are awaiting
decision.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Childre" Suit Over Switch Defects
--------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Childre, 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. 2:14-cv-01320 (E.D. La., June 6, 2014), egregious and
unprecedented failure to disclose and to affirmatively conceal a
known defect in General Motors vehicles.

General Motors has sold millions of vehicles throughout the United
States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which the
vehicle's ignition switch can inadvertently move from the "run"
position to the "accessory" or "off" position during ordinary
driving conditions, resulting in a loss of power, vehicle speed
control, and braking, as well as a failure of the vehicle's
airbags to deploy.

General Motors, LLC, is a Delaware corporation that designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold Pontiac, Saturn,
Chevrolet and other brand automobiles in Louisiana and multiple
other locations in the United States and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      DUGAN LAW FIRM
      One Canal Place
      365 Canal St., Suite 1000,
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: To Use Bankruptcy as Shield for Crash Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
lawyers for a Georgia family that is trying to reopen a wrongful
death lawsuit against General Motors say the company is trying to
move the case to federal court so it can use bankruptcy as a
shield from the claim.

The lawyers, Lance Cooper and Jere Beasley, said on June 11 in a
statement that GM's court filings run counter to a promise made by
GM CEO Mary Barra to fairly compensate families of people killed
or those injured in crashes caused by defective ignition switches.

GM spokesman Greg Martin called the company's filings procedural.

A federal bankruptcy judge in New York ruled in 2009 that the new
GM is shielded from claims stemming from cars made before the
company emerged from bankruptcy protection.  Instead, the claims
go against the old GM, which has limited assets.  The judge now is
being asked to decide if he will allow claims against the new
company.

Messrs. Cooper and Beasley say moving the case to federal court
would allow the company to use the bankruptcy to send claims to
the old GM.

Ken and Beth Melton sued GM three years ago in Cobb County,
Georgia, in the death of their daughter, Brooke Melton, in 2010.
The 29-year-old nurse died when her 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt skidded
on a county road, hit another car and ended up in a creek.

The lawsuit alleged that Brooke Melton, a pediatric nurse, was
killed after the Cobalt lost power due to a faulty ignition
switch, causing her to lose control of the car.  The Meltons
settled the case last September, but Messrs. Cooper and Beasley
filed a lawsuit in May seeking to set aside the settlement and
reopen the case, alleging that GM fraudulently concealed evidence.

Research by Mr. Cooper's firm and depositions in the original
lawsuit exposed a GM engineer's move to fix the defective switches
and conceal his actions.

GM ended up recalling 2.6 million older small cars starting in
February to fix the switches, which the company says have caused
54 crashes and at least 13 deaths.  GM acknowledged that it waited
more than 10 years to recall the cars.  A report from an outside
attorney hired by GM blamed the delay on a dysfunctional corporate
structure and misconduct or poor decisions by some employees.  The
attorney's report also indicates that the Meltons' case was
settled for $5 million.

The case has brought investigations from Congress and the Justice
Department.  Also, GM has agreed to pay a $35 million fine to the
government's road safety agency. The automaker has hired attorney
Kenneth Feinberg to come up with a method of compensating victims.

Mr. Feinberg said last week that a compensation plan is weeks
away.  So far, GM has announced or taken charges of $1.7 billion
to cover the cost of the ignition switch and dozens of other
recalls.


GENERAL MOTORS: Issues Four More Vehicle Recalls
------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that the list of General Motors recalls keeps getting
longer.  The automaker issued four more recalls on June 6, adding
105,688 vehicles to the more than 15.8 million cars and trucks it
has recalled worldwide this year.

The new recall affects about 36,000 vehicles including the 2012
Buick Verano, Chevrolet Camaro, Cruze and Sonic, which have a
problem that can prevent the airbag from deploying in a crash.
The flaw has been linked to one crash where someone suffered an
injury.

A separate issue that could prevent the passenger airbag from
deploying properly affects 87 Chevrolet Sparks from model years
2012 and 2014, as well as Buick Encores from model year 2013.
Another airbag issue affects 37 Chevrolet Corvettes from model
year 2014.  Neither of those problems have been linked to a crash,
the company said.

The largest, but less serious recall issued on June 6 affects
70,000 vehicles including some Chevrolet Silverado LD and HD
models, as well as GMC Sierra LDs, Tahoes, Suburbans and Yukons
from model years 2014 and 2015.  They have a problem that could
disable the audible chime that warns drivers and passengers that a
front seat belt is not buckled or that the driver's door is opened
while the key is in the ignition.  GM is not aware of any crashes
or injuries related to the issue.  It affects

GM will send letters to customers letting them know when they can
bring their vehicles into a dealership to be repaired.

The new recalls come one day after the company released an
internal report examining why it took more than a decade to recall
2.6 million cars for a faulty ignition switch.  That problem has
been linked to at least 13 deaths.  GM CEO Mary Barra announced
that 15 employees have been dismissed and five more have been
disciplined over the matter.


GENERAL MOTORS: Fires 15 Employees Amid Recall Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------
Detroit Free Press reports that General Motors CEO Mary Barra says
she fired 15 employees "who we determined to have acted
inappropriately" and also disciplined five employees for their
failure to act in the recall crisis.  One of the employees fired
is believed to suspended engineer Ray DeGiorgio, following an
internal investigation documenting how it failed to respond to an
ignition-switch defect that engineers identified more than a
decade ago, according to a source familiar with the report.

Nearly five months into her tenure, the moment offers GM CEO
Mary Barra a chance to convey the automaker's fresh commitment to
transparency, safety and quality amid accusations that a heartless
bureaucracy allowed a deadly defect to fester.  But the
investigation -- conducted by Chicago attorney Anton Valukas --
poses significant risks if the lawyer who also probed the collapse
of financial giant Lehman Brothers doesn't deliver concrete
answers or didn't receive the cooperation GM promised.

The report is expected to identify executives who erred, engineers
who embraced cost savings over safety improvements and
communication failures that turned out to be deadly.

"The obvious questions are who in the world approved all of this?
How high up did it go? Obviously he's supposed to be looking into
that," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for
Auto Safety. "If he doesn't have answers, then it's not a good
report."

Ms. Barra will discuss the Valukas report with employees and media
at the GM Tech Center in Warren starting at 9:00 a.m.  The company
will also conduct a conference call for analysts in the afternoon.
A GM spokesman declined to provide a preview of the report.

Cost concerns

Ms. Barra has called for Mr. Valukas to deliver an "unvarnished"
report on the ignition-switch defect, which has triggered recalls
for more than 2.6 million small cars, mostly from the 2003 through
2007 model years. The defect is tied to at least 42 crashes and 13
known fatalities.  The ignition switch could be jostled, either by
a driver's knee or by the weight of multiple attachments on a key
chain, causing it to slip into accessory mode, cutting off
electricity to power steering, air bags and other features.  GM
engineers discovered the problem no later than 2004, but decided
not to order a recall because of the cost.

"Timeline will be critical, and who knew what when?" said Carl
Tobias, a University of Richmond product liability law professor.
"How high up in the company was the information available --
especially did Barra have any knowledge? At what time did it
become clear to her?"

The report is not expected to blame Ms. Barra for the problem or
accuse her of hiding it.  She has maintained she was notified
about the issue in late January when GM safety officials
recommended a recall -- and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration investigators found no records to dispute her
claim.  But other high-level GM executives knew about the problem.
For example, former engineering executive Lori Queen was told
about the problem in 2005, and former engineering executive Jim
Federico became aware of the issue in 2012, according to internal
GM documents.

Mr. DeGiorgio quietly authorized a fix to the Delphi-manufactured
switch in 2006, but testified in a 2013 deposition that he did not
remember doing so.

Ms. Barra has blamed GM's "cost culture" for deciding the issue
wasn't a problem, while others have pointed to the automaker's
bureaucracy for preventing officials from communicating
effectively about the problem.

The role of GM lawyers is also expected to be part of the report.
Georgia lawyer Lance Cooper, who discovered evidence of the
defect, sued GM, said he's still waiting for answers on the role
attorneys played.

"What they knew, when they knew it and who they were reporting to,
there's really a veil over that," Mr. Cooper said.

A flurry of investigations

Among the central questions: Is GM simply such a behemoth
bureaucracy that engineers, lawyers, safety officials and
executives never shared enough information with each other to
solve the issue?

"Is it conceivable that they were so isolated that this
information couldn't get across the various departments -- which I
think this is difficult to understand, but I don't know,"
Mr. Tobias said.

GM finally issued a recall in February, but the situation has
spawned investigations by the U.S. Justice Department, NHTSA,
congressional subcommittees and the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  GM has turned over more than a million pages of
documents to U.S. House investigators alone.

"Many unanswered questions remain about why these vehicles were
left on the road for years, even though GM knew something was
wrong with them," Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, the ranking
Republican on the Senate consumer protection subcommittee, said in
a statement.  "I am hopeful that this report will fill in the
holes about the timeline and explain GM's decision-making
processes both in 2005 and in 2008."

Mr. Heller added: "I would also like to better understand what
discussions were had with NHTSA.  Once the report is released,
Congress should hold more hearings with representatives from GM,
NHTSA and possibly even Delphi in order to make sure that all
questions are answered and that this situation never happens
again."

NHTSA levied its maximum $35-million fine on GM last month for
failing to report the defective ignition switches in a timely
manner.

GM has also hired 9/11 compensation fund head Kenneth Feinberg to
consider potential settlements with crash victims and their
families.  Mr. Feinberg said on June 10 that he's "weeks away"
from offering recommendations.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: West Virginia Gets $22MM in Drug Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that GlaxoSmithKline LLC has agreed
to pay West Virginia $22 million to settle a lawsuit alleging it
illegally marketed three diabetic drugs.  The drug maker didn't
admit any liability in the settlement.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced the
settlement on June 12.  He says it's one of the largest
pharmaceutical settlements in the state's history.

The Attorney General's Office filed the lawsuit in Wayne County
Circuit Court.  The court must approve the settlement.

Mr. Morrisey says $10.6 million from the settlement will go to the
West Virginia Public Employees Agency.  The state's Medicaid
program will receive $3.7 million.  About $3 million will go to
the attorney general's Consumer Protection Fund.

The remaining $4.6 million will be used to pay attorneys' fees and
expenses.


GROWLIFE INC: Faces "Romero" Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
GrowLife, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit in the United States
District Court or the Central District of California, according to
the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On April 18, 2014, a class action lawsuit (the "Complaint") was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court,
Central District of California (Randy Romero v. Growlife, Inc. et
al; Case No.: CV14-03015). The Complaint alleges two claims: (1)
Violation of  Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") against the Company and the
individual executive officers and board of directors
(collectively, the "Board"); and (2) Violation of Section 20(a) of
the Act against the members of the Board.

