CAR_Public/140707.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, July 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 133

                             Headlines


3001 CASTOR: FLSA Suit v. Strip Club Gets Conditional Class Cert
A & D INTERESTS: Faces "Toporcer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
A&O PLUMBING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Suit Challenges Charging of Early Termination Fees
AL'S HOMESTYLE: Recalls Fireside Smokey Due to Undeclared Mustard

ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Suit Seeks to Recover Personal Injury Claims
ALMANIC CANADA: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee
ARGYLE TAVERN: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AT&T INC: Oklahoma Litigants Seek to Nullify 1989 Rate Order
AUTOLIV INC: Enters Into Securities Class Action Settlement MOU

BEDHEAD PAJAMAS: Recalls Children's Two-Piece Pajama Sets
BLOOMINGDALE'S: 9th Cir. Ditches Sales Associate's OT Class Suit
BOYD GAMING: Overtime Suit May Proceed as National Class Action
BUILDING PRODUCTS: Recalls Gripgard SX Waterproofing Membranes
CHINA MOBILE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York

CLEBURNE COUNTY, AR: Arkansas Supreme Court Revives Class Action
CORAVIN INC: Recalls Wine Access System
DAVISON PUBLISHING: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Fax Messages
DOJI INC: Accused of Not Allowing Class to Record All Work Hours
ELBIT IMAGING: Tel-Aviv Jaffa Court Dismisses Class Action

FARQUHAR'S ORCHARDS: Recalls Fine Foods Salmon Products
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Gets Favorable Ruling in Firefighter Class Action
FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Sends ERISA Suit Back to Appeals Court
FOOTPRINTS CAFE: "Gallardo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FROMAGERIE ABBAYE: Recalls Saint-Benoit-du-Lac Firm Goat Cheese

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 186,013 Cars Due to Ignition Switch Woes
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Calif. for Hiding Motor Oil Defects
GENERAL MOTORS: "Ashbridge" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Ashworth" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Bender" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: "Burton" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Detton" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Henry" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Lavell" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Nettleton" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: "Roach" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Stafford" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GIGI IMPORTING: Recalls Gastone Lago Elledi Poker Cacao Wafer
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 1.9 Million Infant Car Seats
GRUMA SAB: Deceives "Mission Guacamole" Consumers, Class Claims

HEADWATERS INC: Court Okays Settlement of Suit v. Kirk A. Benson
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles Securities Derivative Suits
HONDA: Recalls Vehicles Due to Airbag Issues
HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Blade 700 X Pro Series Helicopter Kits
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Settles Suit Over HVAC Systems for $21MM

HUDSON NEWS: "Nabi" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
INTERTEK: Recalls LED Lamps With Counterfeit cETLus Mark
JOS A BANK: "Camasta" Appeals Dismissal of Amended Complaint
JOS A BANK: Moves to Dismiss Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices
JOS A BANK: Lawsuit by Boston Retirement System Remains Pending

JOS A BANK: Faces Suit for Requiring Personal Info Disclosure
LAZY ONE: Recalls Children's Bathrobes Due to Flammability Hazard
LABORERS' JOINT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Benton Suit Says
LOANUP.COM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pacleb" Suit Claims
MAZDA: Recalls 2,411 MAZDA6 and RX-8 Cars Due to Airbag Issues

MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Lucas" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MRB INC: "Park" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
NEW YORK TIMES: Faces Class Action Over Subscription Fraud
OAK BEVERAGES: Faces "Goris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
P F CHANG'S: Sued Over Stolen Customer Financial Data

PARIGI GROUP: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PEEKSKILL SCHOOL DISTRICT: Removed "Jackson" Suit to S.D.N.Y.
PETROLOGISTICS LP: Fails to Conduct Fair Sale Process, Suit Says
PFIZER INC: Key Plaintiffs Expert Can't Testify in Zoloft MDL
PREVENT SEARCH: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Background Reports