On May 2, 2014, the Company was served with the Complaint. The
Complaint alleges (among other things) that the Company and the
Board published certain documents and filings that were inaccurate
and/or inadequate, causing Company securities to be traded at an
inflated price. The Complaint further alleges that the Company's
and Board's actions caused the members in the class action to
suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The Complaint
also claims that members of the Board are in violation of Section
20(a) of the Act due to their position and relationship with the
Company and their alleged involvement with the Company's violation
of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Act.


HITACHI KOKI: Recalls Pneumatic Nailers Due to Injury Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hitachi Koki U.S.A. Ltd., of Norcross, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 25,000 units in the United States and 300 in
Canada Hitachi Koki Pneumatic Nailer.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pneumatic nailers can jam and override the safety switch that
permits only one nail to fire at a time, posing an injury risk.
Canon has received one report of itching and two reports of eye
redness and pain.

The recall involves two models of Hitachi Koki 3 1/4 inch strip
pneumatic nailers with depth adjustment.  Affected model numbers
are NR83A2(Y) and NR83A3. Model numbers are located on a label
attached to the side of the nailers and on the outside of the box
containing the product.  The manufacturing date can be identified
by the serial number engraved at the end of the handle on the
nailer.  Model number NR83A2(Y) has serial numbers which start
with QD2, QN2 QO2, Q13, Q23, Q33, Q43, Q52, Q53, Q62, Q72, Q82 and
Q92. Model number NR83A3 has serial numbers which start with QD3,
QN3, QO3, Q14, Q24, Q34, Q63, Q73, Q83 and Q93.  Units with a
letter "R" decal next to the model number and an engraved "R" near
the serial number are not included in this product recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/3itP4m

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
independent home improvement and building supply stores nationwide
and online at Amazon.com, HomeDepot.com, Lowes.com, Walmart.com
and Grainger.com from May 2012 through May 2014 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nailers and
contact Hitachi Koki U.S.A. for instructions on how to return the
product for a free repair.


HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: "El-Hallani" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gerald E. Rosen dismissed with prejudice a
second amended complaint in the case captioned ALI EL-HALLANI, et
al, Plaintiffs, v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, NO. 13-CV-
12983, (E.D. Mich.).

Undeterred by the Court's prior identification of all of the
reasons why their First Amended Complaint failed to meet Rule
8(a)'s pleading standard, the Plaintiffs in the case filed a
Second Amended Complaint supported only by one new allegation.
That one allegation, the results of a last minute survey conducted
by Plaintiffs' process server of six individuals departing two of
Defendant's branches in metro-Detroit, purports to identify four
similarly situated individuals whom Defendant treated differently.
Not surprisingly, the Defendant again moved to dismiss. It has
also moved for sanctions.

Judge Rosen concluded that the Plaintiffs' sole additional
evidence does not come close to "nudg[ing] their claims across the
line from conceivable to plausible."

A copy of the May 29, 2014 opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/mRTJR1from Leagle.com.

Ali El-Hallani, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Kassem M. Dakhlallah, Esq.
   AT LAW GROUP, PLLC
   1 Parklane Blvd, Ste 100
   Dearborn, MI 48126
   Telephone: (313) 406-7606

        - and -

   Nabih H. Ayad, Esq.
   NABIH H. AYAD & ASSOCIATES
   2200 Canton Center Road, Suite 220
   Canton, MI 48187
   Telephone: (734)983-0500

Mark Manuaeel, Plaintiff, represented by Kassem M. Dakhlallah, At
Law Group, PLLC & Nabih H. Ayad, Nabih H. Ayad Assoc..

Huntington National Bank, Defendant, represented by:

   David E. Plunkett, Esq.
   Ernest J. Essad, Jr., Esq.
   May A. Saad, Esq.
   WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, P.C.
   380 North Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
   Birmingham, MI 48009
   Telephone: (248) 642-0333
   Facsimile: (248) 642-0856


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Consumer Advocates Want Court to Reject MPG Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Corporate Crime Reporter, a class action settlement
negotiated by Hyundai and Kia following the companies' 2012
admission that they low-balled fuel economy numbers for over a
dozen 2011-2013 vehicles is structured to prevent consumers from
collecting the money they are owed and should be rejected, a group
of consumer advocates told a federal court.

A 23-page brief identifying problems with the settlement was filed
in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on behalf of 13 class
members from across the U.S. by their attorneys at Consumer
Watchdog and three private law firms -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood & Campora and Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy.

The settlement would require eligible customers to follow
"illegible" instructions on a postcard in order to obtain a
complicated and poorly worded claim form that "will indisputably
discourage many Class Members from pursuing their rights under the
Proposed Settlement," the filing states.

The lawyers supporting the deal "offer no evidence that a claim
form is required under the present circumstances" where the
companies "have accurate data at their disposal" to automatically
issue payments to consumers, the advocates argued in their brief.

The advocates state that court approval of the settlement "would
erode public confidence in a crucial device for redressing
corporate wrongdoing, the class action process."

A nearly illegible postcard is the sole manner in which class
members will receive direct notice of their rights under the
proposed settlement -- virtually guaranteeing that most class
members will never exercise their rights, even as they will be
held to have released their claims, Consumer Watchdog said.

They also argued that the settlement puts forth an "unnecessary
and onerous claims process."  Class members must comply with a
completely unnecessary, confusing and onerous mail and online
claims process that will indisputably discourage many class
members from pursuing their rights under the proposed settlement,
they argued.

And they said that under the settlement, Hyundai and Kia are
responsible for processing class members' claims against them -- a
straightforward conflict of interest that incentivizes errors and
improper denials of claims by the very same companies that engaged
in the misrepresentations to begin with.

And then there is the reversionary settlement -- Hyundai and Kia
-- the wrongdoers -- get to keep all the money that consumers do
not claim or use.

Judge George H. Wu will hold a hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on June 26, 2014 at 9:00
a.m. in federal court in Los Angeles.


INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Fenyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandor Fenyes, Jay Roberts and Michael Hopper; Individually  and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Innovative
Industrial Constructors, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00060 (D.N.D.,
June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Innovative Industrial Constructors, Inc., is a Washington
Corporation located at 1501 N. 12th Street, Suite 1, Bismarck,
North Dakota 58501-2713.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Lawrence Mintz, Esq.
      ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC
      One Riverway, Suite 2300,
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 961-8026
      E-mail: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com

             - and -

     Joseph Y. Ahmad
     AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
     1221 McKinney St., Suite 3460,
     Houston, TX 77010
     Telephone: (713) 655-1101
     E-mail: joeahmad@azalaw.com


JAG INDUSTRIAL: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Westbrook" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Westbrook, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Jag Industrial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Douglas Huff, and Tim Jagielski, Case No. 3:14-cv-02080 (N.D.
Tex., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs.

Jag Industrial Services, Inc., provides skilled labor and quality
assurance for marine repair, shipbuilding and a wide range of
industrial manufacturing projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Charles Leonard Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street,
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com


JAG SPECIALTY: Accused of False Claims on All Natural Breadsticks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lukasz Monka as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Jag Specialty Foods, LLC, a New York limited
liability company, Case No. 9:14-cv-80764-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 9,
2014) alleges that Jag has unlawfully, fraudulently, negligently,
unfairly, misleadingly, and deceptively represented that certain
flavor varieties of its breadsticks that come in different sizes
are "All Natural," while they include soybean oil and corn syrup,
which are unnatural, synthetic, and artificial ingredients.

Jag Specialty Foods, LLC, is a New York corporation headquartered
in College Point, New York.  The Company manufactures, markets,
advertises, and sells the Products as being "All Natural" on the
front packaging of the Products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com

               - and -

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


JAMES LATHAM PETERS: Judge Inks $13.75MM Hepatitis C Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Russell, writing for The Age, reports that the class action
against James Latham Peters is a step closer to settlement.

A Supreme Court judge has signed off on the $13.75 million
settlement for the women involved in a class action against drug-
addicted anaesthetist James Latham Peters for infecting them with
hepatitis C.

Justice David Beach formally approved the deal on June 5,
describing it as "conspicuously fair".  The case had been due to
go to trial on April 28 before the 62 women agreed to the
settlement offer.  Final approval was delayed while advertisements
were taken out alerting any other victims of their possible right
to a share of the settlement money.

Justice Beach said the payouts to each woman would vary according
to various factors including whether or not a woman had been
diagnosed with hepatitis C and what treatment she had received.
There are some strains of hepatitis C that do not respond to
treatment.  The judge said the settlement was complicated, with
one woman expecting to receive between $32,000 to $42,000 while
another woman would get between $299,000 and $326,000.

A small number of women had expressed concerns about the different
payouts but the judge considered on balance that they were fair.
The court was told only one known victim had yet to join the class
action and she had until June 19 to register for a share of the
settlement.

The women had sued Peters, Croydon Day Surgery, Dr. Mark Schulberg
(who hired Peters as an anaesthetist at the clinic and who
operated the clinic at the time) and the Australian Health
Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) for damages for pain and
suffering, economic loss and medical expenses.

AHPRA replaced the former Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria,
which has responsibility for registering doctors in Victoria.  The
claim against Peters was eventually dropped when it was revealed
he had no assets.

The class action covered women who had been infected with
hepatitis C during pregnancy terminations at the Croydon Day
Surgery between June 2008 and December 2009 when Peters was the
anaesthetist.

Mr. Peters, 64, was jailed last year for 14 years with a non-
parole period of 10 years, after pleading guilty to 55 counts of
negligently causing serious injury to the patients by injecting
himself with prefilled syringes of fentanyl -- an opioid used in
general anaesthesia -- in theatre at Croydon Day Surgery.  He then
administered the remaining drug to the patients as they underwent
pregnancy terminations.

Mr. Peters had a history of drug abuse as well as convictions for
possessing a drug of dependence and falsifying prescriptions when
he infected the women with the potentially deadly blood disease
between June 2008 and November 2009.  Many of his victims have
told of broken relationships, ruined careers and their ever-
present fears of passing on the disease to their partners,
children and others.  They have developed crippling depression,
anxiety and stress since learning they had been exposed to the
disease and finding out they had been infected.  Several have been
placed in psychiatric care and many contemplated suicide as a
direct result of Peters' actions.


JEFFERSON BANCSHARES: Seeks to Dismiss Tenn. Suit Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Bancshares, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit
filed by William P. Cooper III in the Chancery Court of Hamblen
County, Tennessee, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On January 31, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned William
P. Cooper III v. Jefferson Bancshares, Inc., et al., was filed
under Case No. 2014-cv-35 in the Chancery Court of Hamblen County,
Tennessee, against the Company, its directors, the Bank, HomeTrust
Bancshares, Inc. ("HomeTrust") and HomeTrust Bank challenging the
merger of the Company with and into HomeTrust. On April 1, 2014,
the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger at an unfair price
pursuant to a flawed sales process, by agreeing to terms with
HomeTrust that discourages other bidders and by filing an initial
Form S-4 registration statement which included a preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus that purportedly omits material information.
The plaintiff further alleges that the Company's directors and
officers were not independent or disinterested with respect to the
merger. The plaintiff also alleges that HomeTrust and HomeTrust
Bank aided and abetted the Company directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, as
well as attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages.
The Company, its directors, and HomeTrust believe this action is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.
On April 24, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Hamblen
County, Tennessee.


JCG INDUSTRIES: 7th Cir. Won't Rehear Workers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for
a rehearing en banc by the plaintiffs in a class action against
JCG Industries and Koch Foods alleging they should have been
compensated for time spent changing during lunch breaks.

Rochelle Mitchell and Audrey Veasley were employed by JCG and Koch
as poultry processors in Chicago and were required to clock-in to
work 15 minutes prior to the start of their shifts to don the
required protective work clothing, according to the May 28
opinion.

The plaintiffs were also required to remove the protective
clothing before going to lunch, which was 30 minutes and unpaid.
They claimed it took 10 to 15 minutes to don and doff their
protective clothing, which cut into their meal time.

Judges Richard A. Posner, Joel M. Flaum, Frank H. Easterbrook,
Michael S. Kanne, Diane S. Sykes and John Daniel Tinder formed the
majority.

Judges Ann Claire Williams, Diane P. Wood, Ilana Diamond Rovner
and David F. Hamilton dissented.

"This is an important case with far-reaching implications for,
among others, workers who are being paid minimum wage or close to
it," the dissenting opinion written by Williams states.

"(T)his case should have been heard en banc because the majority
opinion calls into question the application of the 'continuous
workday' doctrine of the Fair Labor Standards Act, erroneously
applies de minimis analysis to the FLSA in contravention of
Supreme Court precedent, and improperly applies the summary
judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56."

"Applying reasoning that I believe contravenes the plain language
of both the FLSA and the Department of Labor's definition, the
majority finds that the employees of the chicken processing plant
work not one eight-hour day, but two four-hour workdays broken up
by a thirty-minute lunch break."

Under the majority's approach, any time spent doffing clothes
during the start of the lunch break is actually at the end of the
first four-hour workday, and any time donning clothes at the end
of the lunch break is actually at the beginning of the employees'
second four-hour workday, and so the donning and doffing during
the mid-day lunch break is subject to the collective bargaining
agreement, according to the dissenting opinion.

"The day can be broken up that way, the majority states, because
the employees have an unpaid lunch break and that non-compensable
period must act as a break between the first workday and the
second workday," the dissenting opinion states.

The lawsuit was first filed in Cook Circuit Court on Sept. 27,
2010, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois-Eastern Division on Oct. 25, 2010.

The plaintiffs, who worked 8.5-hour shifts that included a 30-
minute unpaid meal break, claimed they worked from the time a bell
sounded and the production line started until it stopped at the
end of the scheduled shift.

Instead of requiring employees to swipe in and out for meal
breaks, the defendants automatically deducted 30 minutes for meal
breaks.

The plaintiffs claimed they regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week without proper overtime compensation by working before
the start of their shifts, through unpaid meal breaks, and after
their scheduled shifts.

"The Department of Labor's 'general' definition of a continuous
workday does not apply here, the majority continues, because this
case presents a 'compelling reason to recognize an exception' to
the continuous workday doctrine, namely that there are actually
two four-hour workdays," the dissenting opinion states.

Going forward, district courts, employers and employees are likely
to be confused as to when a day is continuous and when it is not,
according to the dissenting opinion.

"When is a seemingly eight-hour workday actually two four-hour
workdays, or four two-hour workdays, or eight one-hour workdays?
What makes this case the 'exception' to the 'general' definition,
but another case not the 'exception'? This 'exception' is likely
to create confusion in both the administration of law . . . and
the collective bargaining process."

By explicitly rejecting the appellant's affidavit and accepting
the employer's time estimation, the majority ignored the evidence
in the light most favorable to the employees and therefore did not
conduct the proper Rule 56 analysis, according to the dissenting
opinion.

"In the light most favorable to Appellant, how long it took to don
and doff was an issue of fact that should have been decided by a
jury."

In an opinion that concurred with denial of rehearing, Posner
wrote that published opinions dissenting from denials of
rehearings en banc are rare, but that published opinions
concurring in denials of rehearing en banc like his own are
virtually unheard of.

"But, this case merits such an opinion in view of assertions and
omissions in the opinion dissenting from the denial of re-hearing
en banc that relate both to the appropriateness of the case for
rehearing by the full court and to the grounds of the panel's
decision," he wrote.

The panel assigned to this case ruled that the changing time did
not have to be compensated, according to Judge Posner, and, the
full court has declined by a split vote to hear the case en banc,
precipitating the dissenting opinion that is the focus of
Judge Posner's discussion.

"It should go without saying that mere disagreement with a
decision by a panel of the court is not a sufficient ground for
re-hearing en banc," Judge Posner's opinion states.  "Otherwise
every case in which the panel was divided could provoke a petition
for re-hearing en banc and a call by the dissenting judge for a
vote on whether to re-hear the case en banc."

The petition for rehearing is sloppy, according to Judge Posner.

"Apart from numerous mistakes . . .  the main arguments in the
petition were made neither in the district court, nor in this
court when the case was briefed and argued to the panel," Judge
Posner wrote.  "So there is an ambush element.

"I am puzzled, finally, by the dissent's remark that 'how long it
took to don and doff was an issue of fact that should have been
decided by a jury.' My puzzle is: how is such a fact to be
determined by a jury? Suppose one worker testifies . . . that it
takes 10 to 15 minutes to don and doff, and another . . .
testifies it takes 2 minutes.  How is a jury to decide between
them?"

Judge Posner states that the most accurate way to resolve the
dispute would be, on the model of the criticized experiment by
court staff, to videotape workers doffing and donning.

"The problem is that the workers aligned with the plaintiffs would
dawdle, and the workers aligned with management would practice
doffing and donning until they broke the speed record," he states.

"What would the jury do? This is somewhat to the side of the issue
of the case, but illustrates the important point that determining
facts in a litigation can be devilishly difficult if one thinks
accuracy important."

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case number:
13-2115


KAISER PERMANENTE: "Kelly" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in "Benton"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA KELLEY and WILLIAM PEARSE, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAISER PERMANENTE,
an assumed business name of KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE
NORTHWEST, an Oregon corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN,
INC., a California corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a
California corporation; NORTHWEST PERMANENTE, P.C., an Oregon
professional corporation; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, NO. 3:13-CV-02120-BR, (D. Ore.) is before
the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Stay or in the
Alternative to Dismiss the First Claim for Relief.

The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on November 27,
2013, in which they alleged when Defendants tested Plaintiffs for
HIV without prior notice, they (1) committed an unfair trade
practice in violation of Oregon Revised Statute Section 746.240,
(2) violated Oregon Revised Statute Section 433.045, and (3)
invaded Plaintiffs' privacy.  On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint to amend factual allegations made in
Plaintiff's Complaint and to add further allegations to support
their claims.  On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint in which they alleged when Defendants tested
Plaintiffs for HIV without prior notice, they (1) violated Oregon
Revised Statute Section 433.045 and (2) invaded Plaintiffs'
privacy.  On March 14, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
or Stay or in the Alternative to Dismiss the First Claim for
Relief.

The Defendants have sought a stay or dismissal of this matter on
the ground of the "first-to-file" rule. Specifically, Defendants
asserted they are subject to a class action in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington (the Benton
action) that was filed before this action and that encompasses
members of the class in this action.

The Benton Action was filed on October 25, 2013, by three
Washington residents against the same Defendants in the matter
before the Court alleging the defendants subjected the plaintiffs
to HIV testing without their knowledge and consent.

In an opinion and order dated May 29, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Cj5JPV from Leagle.com, District Judge
Anna J. Brown concluded that the Defendants' Motion to Stay is
granted and stayed this matter until Benton v. Kaiser Permanente,
No. 13-CV-5998-BHS (W.D. Wash.)(the Benton action) has progressed
sufficiently to determine whether this action will have a basis to
proceed that does not duplicate the Benton action. The Court
denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Alternative
Motion to Dismiss the First Claim for Relief with leave to renew
those Motions if the Benton plaintiffs do not amend their
complaint to exclude the proposed class in this matter or if they
obtain certification of a class that includes members of the
proposed class in this matter.

BRADLEY J. MOORE -- brad@stritmatter.com -- R. TRAVIS JAMESON --
travis@stritmatter.com -- Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio,
Seattle, WA, MARK E. GRIFFIN -- mark@markgriffin.com --
Griffin & McCandlish, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

TROY S. BUNDY -- tsb@hartwagner.com -- MATTHEW J. KALMANSON --
mjk@hartwagner.com -- Hart Wagner, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys
for Defendants.


KEFI LLC: Sept. 12 Fairness Hearing on Lizondro-Garcia Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman issued an opinion and order on
May 29, 2014, granting preliminary approval of a settlement
agreement in the captioned MANUEL LIZONDRO-GARCIA, LUIS CRUZ,
JORGE GARCIA, JERALDO GONZALEZ, ALEKSANDER VELIC, JAVIER TOLEDO,
OSCAR RAMIREZ, MOISES JIMENEZ, MARCO REAL, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated,  Plaintiffs, v. KEFI LLC, doing
business as KEFI RESTAURANT and KOSTANTINOS DAMANIOS, Defendants,
NO. 12 CIV. 1906 (HBP), (S.D.N.Y.).  A copy of the Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/NIwmirfrom Leagle.com.

The Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, that the
defendants, without conceding the validity of the plaintiffs'
claims and without admitting liability, agree to create a common
fund of $315,000 to be paid in two equal installments of $157,500.
From the fund, the nine named plaintiffs will each receive $1,000
service awards, a claims administrator will receive an estimated
$15,239.11 to set up and distribute monies from the fund and
counsel for plaintiffs will receive attorney's fees and costs,
subject to the Court's approval, and not to exceed $105,000.

The proposed New York Labor Law (NYLL) class is conditionally
certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  Manuel Lizondro-Garcia, Luis Cruz, Jorge
Garcia, Jeraldo Gonzalez, Aleksander Velic, Javier Toledo, Oscar
Ramirez, Moises Jimenez and Marco Real are appointed class
representatives and Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP is appointed class
counsel.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on September 12, 2014, at
2:00 p.m., at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18A, in New
York, New York, 10007.

Manuel Lizondro-Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum --
maimon@jhllp.com -- Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum &
Yosef Nussbaum -- jnussbaum@jhllp.com -- Joseph and Kirschenbaum.

Luis Cruz, on behalf of himseld and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph,
Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and
Kirschenbaum.

Jorge Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph,
Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and
Kirschenbaum.

Jeraldo Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Aleksander Velic, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Javier Toledo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph,
Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and
Kirschenbaum.

Oscar Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph,
Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and
Kirschenbaum.

Moises Jimenez, on behalf of himseld and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Marco Real, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph,
Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and
Kirschenbaum.

Jorge R Becerra, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph
-- charles@jhllp.com -- Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum &
Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum.

Kevin Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Jenna Lee Barron, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Ashley Bostick, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Jose Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Victor Paguay, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Marco Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Pablo Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Carlos Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Efrain Duenas, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Victor Galindo, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef
Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum.