PROSPECT CAPITAL: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
SALAAM BOMBAY: "Samuel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SATELLITES UNLIMITED: Does Not Pay OT, "Burkhauler" Suit Says
SETRA: Recalls S407CC & S417TC Bus Models Due to Fire Risk
SINO-FOREST CORP: Reaches Partial Class Action Settlement

SKADDEN ARPS: Plumbers Seek Docs Related to Dana Investigation
SOUTHERN UNITED: Faces "Anthony" Suit in Texas Over Unpaid Wages
STAR FARMS: Accused of Violating Agricultural Worker Protect Act
STILE PRODUCTS: Recalls Tern Folding Bicycles
SUNRISE COMMUNITY: Faces "Veras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Daeha Crackers Due to Undeclared Egg
TAHA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Shangrila Naturals Peach Juice
TJX CANADA: Recalls Spiderman Water Bottle
TJX COMPANIES: Removed "Roberts" Suit to Florida District Court
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Still Faces Suit Over Motor Fuel Temp.

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Settlement Hearing Set for July 14
TRIBECA FOOD: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Boston for Misclassifying Drivers
UNITED STATES: Files Motion to Dismiss NSA Spying Class Action
UTI WORLDWIDE: Faces Securities Litigation in California Court

VERT CAPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
VESTAS WIND: Settles US Class Action for $5 Million
VIOLIN MEMORY: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in California
WAL-MART STORES: Certification, Awards in "Braun/Hummel" Appealed
WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces FCPA & Securities Violations Suit

WAVECREST MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WHITE-RODGERS: Recalls Home Heating & Cooling Thermostats
WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Deadly Side Effects of Effexor
YUM YUM: Recalls La Cage Aux Sport Buffalo Chicken Wings Chips

* Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac May Sue Servicers, LPI Providers
* Four Strains Linked to Salmonella Chia Outbreak in US, Canada


                            *********


3001 CASTOR: FLSA Suit v. Strip Club Gets Conditional Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
exotic dancers who worked at a Philadelphia strip club that
substantially controlled the work environment and took cuts of
tips and lap dance proceeds are employees and can bring an FLSA
collective action, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled in Verma v. 3001 Castor that The Penthouse Club
improperly classified its strippers as independent contractors
instead of employees.  The ruling is a win for a proposed class of
strippers who claim they are entitled to minimum wage, overtime
compensation and all the gratuities they earned.

Judge Brody granted lead plaintiff Priya Verma conditional class
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but denied her
request for class certification of state law claims under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.  Judge Brody ruled the class-action
requirement of predominance could not be proven at this early
stage of the case given each potential class member could have
varying damages.  But Judge Brody allowed for Ms. Verma to refile
a motion for class certification after the evidentiary record has
been developed.

Judge Brody's analysis of whether the strippers were employees or
independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA claims came down
largely on the control the club exerted over the dancers' work.

According to Judge Brody's opinion, the dancers at The Penthouse
don't earn any wages, receiving all of their compensation from the
club's customers.  And during certain shifts, some of the dancers
are required to pay the club a stage rental fee to work the shift.

The club's cut of the dancers' performances range from $10 of
every $30, four-minute private dance to $200 of every $500,
one-hour private dance, Judge Brody said.  The club sets the price
and duration of all private dances and the dancers are not allowed
to charge above that price, the judge said.

The dancers also have to give a portion of their tips to various
club staff, including the DJ, "house mom," "podium host," and
possibly the valet.  The dancers face fines for being late or
leaving early from a shift, using their cellphone, chewing gum,
entering or exiting the stage from anywhere other than the stairs
or failing to wear their hair down.  There is a salon on site and
dancers are instructed on their physical appearance, Judge Brody
said.

In order to avoid additional shift fees, dancers have to work at
least four shifts a week to avoid being considered freelancers.
While the dancers can leave the club at any time and work for
another club, they are under "continuous review" by club
management when working at The Penthouse, Judge Brody said.

The club argued that dancers set their own schedules and that if
dancers "hustle," they can make up to $1,600 a shift, according to
the opinion.