Claudio Serrano, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef
Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum.

Paulina Grzechnik, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef
Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum.

Dipika Pati, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Elena Pauta, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum,
Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph
and Kirschenbaum.

Victorino Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef
Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum.

Kefi LLC, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman --
EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & Jason A Zoldessy
-- ZoldessJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP.

Kostantinos Damanios, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman,
Jackson Lewis LLP & Jason A Zoldessy, Jackson Lewis LLP.


LATEEF INC: Jafari Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Jafari, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Lateef, Inc., KCFOA Association, ASAD, Inc., Faisal,
Inc., Neelam, Inc., Three Star Company, Inc., Qaiser A. Lateef,
Kalid Asad, Faisal Asad, Case No. 2:14-cv-02270 (D. Kan., June 6,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid straight time and overtime
compensation, and related penalties and damages.

Lateef, Inc. is a Kansas delinquent corporation located at 8700 W.
95th St, Overland Park, Kansas, 66212.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. Hyland, Esq.
      HYLAND LAW FIRM LLC
      7300 W. 110th St., Suite #930,
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      Telephone: (913) 498-1911
      Facsimile: (913) 498-1950
      E-mail: charlie@hylandkc.com


LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Bunk Beds with Bookcases
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lea Industries, of High Point, N.C., announced a voluntary recall
of about 500 Lea Covington and Hannah Collection Bunk Beds.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bunk bed can be assembled incorrectly, creating a space that
exceeds the 1.88 inches allowed by the industry standard, posing
an entrapment hazard to young children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Lea Covington and Hannah Collections style
bunk beds with bookcases.  The beds were sold in twin over twin
and full over full sizes with accessories including a bookcase.
The Covington Collection has a cherry finish and the Hannah
Collection, a white finish.  The Lea name and model information is
printed on a label attached to the backside of the headboard on
the bottom bunk and on the back of the bookcase.

   The Covington Collection            The Hannah Collection
   ------------------------            ---------------------
   145-976 twin over twin             147-976 twin over twin
   145-986 full over full             147-986 full over full
   145-900 bookcase                   147-900 bookcase

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/79MWUm

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Furnitureland South and other furniture stores nationwide and
online at Hayneedle.com from September 2011 until March 2014 for
about $1,700.

Consumers should immediately check to see if they have the
recalled bunk beds and then contact Lea Industries to determine if
the bed is misassembled.  A professional installer can be
dispatched to raise the position of the bottom bunk bed and
install new brackets on the bookcase.  Lea Industries is
contacting known customers directly.


MANAGED FUTURES: Bid to Appeal "Ge Dandong" Cert. Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied the petition by defendants in Ge Dandong, et al. v.
Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. to seek permission to appeal the
court's decision granting class certification to the case,
according to Managed Futures Premier Warrington L.P.'s May 15,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On October 25, 2010, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (MS&Co.), certain
affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose
vehicle, were named as defendants in a purported class action
related to securities issued by the special purpose vehicle in
Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is
styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY"). An amended complaint was filed on
October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class
certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants
filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's decision
granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint
alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and
benefited subsequently from the securities' failure. In addition,
the second amended complaint alleges that the securities' offering
materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding
the securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of
interest between the defendants and the investors. The second
amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and
abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting
fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. On March 25, 2014, the court denied
defendants' petition seeking permission to appeal the court's
decision granting class certification. Plaintiffs seek damages of
approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and
interest.


MATHEWS ARCHERY: Recalls Crossbows Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mathews Archery Inc., dba Mission Archery, of Sparta, Wis.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 9,500 MXB crossbows.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The crossbow can fire an arrow unexpectedly without the trigger
being pulled, posing an injury hazard to the user and to
bystanders.

Mission Archery has received three reports of the crossbow firing
unexpectedly.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Mission Archery crossbows that have the
automatic safety located behind the trigger at rear of scope
mount, models MXB 320, MXB Dagger, MXB 400 and MXB 360; and serial
numbers ranging from XB04879 to XB16555.  The crossbows were sold
in black, lost camo AT (a three-color camouflage pattern with
light brown, dark brown, dark green), white camo and pink camo
pattern.  The crossbows measure between 29 and 35 inches long and
were available individually or as part of a package that included
a black scope, quiver, three bolts and a rope cocking aid.
Mission by Mathews is engraved on the left rear side of the
crossbow's rail.  The serial number is located on the underside of
the rail directly behind the safety.  Mission and the model name
are printed on each limb.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/RtQ7hN

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at archery and hunting sporting goods stores nationwide including
from May 2013 through April 2014 for between $600 and $1,300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled crossbows and
return them to a Mission Archery authorized dealer for a free
repair, or contact Mission Archery for instructions on shipping
the product directly to them for a free repair, including
shipping.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Vega" Suit for Failing to Pay OT Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leticia Vega, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Maxim Healthcare Services, INC., a Maryland
corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-
04372 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and attorney's fees
and costs.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation which,
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by medical assistants, nurses, therapists,
medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb L. H. Marker, Esq.
      RIDOUT LYON AND OTTOSON LLP
      555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500,
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-7380
      Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
      E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leon Crews, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-03613 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


MIRKA ABRASIVES: Recalls Orbital Sanders Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mirka Abrasives Inc., of Twinsburg, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 440 in U.S. and 85 in Canada Random orbital
sanders.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The sander can short circuit, posing a fire hazard.

Mirka Abrasives has received three reports of electrical shorting
incidents which included the sanders sparking and smoking.  No
injuries or property damage have been reported.

The recall involves 5-inch and 6-inch Mirka CEROS compact electric
random orbital sanders.  The sanders are yellow and black with the
Mirka logo on the front.  A speed control lever is on the top of
the sanders and a vacuum hose connector on the rear.  The recalled
sanders came with a carrying case, a 12-foot power cord, a DC
transformer, a wrench, a multi-hole backup pad and assorted
abrasives.  The 5-inch sander is model CEROS 550.  The 6-inch
sander is model CEROS 650.  Model names are on a white sticker on
the back of the sander housing beneath the hand grip.  Serial
numbers are engraved on the side of the sander housing just above
the dust shroud.  Sanders with serial numbers in the following
ranges are being recalled:

   Model            Serial Number Range
   -----            -------------------
CEROS 550        347228672001  to  347228672048
CEROS 550        349428672001  to  349428672048
CEROS 550        403228672001  to  403228672048
CEROS 550        404328672001  to  404328672048
CEROS 650        344228673001  to  344228673048
CEROS 650        344328673001  to  344328673048
CEROS 650        346128673001  to  346128673048
CEROS 650        347128673001  to  347128673048
CEROS 650        403328673001  to  403328673048
CEROS 650        404228673001  to  404228673048
CEROS 650        404328673001  to  404328673048

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/VttIki

The recalled products were manufactured in Finland and sold at
various distributors and independent retailers nationwide and at
Amazon.com, Beavertools.com and other online retailers from
November 2013 to April 2014 for about $500.

Customers should immediately stop using the recalled sanders,
unplug them and contact Mirka Abrasives for a free replacement.


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
unanimously affirmed a lower court's ruling dismissing a
shareholder lawsuit against Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC,
according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit and
two derivative suits originally filed in 2008.  The plaintiffs in
the class action lawsuit claim to represent a class of investors
in the Company's shares who allegedly were injured by
misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between May 3,
2004, and January 28, 2008.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages for themselves and the shareholders of the class they
purport to represent.  In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs
claim, among other things, that the Company was injured because
its directors and certain named officers did not fulfill duties
regarding the accuracy of its financial disclosures.  Both the
class action and the derivative cases are pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the class action and in June 2012, the
Court issued a ruling dismissing all of the counts alleging any
knowing or intentional wrongdoing by the Company or its
affiliates, directors and officers. The plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling and on March 7, 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower
Court's ruling. As a result of these rulings, the only counts
remaining in the case relate to the Company's dividend
reinvestment plan.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Noe" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Noe, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, and Chana Noe, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-03627 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nava Feller a/k/a Nava Kreisler, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03625 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NEW CENTURY TRANS: Fails to Provide WARN Act Notices, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kearney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. New Century Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
03691-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., June 9, 2014) is brought on behalf of
similarly situated former employees, who worked for the Defendant
and who were terminated without cause or as the result of plant
closings and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice
of their terminations as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act and the New Jersey Millville Dallas
Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act.

New Century Transportation, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with
its principal place of business located in Westampton, New Jersey.
The Defendant maintained and operated its corporate headquarters
located at the Westampton Facility, and operated additional
facilities throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gail C. Lin, Esq.
          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: gl@outtengolden.com
                  jar@outtengolden.com
                  RSR@outtengolden.com


NTS INC: Has MoU to Settle Merger Suit in Nevada Court
------------------------------------------------------
NTS, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a
lawsuit filed in Nevada state court over its planned merger,
according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Between October 23, 2013 and November 20, 2013, six complaints
styled as class actions and relating to the Merger were filed in
Nevada state court (Eighth Judicial District, Clark County)
against the Company, its officers and directors, Tower Three, T3
North Intermediate Holdings, LLC ("Holdings"), a Nevada limited
liability company and North Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a
Nevada corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Holdings. On
December 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Amended Complaint") alleging
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
care, good faith, fair dealing, loyalty and full and candid
disclosure in connection with the process surrounding the Merger
and that Tower Three, Holdings and Merger Sub aided and abetted
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Consolidated Amended
Complaint seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief against the Merger.

On February 19, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting an agreement in
principle to resolve the claims asserted in the litigation (the
"Settled Claims"). The MOU provides, among other things, that
plaintiffs will withdraw their motion for preliminary injunction
and will not seek to enjoin consummation of the Merger or any
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval. If the settlement is finally approved,
the Settled Claims will be dismissed with prejudice. As part of
the settlement, the defendants in the litigation deny all
allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the disclosures in the
Proxy Statement were inadequate, but NTS has agreed to provide
certain supplemental disclosures. The settlement will not affect
the timing of the Special Meeting of NTS stockholders or the
Merger, or the amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger.


NTS INC: Awaits Court Approval for Accord in Suit v. 012 Telecom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approval by the Israeli Court is being sought for a settlement
reached in the suit Eliezer Tzur et al. vs. 012 Telecom Ltd. et
al., according to NTS Inc.'s May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur et al. (the "Petitioners") filed
a request to approve a claim as a class action (the "Class Action
Request") against Xfone 018 Ltd. ("Xfone 018"), NTS' former 69%
Israel-based subsidiary, and four other Israeli telecom companies,
all of which are entities unrelated to NTS (collectively with
Xfone 018, the "Defendants"), in the Central District Court,
Israel (the "Israeli Court"). The Petitioners' claim alleges that
the Defendants have not fully fulfilled their alleged legal
requirement to bear the cost of telephone calls by customers to
the Defendants' respective technical support centers. One of the
Petitioners, Mr. Eli Sharvit ("Mr. Sharvit"), seeks damages from
Xfone 018 for the cost such telephone calls allegedly made by him
during the 5.5-year period preceding the filing of the Class
Action Request, which he assessed at NIS 54.45 (approximately
$15). The Class Action Request, to the extent it pertains to Xfone
018, states total damages of NIS 7,500,000 (approximately
$2,099,076) which reflects the Petitioners' estimation of damages
caused to all customers that (pursuant to the Class Action
Request) allegedly called Xfone 018's technical support number
during a certain period defined in the Class Action Request.

On February 22, 2011, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit entered into a
settlement agreement, which following the instructions of the
Israeli Court was supplemented on May 3, 2011 and amended on July
18, 2011 and on March 21, 2012 (the "Settlement Agreement").
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Xfone 018 agreed to
compensate its current and past registered customers of
international calling services who called its telephone service
center from July 4, 2004 until February 21, 2010, due to a problem
with the international calling services, and were charged for such
calls. The compensation includes a right for a single, up to ten
minutes, free of charge, international call to one landline
destination around the world, and shall be valid for a period of
six months. In addition, Xfone 018 agreed to pay Mr. Sharvit a
one-time special reward in the amount of NIS 10,000 (approximately
$2,827) (the "Reward"). Xfone 018 further agreed to pay Mr.
Sharvit attorneys' fee for professional services in the amount of
NIS 40,000 (approximately $11,309) plus VAT (the "Attorneys Fee").
In return, Mr. Sharvit and the members of the Represented Group
(as defined in the Settlement Agreement) agreed to waive any and
all claims in connection with the Class Action Request. As
required by Israeli law in such cases, the Settlement Agreement is
subject to the approval of the Israeli Court. On April 30, 2012,
the Israeli Court appointed a CPA as an examiner to review and
assess the Settlement Agreement (the "Examiner"). The Examiner was
instructed to advise the Israeli Court whether in his opinion the
Settlement Agreement is reasonable. On October 18, 2012 the
Examiner submitted his assessment to the Israeli Court. According
to the Examiner's assessment, there are a number of impediments
that will deter the Represented Group from making use of the right
to a free call described including the low value of the call and
its limited utility. According to the Examiner, the appropriate
solution would have been to compensate the specific affected
customers for the damage caused. However, since the Examiner
recognizes that, pursuant to Xfone 018's claims, the foregoing
solution is impractical, the Examiner proposes to consider
revising the manner in which the alleged damage, which he
estimates at NIS 98,000 (approximately $27,707), will be paid for
by Xfone 018. Following the Examiner's assessment, Xfone 018 and
Mr. Sharvit have agreed to amend the Settlement Agreement, by
giving the Israeli Court the discretion to decide whether Xfone
018 shall grant the free call benefit described or donate a sum of
NIS 49,000 (approximately $13,854) to Ezer Mizion, a non-profit
organization ("Ezer Mizion") (the "Amended Settlement Agreement").
The Amended Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Israeli
Court, which ruled that a notice to the general public concerning
the Amended Settlement Agreement shall be published in two daily
papers. The said notices have been published and the period for
submitting objections to the Amended Settlement Agreement has
expired.

On July 2, 2013, the Israeli Court requested that the Attorney
General submit its position with respect to the Amended Settlement
Agreement, after which it is expected that the Israeli Court will
issue its final decision. In the response submitted by the
Attorney General to the Court, the Attorney General stated that he
leaves to the Court's discretion to decide whether or not to
approve the Amended Settlement Agreement. The Attorney General
further noted that: (i) the first alternative for compensation
(free call benefit) is dissatisfactory; (ii) per the second
alternative for compensation (a donation of NIS 49,000), there is
a significant gap between the damages assessed by the Examiner
(NIS 98,000) and the sum of the donation; the Attorney General
noted that the sum of the compensation should be reviewed based on
the fact that, according to the Attorney General, the Petitioners
have a good cause for their claim; (iii) in the event that the
court will approve a compensation by way of donation (the second
alternative), Xfone 018 should not be entitled to a claim for any
tax credits in connection with the sum of the donation; and (iv)
the Attorneys Fee is disproportionate to the sum of the donation
(NIS 49,000).

On May 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement (including
any amendment and supplement thereto, the "Marathon Agreement")
with Marathon Telecom Ltd. for the sale of the company's majority
(69%) holdings in Xfone 018. Pursuant to Section 10 of the
Marathon Agreement, the Company is fully and exclusively liable
for any and all amounts, payments or expenses incurred by Xfone
018 as a result of the Class Action Request. Section 10 of the
Marathon Agreement provides that the Company shall bear any and
all expenses or financial costs which are entailed by conducting
the defense on behalf of Xfone 018 and/or the financial results
thereof, including pursuant to a judgment or settlement (it was
agreed that in the event that Xfone 018 will be obligated to
provide services at a reduced price, the Company shall bear only
the cost of such services). Section 10 of the Marathon Agreement
further provides that the defense by Xfone 018 shall be performed
in full cooperation with the Company and with mutual assistance.
It is agreed between the Company and Xfone 018 that subject to and
upon the approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Israeli
Court, the Company shall bear and/or pay: (i) the costs of the
free call benefit or donation; (ii) the Reward; (iii) the
Attorneys Fee; (iv) Xfone 018 attorneys' fees for professional
services in connection with the Class Action Request, estimated at
approximately NIS 75,000 (approximately $21,204); and (v) any
other related costs (such as publication expenses and the
Examiner's fees).

In the event the Amended Settlement Agreement is not approved by
the Israeli Court, Xfone 018 intends to vigorously defend the
Class Action Request.


OAKLAND RAIDERS: Two More Cheerleaders File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Fernandez, writing for NBC Bay Area, reports that two more
Oakland Raiderette cheerleaders filed a class action lawsuit on
June 4, claiming that they are not paid according to state law and
work in "deplorable" conditions, and sometimes have to change in
public bathrooms with no privacy.

Aside from wages, though, this suit alleges humiliating behavior,
such as being chastised when the cheerleaders didn't look right.
Raiderettes who were deemed "too tan" were called "oompa loompas,"
the orange creatures from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,"
according to the suit.  Raiderettes who were not tan enough, the
suit alleges, were ordered to go to tanning salons.

This second suit, filed in Alameda County by plaintiffs Caitlin Y.
and Jenny C., is separate from two suits filed by two other
Raiderettes back in December and January making similar
allegations.  It also follows on the heels of other suits by
Bengals, Bills, Jets and Buccaneers cheerleaders.

Among other complaints, Caitlin Y. alleges that she was
specifically targeted because her breasts were "too large,"
according to the suit.

But the main difference in the June 4 lawsuit, filed by the
San Francisco firm, Bradshaw & Associates, is that these
cheerleaders are taking on not only the Oakland football team, but
the National Football League, too.

With the suit's 15 causes of action, the cheerleaders accuse the
defendants of breach of labor code and contract, as well as of
failing to provide changing facilities, wage statements and meal
breaks.  The suit asks for back wages and injunctive relief to
make the behavior stop.

"Football in America is our most favorite sport," attorney Drexel
Bradshaw said in an interview.  "These performers are treated
unfairly and illegally in violation of the California Labor Code.
And this is an NFL problem nationwide."

The Raiders' attorneys, David Reis and Adam Kretz, and the NFL
spokesman did not return requests for comment on June 4.

In March, the Raiders filed a motion on a separate class action
case -- filed on behalf of Lacy T. and Sarah G. -- arguing the
cheerleaders had to arbitrate their case to NFL commissioner
Roger Goodell, rather than a judge.  That decision is currently on
hold.  Also on hold is the question of when the Raiderettes will
be practicing.  The squad did not hold its annual April tryouts,
and to date, there is no practice schedule posted.  Practice
traditionally has started in June.

The lawyers who filed the latest case on behalf of the two
Raiderettes told NBC Bay Area they did not consult or collaborate
with the Oakland lawyers, Leslie Levy and Sharon Vinick, who
brought the country's first cheerleading lawsuit against the
Raiders about six months ago.

"I'm surprised," said Darci Burrell -- darci@levyvinick.com -- an
attorney at Levy Vinick Burrell and Hyams.  She added she's not
sure if the judge will seek to consolidate the two cases.

Many of the claims in the June 4 lawsuit reiterate the allegations
the first two Raiderettes made in December and January when they
sued the team: That they are paid about $125 a game, but end up
making about $5 or so an hour with all the required extra
promotional activities they are required to attend.

The June 4 lawsuit pointed out the disparity in revenue and pay
between the league and the cheerleaders: "Even though the Oakland
Raiders' yearly revenue is as much as $229 million and NFL yearly
revenue is about $10 billion, Raiderettes made, at most, less than
$6.50 per hour on job duties," the suit alleges.

In addition to wages, Caitlin Y. and Jenny C. also describe some
of their working conditions as "deplorable."  Some of those
conditions include:

Being told their weight can't fluctuate more than five pounds each
week.  "Every aspect of Raiderettes' bodies were inspected by
defendants and their agents for any imperfection, no matter how
slight.  Raiderettes who did not meet arbitrary weight and fitness
were 'benched' for the next game."

Attend a "two piece" practice each week, wearing nothing but
sports bra and short shorts.

Being forced to change in crowded public restrooms with little to
no privacy after tailgating party known as "Raiderville."  During
some of these events, the women were allegedly groped by
inebriated men and exposed to derogatory comments with no security
provided by the NFL or the Oakland Raiders.

At a golf tournament, Raiderettes forced to mingle with "harassing
photographer" who "constantly cajoled" the Raiderettes to "pose in
sexually suggestive poses that were inappropriate for a public (or
private) working environment."

At the end of each season during the four years covered by the
suit, every Raiderette was terminated and required to re-audition
for a position on the squad.

"I loved being a Raiderette and being able to cheerlead for my
favorite NFL team, the Oakland Raiders," Caitlin Y. said in a
statement.  "But the conditions I had to endure were not fair, nor
were they legal.  Standing up to the NFL takes guts and I hope
that female NFL athletes across the nation will join me in
demanding what's only right: Decent conditions and pay, and proper
respect."


OVASCIENCE INC: Faces "Ratner" Suit Over Securities Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meriam Ratner, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
stuated v. OvaScience, Inc., Michelle Dipp, and Christopher A.
Bleck, Case No. 1:14-cv-12412 (D. Mass., June 6, 2014), seeks to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act.