"Here, the dancers' control over their schedules is minimal
compared to all of the elements of the work that defendant
controlled," Judge Brody said.  "Based on the foregoing facts, the
factor of control weighs overwhelmingly in favor of a finding that
the dancers were employees, not independent contractors."

Control of the work was one of six factors Judge Brody analyzed in
going through the FLSA's economic realities test to determine
whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. All but
one of the factors weighed in favor of the dancers being
employees.

In looking at the dancers' opportunity for profit or loss
depending on managerial skill, Judge Brody found the club
substantially controlled the strippers' ability to make money
despite the club's argument that the strippers set their own
schedules.

Ms. Verma argued the club sets its hours, admission fees, which
stages will be open and what music will be played, sets the time
and price for private dances and controls the club's advertising
and food and alcohol expenditures.

In citing other courts, Judge Brody said the "hustling" argument
that the strippers can work harder and make more money has been
rejected by all courts to consider it.

"Dancers at the defendants' club risk the loss of the cost of
their costume, the stage rental fee, and the mandatory tip-outs in
exchange for the opportunity to earn several hundred dollars in a
six-hour shift," Judge Brody said.  "This is not the kind of
capital investment and risk-reward profile typical of someone in
business for herself.  Dancers cannot leverage their investment in
reoccurring stage fees and tip-outs to create an increasing return
on their investment."

Finding that the club invests much more in its operations than the
dancers invest in their costumes, shoes and hair, Judge Brody said
the third factor of the relative investments of the employer and
alleged employees weighed in favor of the dancers.

As to whether the services the dancers render require a special
skill, Judge Brody found none of the skills evaluated in the
club's audition process rise to the level of a special skill.  The
club evaluates potential dancers based on whether she is a "fluid"
dancer, and on her appearance, social skills and hygiene.  Judge
Brody said other courts have found strippers don't exhibit a skill
of people in business for themselves.

Judge Brody further found for the dancers in that they are an
"integral" part of the club's business.

Judge Brody found that the lack of permanence in the working
relationship between the club and the dancer weighed in favor of
the club.  But in light of the fact that the five other factors
weighed in favor of the dancers, Judge Brody found they were
employees.

Judge Brody conditionally certified the FLSA collective action for
the recovery of unpaid wages and liquidated damages.

Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch in
Pittsburgh is the lead plaintiffs attorney.  John F. Innelli of
Philadelphia is representing the defendants.


A & D INTERESTS: Faces "Toporcer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Toporcer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. A & D Interests, Inc., D/B/A Heartbreakers
and Mike A. Armstrong, Individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-00205 (S.D.
Tex., June 25, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

A & D Interests, Inc., is an adult entertainment club located in
Galveston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gabriel Assaad, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0011
      E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com


A&O PLUMBING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis E. Mora v. A&O Plumbing Corp. and Alexander Rodriguez,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22372-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 25,
2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions
of Fair Labor Standards Act.

A&O Plumbing Corp., installs, repairs, and provides plumbing
related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Suit Challenges Charging of Early Termination Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scotty Mahlum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, Case No. 5:14-cv-02988
(N.D. Cal., June 27, 2014) challenges Adobe's alleged imposition
of early termination fees on its Adobe Creative Cloud subscribers
in violation of the Civil Code and other provisions of California
law.

Adobe Systems Incorporated is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in San Jose, California.  Adobe
provides a subscription-based service for customers to use its
popular Adobe Creative Cloud software.  Adobe Creative Cloud
includes applications like Photoshop, Illustrator, In design,
Adobe Muse and other creative tools. Defendant's Creative Cloud
"complete plan" costs customers $49.99 per month for one year.
The Defendant's "individual plan" costs customers $9.99 per month
for access to individual programs within Creative Cloud, including
Photoshop.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  apersinger@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com


AL'S HOMESTYLE: Recalls Fireside Smokey Due to Undeclared Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Al's Homestyle Sausage
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8975