OvaScience, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of novel treatments
for infertility, with the primary goal of creating "healthy live
births."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward F. Haber, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      53 State Street, 37th Floor,
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com


PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Consumer Suit Over Product Charge Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Webworks, Inc. considers closed a settled lawsuit that
alleged it violated consumer protection laws, committed fraud and
used deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which
it charged for purchases of its products, according to the
company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company was involved
in five class action law suits.  All plaintiffs in these cases
were represented by the same legal firm and each complaint sought
class action certification.  The complaints alleged that Pacific
WebWorks violated consumer protection laws, committed fraud and
used deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which
Pacific WebWorks charged for purchases of its products.  Each
action sought compensatory and punitive damages, plus reasonable
costs and attorney fees.  The actions are as follows:

On November 9, 2009, Barbara Ford filed an action in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division.  A second
action was filed on November 12, 2009, by Deanna Pelletier in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano.  A
third action was filed by Lisa Rasmussen on November 20, 2009, in
the Superior Court of Washington, Snohomish County.  On December
18, 2009, the Barbara Ford matter was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On December
18, 2009, the Deanna Pelletier matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California.  On
December 23, 2009, the Lisa Rasmussen matter was removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

On July 10, 2010, Thomas Aikens filed an action in the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri, which matter was removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
This matter was brought by the same law firm as the above cases.

On September 19, 2011, Lynette Booth filed an action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division alleging
violations of consumer protection laws by Pacific WebWorks.  This
case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on December 1, 2011.  Damages are
unspecified in this action.  Pacific WebWorks answered the
complaint and denied liability, intent to defend against all such
claims.

In response to these actions, Pacific WebWorks retained legal
counsel to vigorously defend the Company in these lawsuits.
Discovery began on the class certification phase in the Illinois,
Washington and California lawsuits.  The company's legal counsel
opposed class certification and filed motions to dismiss all
claims in the Illinois and Washington actions, which motions were
granted in part and denied in part. Pacific WebWorks renewed its
motion to dismiss in the Illinois action, which motion has not yet
been ruled upon.  In addition, Pacific Webworks brought motions to
dismiss the Pelletier, Guffey and Aikens actions, which motions
have not yet been ruled upon.

On May 24, 2012, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement relating to its outstanding class action
lawsuits.  The settlement agreement required the Company to
contribute a maximum of $400,000 to the settlement fund, class
counsel and claims administration fees.  The Company's entry into
the settlement agreement was intended to reduce its overall
litigation expense by putting an end to the significant legal fees
continually incurred to defend against the actions.  As of
December 31, 2011 and 2012, the Company had recorded a liability
of $400,000 in contemplation of reaching settlement on its
outstanding class action lawsuits.  As a part of the settlement
agreement, the Company agreed to establish an escrow account and
deposit the amount of their maximum contribution into the escrow
account to be held there during the settlement approval process.
The escrow account was established and fully funded by the Company
with the appropriate $400,000 maximum contribution on July 2,
2012.

On November 28, 2012, the Class Action Settlement received final
approval in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  On
January 10, 2013, the $400,000 held in escrow was contributed to
the settlement fund, class counsel and claims administration fees.
The Company considers this matter to be closed.


PHIL&TEDS: Recalls Infant Car Seat Adaptors Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
phil&teds, of Fort Collins, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of
about about 265 in the U.S. and 122 in Canada phil&teds Travel
System 26 infant car seat adaptors for strollers.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The plastic adaptors used to connect an infant car seat to a
stroller can crack, become unstable and break during use, posing a
fall hazard to infants.

phil&teds has received two reports of the adaptors cracking and
breaking when stored in freezing weather conditions.

The recall involves phil&teds Travel System 26 (TS26) adaptors
used to attach infant car seats to the following phil&teds
stroller models, the Classic, Dot, Explorer, Hammerhead,
Navigator, S3 and S4. Compatible car seats include the Maxi Cosi
Cabriofix, Maxi Cosi Mico, Maxi Cosi Pebble and Cybex Anton.  The
adaptors are two pieces of black plastic, one for the left side
and one for the right side, that connect the stroller to the car
seat.  "TS26," "philandteds," "L" for left, "R" for right and UPC
"9 420015 7 4004" are printed on the adaptors.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/zPfrfW

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at baby
product and specialty stores nationwide, and online at Amazon.com,
Babiesrus.com, Diapers.com and phil&teds.com from April 2013
through March 2014 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled adaptor and
contact phil&teds for free replacement adaptors.


POKERTEK INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in N.C. Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
PokerTek, Inc. faces a shareholder lawsuit in the General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina over its merger agreement with Multimedia Games,
Inc., and 23Acquisition Co., according to PokerTek's May 15, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A purported class action on behalf of the Company's shareholders
was filed on May 9, 2014 in the General Court of Justice, Superior
Court Division in and for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Case
No: 14CVS8300, captioned Robert Simmer, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, as Plaintiff, v. PokerTek, Inc.,
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Multimedia Games, Inc.,
23Acquisition Co., James Crawford, Joe Lahti, Lyle Berman, Lou
White and Arthur L. Lomax,  Defendants (the "Action").  The
Company has not received service of process in the Action.

The Action relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), dated as of April 29, 2014, by and among
PokerTek, Inc. (the "Company"), Multimedia Games, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Parent"), and 23Acquisition Co., a North Carolina
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which Merger Sub shall be merged with and into the
Company, and the separate corporate existence of Merger Sub shall
thereupon cease, and the Company shall continue as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Proposed
Merger Transaction").

The Action alleges that the Directors of the Company (the
"Directors") breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
shareholders of the Company. It further alleges that Multimedia
Games Holding Company, Inc., Parent and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the Directors in their breach of their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders of the Company.

The Action seeks relief: (i) declaring the Action to be a class
action and certifying Plaintiff as the Class representative and
his counsel as Class counsel; (ii) declaring and decreeing that
the Proposed Merger Transaction was entered into in breach of the
fiduciary duties of the individual Defendants and is therefore
unlawful and unenforceable, and rescinding and invalidating any
Merger Agreement or other agreements that Defendants entered into
in connection with, or in furtherance of, the Proposed Merger
Transaction; (iii) enjoining, preliminarily and permanently,
Defendants, their agents, counsel, employees and all persons
acting in concert with them from consummating the Proposed Merger
Transaction; (iv) directing the individual Defendants to exercise
their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best
interests of the Company's shareholders; (v) imposing a
constructive trust, in favor of Plaintiff and the Class, upon any
benefits improperly received by Defendants as a result of their
wrongful conduct; (vi) awarding Plaintiff the costs and
disbursements of the Action, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees; and (vii) granting such other and further equitable
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.


PONGAL INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Agustin, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
v. Pongal, Inc. and Vandana Sheth, Case No. 1:14-cv-04143
(S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3)
liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Pongal, Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation with a
principal place of business located in New York City.  Vandana
Sheth, is the chief executive officer Pongal, Inc.

On October 1, 2011, Mr. Agustin, was hired by the Defendants to
work as a dishwasher and delivery person for their restaurant
located at 110 Lexington Avenue, in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


REGIONS BANK: 11th Cir. Affirms Lower Ruling in "Pereira" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Pereira and Camila De Freitas brought a class action lawsuit
on August 7, 2012, raising four counts. Counts I and II alleged
that Regions Bank settled a check presented by Pereira and De
Freitas, respectively, at less than par, in violation of Florida
Statute Section 655.85.  Counts III and IV claimed that Regions
was unjustly enriched when it settled their check at less than
par. The complaint sought compensatory damages, or, in the
alternative, an order disgorging the money alleged to be
wrongfully withheld from the plaintiffs.

Regions moved to dismiss the complaint. With respect to Counts I
and II, Regions argued that Section 655.85 does not apply to in-
person check-cashing transactions, is preempted by federal law,
would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause if applied against
Regions, and does not provide a private right of action. As to
Counts III and IV, Regions claimed that Pereira and De Freitas
failed to state a claim for relief.

The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that
federal law preempts Section 655.85 and, because the unjust
enrichment claims were premised on the same facts, also preempted
those claims.  Pereira and De Freitas appealed.

In an Opinion dated May 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/nEYtySfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals, Eleventh Circuit held that "[b]ecause federal law
preempts Florida Statute Section 655.85 with respect to national
banks, by operation of 12 U.S.C. Section 1831a(j)(1), so too does
it preempt Section 655.85 with respect to Regions. And because
Pereira and De Freitas have premised their unjust enrichment
claims on the same facts as they lay out in Counts I and II,
Counts III and IV are similarly preempted.  Accordingly, the
District Court is affirmed."

The case is DEREK PEREIRA, CAMILA DE FREITAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
REGIONS BANK, an Alabama Banking Corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
NO. 13-10458.


S & R DELI: Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Rosario, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. S & R Deli Grocery Corp., and Joaquin Daniel Tetaia,
in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04151 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) is a civil action for damages and
equitable relief based upon the Defendants' alleged flagrant and
willful violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by
the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts.

S & R Deli Grocery Corp. is a New York domestic business
corporation headquartered in Bronx, New York.  Joaquin Daniel
Tetaia is the owner and operator of Deli.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          Anthony P. Malecki, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005
          E-mail: mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com


SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settles Workers' Suit for $500,000
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that one of Washington state's
largest berry growers has agreed to pay $500,000 to workers who
say they were underpaid and denied rest breaks.

Sakuma Brothers Farms in the Skagit Valley did not admit liability
in the settlement, filed on June 11 in U.S. District Court.  It
still needs the approval of a federal judge.

Under the terms, Sakuma would pay the money to more than 1,200
migrant and seasonal workers who labored for the company from
October 2010 to December 2013.  In addition, Sakuma would pay
$344,000 to the lawyers who sued on their behalf.

Sakuma also said it would change business practices, agreeing to
track and record all hours worked, to clock workers in within five
minutes of their arrival, and to provide them 10 minute breaks for
every four hours worked.


SCOTT USA: Recalls Speedster Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Scott USA Inc. of Ketchum, Idaho, announced a voluntary recall of
about about 2,000 in the United States 2014 SCOTT Speedster 30 and
40, and Contessa Speedster 25 and 35 road bicycles.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The steerer tube in the front fork can break, posing a fall
hazard.

Scott USA has received one report of a fork breaking.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves model year 2014 SCOTT men's and women's road
bicycles, models Speedster 30, Speedster 40, Contessa Speedster 25
and Contessa Speedster 35.  The bikes have the brand name "SCOTT"
and the model name "Speedster" on the frame.  They were sold in
black and white with blue, green, purple or teal accents.  The
following serial number ranges are included in the recall:
AS30500001-AS30504930, AS30700001-AS30704651, AS30900001-
AS30903278, AS31100001-AS31103744 and AS40101604-AS40105463.  The
serial number is printed on a white sticker and embossed on the
underside of the bicycle frame near the pedals.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/n1iF87

The recalled products were manufactured in Cambodia and sold at
authorized SCOTT dealers nationwide at retail and online from
about August 2013 through May 2014 for between $1,000 and $1,300.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the bicycle and take it
to an authorized SCOTT dealer.  Consumers with a recalled bicycle
will receive a free replacement fork and have it installed at no
cost.


SKYLIGHT DINER: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Flores, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Skylight Diner Inc. d/b/a Skylight Diner and James
Papaioannou, Case No. 1:14-cv-04108 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014),
seeks to recover from the Defendants, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Skylight Diner Inc., is a New York corporation located at 402 West
34th Street, New York, NY 10001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Court Approves $2.2MM Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A $2,200,000 settlement reached in a consolidated securities suit
against Skypeople Fruit Juice, Inc. received court approval,
according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor
child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its individual officers and/or
directors, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of the
Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On June 20, 2011, plaintiff Benjamin
Padnos filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and/or
directors, the Company's former independent auditors Child Van
Wagner & Bradshaw, PLLC and BDO Limited, and Rodman & Renshaw,
LLC, the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering
consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. On August 30, 2011, the Court consolidated the
foregoing two actions and appointed Zachary Lewy as lead
plaintiff. On September 30, 2011, pursuant to the Court's order,
Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which names the
Company, Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, BDO Limited, Child Van Wagoner &
Bradshaw PLLC and certain of the Company's current and former
directors and/or officers and majority shareholders as defendants,
and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
the rules promulgated thereunder. The Consolidated Complaint
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action. On December 21, 2011,
the Company and certain of the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On May 3, 2012, Lead
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against BDO Limited and
Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC. On September 10, 2012, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On January 11, 2013, defendant
Rodman & Renshaw LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection,
and, on January 18, 2013 the court imposed an automatic stay on
Plaintiffs claims against Rodman pursuant to Section 326(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code. The parties settled this matter by the Company
agreeing to contribute $2,200,000 into a settlement fund to pay
class members (the "Settlement").  On January 27, 2014, the Court
entered an order approving the Settlement, certifying the class
for settlement purposes and dismissing the suit with prejudice.


SNOWSHOE MOUNTAIN: Court Ruling in "Anania" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner Charles L. Anania, by counsel Joshua I. Barrett --
jbarrett@dbdlaw1.com -- and Robert M. Bastress III, appealed the
order of the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County, entered March 25,
2013, granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent Snowshoe
Mountain, Inc.  Respondent appears by counsel John Philip Melick
-- pmelick@jacksonkelly.com -- Ellen S. Cappellanti --
ecappellanti@jacksonkelly.com -- and Ryan J. Aaron --
rjaaron@jacksonkelly.com

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that it found
no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these
reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order
is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure,
it said.  A copy of the Supreme Court of Appeals' May 30, 2014
memorandum decision is available at http://is.gd/wThYV4from
Leagle.com.

Petitioner is the representative property owner in this class
action challenging the method in which respondent, a resort area,
calculates annual assessments for safety provisions and the upkeep
of common areas in its domain.

The case is Charles L. Anania, Plaintiff Below, Petitioner, v.
Snowshoe Mountain, Inc., doing business as Snowshoe Mountain
Resort, Defendant Below, Respondent, NO. 13-0406.

                           *     *     *

Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Charles L.
Anania sued Snowshoe Mountain after he claimed it wrongfully
calculated its annual assessments and breached its contract with
him and other property owners, according to the May 30 opinion.

Justices Robin Jean Davis, Allen Loughry and Margaret Workman made
up the majority.  Justices Brent Benjamin and Menis Ketchum
dissented, with Justice Ketchum filing a brief dissenting opinion.

Mr. Anania put forth four assignments of error on appeal.  First,
Mr. Anania argued the circuit court "changed" contractual language
by omitting Paragraph D of Snowshoe's assessment document from its
reading of the applicable declaration.

"In that vein, he argues in his fourth assignment of error that
the circuit court erred when it made the unsupported factual
determination that the inclusion of Paragraph D in respondent's
predecessor's draft of the declaration was the result of mistake,"
the majority opinion states.  "It is worth noting that petitioner
purchased property in the resort area in 2003, and respondent
purchased Snowshoe Mountain in 1995."

Neither participated in the drafting of the declaration in 1974,
and the parties conceded that there is no evidence of the
drafter's intent, the opinion says.

"However, Paragraph C unequivocally grants respondent 'absolute
and sole discretion' to annually calculate assessments up to 1.5%
of the assessed taxable value of the lot," the majority opinion
states.  "We find no plain language restriction in that paragraph
suggesting that a 'base' is established in the year after
construction is completed. Furthermore, petitioner's proposed
construction is unreasonable."

Mr. Anania, who filed his lawsuit in 2006 in Pocahontas Circuit
Court, is a property owner in a class action challenging the
method in which Snowshoe calculates annual assessments for safety
provisions and the upkeep of common areas in its domain.  Mr.
Anania asserted, among other grievances, that Snowshoe breached
the parties' contract by using an improper formula to calculate
annual assessments.  After a lengthy period of discovery, the
parties each filed a motion for summary judgment, and the circuit
court granted Snowshoe's motion by order entered March 25, 2013.

In doing so, the circuit court explained that Paragraphs C and D
of Snowshoe's assessment document are "inherently inconsistent"
and that Paragraph D is a boilerplate escalator clause mistakenly
included by the drafter.

"Based on this determination, the circuit court concluded that
Paragraph C alone guided the calculation of the assessments for
all years following the year in which construction commenced, and
respondent had appropriately computed the obligations," the
opinion says.

Mr. Anania appealed the Pocahontas Circuit Court's ruling.

"As the circuit court explained, petitioner's interpretation
potentially commits respondent indefinitely to an assessment base
before property value is realized, and leaves that base
susceptible to manipulation by a property owner who may choose to
delay improvements," according to the majority opinion.

The state Supreme Court stated that, in considering another of
Mr. Anania's assignment of error, he argued that the circuit court
failed to apply rules of construction favoring him.

"As the circuit court aptly explained, the instrument must be
construed against the grantor only if the language is ambiguous
after consideration of the context and circumstances surrounding
the contract formation," the majority opinion states.  "Upon the
circuit court's acknowledgement that Paragraph D was clearly
included by mistake, the terms of the declarations had but one
meaning."

The majority concluded that "although the contract at issue in the
present case is poorly drafted, its meaning can still be
discerned."

In Justice Ketchum's dissenting opinion, he wrote that he believes
the circuit court attempted to clarify an ambiguous contract as if
the contract were affected by a "simple scrivener's error."

"In reality, we are faced with a substantive dispute that requires
greater attention than such treatment allows," the dissenting
opinion states. "While I acknowledge the difficulty
. . . facing a fact-finder in this case, I believe the result
reached by the circuit court unfairly affords a presumption to the
drafting party."

Justice Ketchum's dissenting opinion states that he does not find
it unreasonable that early purchasers may have wished to establish
some degree of control over their assessments and that calling the
characterization of the attempt as a mistake is perplexing.

"The terms are substantively confusing and capable of multiple
interpretations, and therefore would be more appropriately
untangled by a jury," his opinion states.

Mr. Anania was represented by Joshua I. Barrett and Robert M.
Bastress III of DiTrapano Barrett DiPiero McGinley & Simmons.

Snowshoe was represented by John Philip Melick --
pmelick@jacksonkelly.com -- Ellen S. Cappellanti --
ecappellanti@jacksonkelly.com -- and Ryan J. Aaron --
rjaaron@jacksonkelly.com -- of Jackson Kelly.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 13-0406


SPENDSMART PAYMENTS: SMS Masterminds Faces TCPA Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
SMS Masterminds is one of the defendants named in a potential
class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to The Spendsmart
Payments Company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On January 1, 2014, SMS Masterminds was named in a potential
class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The
plaintiff's lawsuit has sought the certification of a class,
though as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q such
class certification has not been approved by the court.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and other recipients
without the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.


STATE FARM: Bridgeview Health Obtains Partial Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Supreme
Court of Illinois has awarded partial summary judgment in favor of
Bridgeview Health Care Center Ltd. in a class action lawsuit.

The court on May 22 ruled an Indiana federal court's prediction
under Erie v. Tompkins cannot, by itself, establish a conflict
between state laws.

State Farm, the defendant in the case, maintained that the circuit
court erred in granting Bridgeview's summary judgment motion
because Indiana law applied.  However, no Indiana state court has
addressed the question of whether the sending of unsolicited faxes
falls within a comprehensive liability policy's provisions, either
as an advertising injury or as property damage, according to the
opinion.

Justices Anne M. Burke delivered the judgment of the court and
Justices Rita B. Garman, Charles E. Freeman, Robert R. Thomas,
Thomas, Thomas L. Kilbride, Lloyd A. Karmeier and Mary Jane Theis
concurred in the judgment and opinion.

"As the United States Supreme Court has observed, 'there can be no
injury' in applying the local forum's law if that law is not in
actual conflict with the law of another jurisdiction," the opinion
states.

"There is always a 'potential' for differences to arise on state-
law questions, even on matters that have previously been
addressed.  A 'potential' conflict standard would appear to create
substantial uncertainty in deciding what law to apply.  We adhere
to settled law: a choice-of-law determination is required only
when the moving party has established an actual conflict between
state laws."

Bridgeview filed the three-count class action complaint in the
federal district court of Northern Illinois against Jerry Clark,
who is doing business as Affordable Digital Hearing.

Mr. Clark is an Illinois resident who operates Affordable Digital
Hearing, a sole proprietorship dealing in the sale and repair of
hearing aids, out of Terre Haute, Ind.

Bridgeview's complaint alleged that Mr. Clark sent Bridgeview and
others across the United States unsolicited faxes in June of 2006.

Bridgeview sought recovery under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and alleged that Mr. Clark was liable for common law
conversion of Bridgeview's fax machine paper and toner.  It also
alleged that Mr. Clark violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

Mr. Clark was insured under a comprehensive general liability
policy issued by State Farm.  The policy was purchased through an
agent in Indiana and issued to Clark at his business address in
Indiana.

The policy provided certain business liability coverage under both
a "property damage" provision and an "advertising injury"
provision.

Mr. Clark tendered defense of Bridgeview's suit to State Farm,
which accepted the defense under a reservation of rights.

In June 2010, Bridgeview filed a declaratory judgment action
against State Farm and Mr. Clark in Cook County, seeking a
declaration that State Farm had a duty to defend and indemnify
Mr. Clark because the unwanted faxes fell within both the
advertising injury and property damage provisions of the insurance
policy.

State Farm, in turn, filed a counterclaim against Bridgeview and
Mr. Clark, seeking a declaration it had no duty to defend or
indemnify Clark.

Both Bridgeview and State Farm moved for partial summary judgment
on the question of whether State Farm had a duty to defend. In its
motion, State Farm acknowledged that, under Illinois law, coverage
was provided under both relevant provisions of the insurance
policy.

Bridgeview argued there was no conflict between Indiana and
Illinois law.  Bridgeview also maintained that, even assuming
Illinois and Indiana law were in conflict, Illinois had the most
significant contacts and Illinois law should apply.

On May 17, 2012, the Cook County Circuit Court granted
Bridgeview's motion for partial summary judgment and denied State
Farm's motion.

However, an appellate court held that the federal decisions cited
by State Farm were sufficient to raise the possibility of a
conflict between Illinois and Indiana law and "that the potential
for conflict between Indiana law and Illinois law requires the
trial court to engage in a choice-of-law analysis for the case."