Affected products: 1 lb. Al's Homestyle Fireside Smokey with all
codes where mustard is not declared on the label


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Suit Seeks to Recover Personal Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Pilidis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case
No. 2:14-cv-03929 (E.D. Pa., June 25, 2014), seeks to recover
personal injury claims against the Defendants, under policies of
automobile insurance with Uninsured Motorist coverage, because
during the last 4 years, such persons suffered injury as a result
of automobile accidents that were caused by unidentified drivers,
with which the automobiles from which the class members' claims
are derived did not come into contact, and either were denied
coverage because they could not produce a disinterested witness to
verify the facts, or were deterred from filing a claim because of
an illegal and void clause which put into each and all of its
policies, which clause falsely stated that such injuries were not
covered.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen H. Schwartz, Esq.
      MILBERG, WEISS, BERSHAD, HYNES & LERACH
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th FL.
      New York, NY 10119-0165
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968



ALMANIC CANADA: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Almanic Canada Limited
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8971

Affected products: 10 x 20 (200) g. Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant
Coffee with all lot codes and production dates where "coffee,
sugar, creamer" is mentioned on the front of the package and "non-
dairy creamer" is listed in the ingredients


ARGYLE TAVERN: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Odoniel J. Hernandez Tino Also Known As Geovani Hernandez, and
Jose Rigoberto Castellon, on their own behalf and for all others
similarly situated v. Argyle Tavern, Inc., Doing Business As
Argyle Grill And Tavern, Babylon Restaurant Group, Inc., Gregory
Bartolotta, Keith Hart, and William Wolfe, Case No. 2:14-cv-03953
(E.D.N.Y., June 25, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Argyle Tavern, Inc., is doing business as Argyle Grill and Tavern,
a restaurant and wine bar.

Babylon Restaurant Group, Inc. operates a restaurant located at
320 Lakeview Avenue East, Brightwaters, County of Suffolk, State
of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony P.  Consiglio, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF IRA S. NEWMAN
      98 Cutter Mill Road, Suite 441-c
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 487-7375
      Facsimile: (516) 487-0113
      E-mail: anthony.consiglio.esq@gmail.com


AT&T INC: Oklahoma Litigants Seek to Nullify 1989 Rate Order
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that litigants have asked the
Oklahoma Supreme Court to decide a lawsuit seeking to nullify a
1989 Corporation Commission order that set telephone rates for a
predecessor company of telecommunications giant AT&T.

The lawsuit was originally filed June 17 in Oklahoma County
District Court by Sody Clements, mayor of the Oklahoma City suburb
of Nichols Hills, and retired Lt. Gen. Richard Burpee, former
commander of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center at Tinker Air
Force Base.  The new filing asks the state's highest court to
resolve the case.

The lawsuit asks that the Corporation Commission order that
lowered telephones rates but did not include refunds of what the
lawsuit alleges were "excess revenues" be voided.

A spokesman for AT&T, Marty Richter, has said the 25-year-old
order should be a closed issue.


AUTOLIV INC: Enters Into Securities Class Action Settlement MOU
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. on June 27 disclosed that it has entered into a
memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of its
pending US class action securities lawsuit.

Autoliv, Inc., two of its officers and one of its employees are
defendants in a purported class action securities lawsuit filed by
the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis on
April 17, 2013 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit alleges that Autoliv
misrepresented or failed to disclose that antitrust violations by
Autoliv artificially inflated Autoliv's earnings and stock price
in violation of the federal securities laws.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged
class of purchasers who bought Autoliv common stock between
October 26, 2010 and July 21, 2011.

Autoliv has entered into a memorandum of understanding with
Plaintiff reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the
lawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5
million.  Autoliv expects to record a net expense of approximately
$4.5 million in its second quarter results.  The balance of the
settlement amount will be paid by Autoliv's insurance carrier.

The proposed agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing or
acceptance of fault by Autoliv or any of the individuals named in
the complaint.  The defendants are settling to eliminate the
uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated with
protracted litigation.

The proposed agreement is subject to negotiation and execution of
a final settlement agreement among the parties and final approval
by the court following notice to the settlement class and a
fairness hearing.

                          About Autoliv

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


BEDHEAD PAJAMAS: Recalls Children's Two-Piece Pajama Sets
---------------------------------------------------------
Muscatine Journal reports that BedHead Pajamas is recalling
children's two-piece pajama sets sold nationwide from January 2011
to February 2014.  The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability
standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn
injuries.

This recall involves BedHead children's 95 percent cotton and 5
percent Lycra, pajama sets sold in toddler size 12 months through
youth 14.

The two-piece pajama sets were sold in three prints, navy cream
stripe, pink holland and pink spot.  The recalled pajama sets say
"Boo Boo BedHead" on the sewn in label located on the back
neckline of the pajama top.

Consumers should return the pajamas to BedHead for a $25 store
merchandise credit.

Consumers can contact BedHead at 844-312-3651 from 11:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday or at www.bedheadpajamas.com
More info at www.recalls.org


BLOOMINGDALE'S: 9th Cir. Ditches Sales Associate's OT Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Daily Labor Report, a former Bloomingdale's sales
associate in California can't pursue a state law class action for
alleged unpaid overtime because she signed an enforceable
arbitration agreement with a class action waiver, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled June 23.

The former employee argued the Norris-La Guardia Act and the
National Labor Relations Act make the class action waiver
unenforceable, as those laws protect employees' rights to engage
in concerted activity.

But the Ninth Circuit said regardless of the protections offered
by the federal labor statutes, Fatemeh Johnmohammadi can't show
that Bloomingdale's "interfered with, restrained, or coerced her"
choice on waiving her class action rights.

                      30-Day Opt Out Is Key

Bloomingdale's gave employees a 30-day period to opt out of the
arbitration pact with no effect on job status, and
Ms. Johnmohammadi knew about but failed to exercise that option,
the court said.

"Bloomingdale's merely offered her a choice: resolve future
employment-related disputes in court, in which case she would be
free to pursue her claims on a collective basis; or resolve such
disputes through arbitration, in which case she would be limited
to pursuing her claims on an individual basis," Judge Paul J.
Watford wrote.

"In the absence of any coercion influencing the decision, we fail
to see how asking employees to choose between those two options
can be viewed as interfering with or restraining their right to do
anything," the court said.

A National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge last
year rejected an unfair labor practice charge against
Bloomingdale's in Ms. Johnmohammadi's case.

                       No Violation of NLRA

The NLRB decision in D.R. Horton Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184, 192
LRRM 1137 (2012), is distinguishable because Bloomingdale's didn't
require Ms. Johnmohammadi to waive class actions as a condition of
employment, the court said.

Ms. Johnmohammadi argued Bloomingdale's actions are analogous to
employer misconduct that violates NLRA Section 8(a)(1).  For
example, the NLRB has ruled an employer violates the act by
offering pay raises in exchange for employees' agreement to
refrain from protected activity.

Bloomingdale's violated Section 8(a)(1) by offering employees the
"benefit" of resolving all disputes through arbitration in
exchange for their surrender of class action rights,
Ms. Johnmohammadi said.

But she can't show Bloomingdale's offer of arbitration was
"conduct immediately favorable to employees" or that
Bloomingdale's made the offer with an "express purpose" of
restraining employees' "freedom of choice" whether to waive or
retain class action rights, the court said.

Arbitration offers uncertain benefits to employees, particularly
at the outset of an employment relationship when the benefits and
costs of prospectively agreeing to arbitrate can't be known, the
court said.

"We don't think the offer of those benefits is of such a character
that it would tend to interfere with an employee's freedom of
choice," the court said.  "Johnmohammadi has offered no evidence
that Bloomingdale's offered those benefits with the express
purpose of curtailing its employees' freedom of choice."

Bloomingdale's merely offered the employee "a choice: resolve
future employment-related disputes in court, in which case she
would be free to pursue her claims on a collective basis; or
resolve such disputes through arbitration, in which case she would
be limited to pursuing her claims on an individual basis," Judge
Watford wrote.