Apart from the Erie predictions made in the Indiana federal
district court decisions, State Farm does not argue that Indiana
law is in conflict with Illinois law, according to the opinion.

"Indeed, State Farm asserts that 'what the law of Indiana actually
is has no bearing on the dispositive question presented in this
appeal -- whether a federal district court's Erie prediction can
be the source of an outcome determinative conflict so as to
trigger the most significant contacts test,'" the opinion states.

Because State Farm identifies no Indiana law on point, the
Illinois Supreme Court concluded that State Farm has failed to
meet its burden of demonstrating an actual conflict exists between
Illinois and Indiana law.

Supreme Court of Illinois case number: 2014 IL 116389


SUMMIT FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over RCAP Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. faces a consolidated lawsuit
by alleged shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger
with RCAP, according to Summit's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

The Company, its board of directors, RCAP and Dolphin Acquisition,
LLC ("Merger Sub"), a newly formed, wholly-owned subsidiary of
RCS, are named as defendants in two purported class action
lawsuits (now consolidated) brought by alleged Company
shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with RCAP.
These shareholder lawsuits, Michael S. Hill v. Sanford B. Cohen,
et al., filed on November 27, 2013, and Wohrle v. Summit Financial
Services Group, Inc., et al., filed on December 12, 2013, were
both filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, and generally allege,
among other things, that: (i) each member of the Company's board
of directors breached his fiduciary duties to the Company and its
shareholders in authorizing the merger between the Company and
RCAP; (ii) the merger does not maximize value to the Company's
shareholders; and (iii) RCAP, Merger Sub and the Company aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the
members of the Company's board of directors. On May 9, 2014, the
plaintiff shareholders moved for leave to file an amended
complaint under seal. The amended complaint asserts claims similar
to those in the original complaint, adds allegations relating to
the amended merger agreement, and also challenges the adequacy of
the disclosures in the registration statement concerning the
merger, the background of the proposed transaction, the opinion
issued by Cassel Salpeter to the special committee and the
Company's financial projections. The consolidated lawsuits seek
class-action certification, equitable relief, including an
injunction against consummation of the merger on the agreed-upon
terms, and damages.


TELEXFREE LLC: Faces $5BB Class Suit Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wicked Local Marlborough reports that a North Carolina lawyer has
filed a $5 billion class-action lawsuit against accused pyramid
scheme business TelexFREE, the third such national suit to be
filed against the embattled company and the first in U.S. District
Court.

Ihuoma Igboanugo, a Raleigh-based attorney, submitted the suit in
the Eastern District of North Carolina on June 2 on behalf of
plaintiff Maduako Ferguson St., a North Carolina resident and
self-proclaimed victim of TelexFREE, according to court records.

The lawsuit is similar to another filed a month ago in U.S.
bankruptcy court in Nevada by Massachusetts residents Waldemara
Martin and Leandro Valentim that also sought $5 billion.

Both suits name as defendants various banking organizations
allegedly used by TelexFREE in addition to the company itself and
its managers and top promoters.

Another class action suit seeking $300 million was filed in
Massachusetts bankruptcy court in mid-May by Somerville residents
Anthony Cellucci, Jamilly Lake, and Gerivaldo Pacheo.

Framingham-based lawyer Evans J. Carter filed a class-action
lawsuit for Massachusetts residents only in Middlesex Superior
Court in late April.

TelexFREE, which ran its U.S. operations out of an office building
in Marlborough, has also been charged with securities fraud by
both the Securities and Exchange Commission and Massachusetts
Secretary of State William Galvin.  Those agencies claim the
company amassed hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two
years through an international investing scheme that enticed
people to buy advertising accounts with the business.

In addition, one of the company's two co-owners, James Merrill of
Ashland, was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit wire
fraud a month ago.  He is being held in federal custody, but on
June 3 his lawyer submitted a petition for his release, arguing
the government's case was exaggerated and that Merrill would not
follow the lead of fellow TelexFREE co-owner Carlos Wanzeler of
Northborough, who authorities say fled to Brazil.

"It is incomprehensible to those who know Jim best that he would
avoid his responsibilities to the Court, or ever leave his wife,
children, extended family, friends of community," Merrill's
attorney, Robert Goldstein, wrote.  "Indeed, unlike his co-
defendant in this case, Mr. Merrill did not attempt to flee or
avoid this prosecution, despite clear notice and knowledge of the
government's ongoing criminal investigation."

Mr. Merrill is asking the court to allow home detention at his
house in Ashland, GPS monitoring, surrender of his and his wife's
passports, and payment of a $900,000 personal recognizance bond,
among other conditions.

In response on June 3, prosecutors for U.S. Attorney Carmen
Ortiz's office said it is too risky to release one of the most
visible leaders of the "cult-like" TelexFREE, whose zealous
supporters could assist him if were to leave the country.

"This was a scheme that depended on TelexFREE constantly
recruiting new promoters, and the defendant played a very large
role in that deception," wrote assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew
Lelling.  "Someone willing to maintain that deception for months
and years is someone who would consider finding ways to avoid this
Court's reach."


TENDER TOUCH: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Mollinedo" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Odalys Reyes Mollinedo, Humberto A. Suarez and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Tender Touch Home
Health, LLC, Maria A. Delgado, Guillermo Delgado, Case No. 1:14-
cv-22098 (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Tender Touch Home Health, LLC, is a limited liability company that
regularly transacts business within Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAVEL CENTERS: Sued for Denying Proper Minimum Wage Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kellie R. King and others similarly situated v. Travel Centers Of
America LLC and TA Operating LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01273 (M.D.
Tenn., June 9, 2014) is brought on behalf of the Defendants'
employees, who were denied proper minimum wage compensation
because the Defendants allegedly paid them using a tip credit when
the employees spent a substantial amount of time (well in excess
of 20% of the workweek) performing related duties for which a tip
credit could not lawfully be taken.

Ms. King previously worked as a server for the Defendants at their
Denmark and Kingston Springs locations in Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC
          101 North Highland
          Jackson, TN 38301
          Telephone: (731) 664-1340
          Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
          E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC
          5409 Maryland Way, Suite 150
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 467-6372
          Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


UNION SAVINGS: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon L. Hale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Union Savings Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-00935 (S.D. Ind.,
June 6, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties.

Union Savings Bank, is a bank that offers full-service mortgage
loan products in Ohio, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Gibbons , Jr., Esq.
      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
      3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280,
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com
              rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com


VAN RU CREDIT: Makes Unsolicited Phone Calls, "Hill" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01384 (S.D. Cal.,
June 6, 2014), seeks redress under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for the Defendant's practice of making unauthorized
phone calls to cellular telephones.

Van Ru Credit Corporation is a debt collection company located at
1350 East Touhy Avenue, Suite 300E, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patric Alexander Lester, Esq.
      PATRIC LESTER AND ASSOCIATES
      5694 Mission Center Road, Suite 358,
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 665-3888
      Facsimile: (314) 241-5777
      E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com


VARGAS & RODRIGUEZ: Sued for Failing to Pay OT & Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Rosario, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Vargas & Rodriguez Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Fine Fare
Supermarket and Luis Rodriguez, Case No. 1:14-cv-04110 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 6, 2014), seeks to recover from Defendants, unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Vargas & Rodriguez Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a fine fare
Supermarket is a New York domestic business corporation located at
3131 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10468.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VENOCO INC: Expects 2015 Trial in Suit Over "Marquez Proposal"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a consolidated suit against Venoco, Inc. in the Delaware
Court of Chancery over the share acquisition proposal of a former
executive of the company, is expected to occur in 2015, according
to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then- Chairman and CEO of
Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not
beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, three lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2011 against
Venoco and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that
Venoco and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On
January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr.
Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco,
Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going private
transaction. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five
additional suits were filed in Delaware (three in January and two
in February) and three suits were filed in federal court in
Colorado (two in January and one in February) naming as defendants
Venoco and each of its directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in
Delaware filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in
which they requested that the court determine among other things
that (i) the merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger
Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of
the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and
(ii) the merger should be rescinded or in the alternative, the
class should be awarded damages to compensate them for the loss as
a result of the breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The
Colorado actions have been administratively closed pending
resolution of the Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the
allegations contained in the amended complaint and believes they
are without merit. Trial in this matter is expected to occur in
2015.


WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Boilers Due to Risk of Fire, Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Weil-McLain, of Michigan City, Ind., announced a voluntary recall
of about 7,900 in the United States and 540 in Canada Weil-McLain
Ultra models 80, 105, 155 and 230 MBH Ultra Series Boilers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A cap on the boiler's manifold can crack and release gas into the
home, posing a risk of fire and explosion.

The firm has received 11 reports of manifold caps cracking.  No
fires or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Weil-McLain Ultra models 80, 105, 155 and 230
MBH gas-fired boilers used for space heating.  The boilers have a
serial number range between CP 6557046 and CP 6955985.  Model and
serial numbers are located on a bar-coded label affixed to the
lower right side of the boiler, behind the removable front panel.
The boilers have a Weil-McLain logo plate affixed to the front, a
pewter/flat black cover and are either freestanding or wall-
mounted.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/cZ9BKn

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at plumbing and heating wholesale distributors, plumbers and
contactors nationwide from June 2012 through March 2014 for about
$4,200 to $6,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled boilers, turn
off the gas supply to the boilers and contact Weil-McLain to
schedule a free inspection and repair.


WILHELMINA INT'L: Judge Tells N.Y. AG of Shanklin Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation against subsidiaries
of Wilhelmina International, Inc., wrote the Office of the New
York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention,
according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On October 10, 2012, an individual named Louisa Raske ("Raske")
commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New York State
Supreme Court (New York County) against the Company's subsidiaries
Wilhelmina International and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the
"Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties"), and others, as defendants (the
"Raske Litigation").  The Complaint asserted claims by Raske,
individually, and on behalf of the purported class, for, among
other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
conversion, arising out of the defendants' allegedly unauthorized
use of models' images and the handling and reporting of funds
received in connection therewith.   Other defendants in the Raske
Litigation included other model management companies, advertising
firms, and certain advertisers.  By Decision and Order dated
September 6, 2013, amended September 12, 2013, the court granted
the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties' and the other defendants'
motions to dismiss the Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint,
with prejudice, except as to the plaintiff's claims for alleged
unjust enrichment, which were dismissed without prejudice.

On October 24, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit
naming the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties was initiated in New York
State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who
represented plaintiffs in the Raske Litigation (the "Shanklin
Litigation").  The claims in the Shanklin Litigation include
breach of contract and unjust enrichment and are alleged to arise
out of matters relating to those matters involved in the Raske
Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf
of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as
defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model
management companies, advertising firms and certain advertisers.
The Company believes the new claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself and its subsidiaries.  On January 6,
2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to dismiss the
complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a cause
of action upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and
other defendants have also filed motions to dismiss.  The court
has stayed all discovery in the case pending resolution of these
motions.  On March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the
claims asserted therein against the model management defendants,
and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public
interest".  The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his
decision in the Raske Litigation.


                             *********

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  * * *