"Johnmohammadi had the right to opt out of the arbitration
agreement, and had she done so she would be free to pursue this
class action in court," the court said.  "Having freely elected to
arbitrate employment-related disputes on an individual basis,
without interference from Bloomingdale's, she cannot claim that
enforcement of the agreement violates either the Norris-LaGuardia
Act or the NLRA."

Judges John T. Noonan and William E. Smith joined in the decision.

Dennis F. Moss in Sherman Oaks, Calif., Sahag Majarian II in
Tarzana, Calif., and Ira Spiro -- ira@spiromoore.com -- of Spiro
Moore LLP in Los Angeles represented Ms. Johnmohammadi.  In-house
counsel for Macy's Inc. and Julia H. Azarel and John S. Curtis of
the Law Offices of Julia Azarel in North Hollywood, Calif.,
represented Bloomingdale's.


BOYD GAMING: Overtime Suit May Proceed as National Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carri Geer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports
that a lawsuit that accuses Boyd Gaming Corp. of failing to pay
overtime wages may proceed as a national class action, a federal
judge in Las Vegas has ruled.

Cogburn Law Offices filed the case last year as a type of class
action known as a "collective action."  Andrew Rempfer, one of the
firm's attorneys, estimated the case has 15,000 to 25,000
potential class members.

"We're encouraged, because it's a nationwide class to recoup money
for upward of 20,000 people that we believe Boyd has skimmed for
years," Mr. Rempfer said.

In an email, Boyd spokesman David Strow said the company has a
policy of not commenting on pending litigation.

The named plaintiffs in the case are six current and former Boyd
employees who were not exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the lawsuit, for years Boyd has intentionally rounded
down the working hours of its nonexempt employees to the lower
quarter hour.

"Boyd's practice exclusively benefits and enriches Boyd to its
employees' detriment by resulting in the potential loss of tens
(and possibly hundreds) of millions of dollars from its employees'
wages," the complaint alleges.

The lawsuit also claims Boyd has required nonexempt employees to
work off the clock.

According to the document, the illegal practices have occurred
nationwide at Boyd's 22 wholly owned gaming properties in eight
states, including Nevada.

Five of the named plaintiffs were employed at The Orleans.  Two
were bartenders, two were cocktail waitresses and one was a
banquet server.

A sixth plaintiff is employed as a bartender at the Gold Coast.

The lawsuit claims Boyd's practice of rounding down employees'
hours has caused the plaintiffs "and all others similarly
situated" to lose up to 14 minutes of time per shift "and possibly
more."

In addition, the lawsuit claims the plaintiffs worked anywhere
from 30 to 45 minutes off the clock each shift.

"Several employees, including Craig Gamble, had or have come
forward to complain about these off-the-clock practices," the
lawsuit alleges.

Gamble, the lead plaintiff in the case, was a bartender at The
Orleans. He was hired in February 2002 and terminated in February
2013.

U.S. District Judge James Mahan issued an order in early June that
gave preliminary approval for class certification.

Regarding the allegation of rounding down employees' time, Judge
Mahan ruled that evidence supports the contention that Boyd's
time-keeping management system constitutes a companywide policy or
practice "that deprives hourly, nonexempt employees of wages for
time worked."

But Judge Mahan also concluded the plaintiffs had failed to show
the existence of a nationwide policy requiring nonexempt employees
to work off the clock.

"However," he added, "the plaintiffs have made a sufficient
showing to justify a collective action for all hourly, nonexempt,
cash-handling employees at The Orleans and Gold Coast casinos."

Judge Mahan ordered Boyd to provide plaintiffs with the names,
last-known addresses and email addresses of all potential class
members who worked for the company within the three years before
the lawsuit was filed.

Those people will be notified about the lawsuit and will have the
chance to "opt in" as plaintiffs, Mr. Rempfer said.

Cogburn Law Offices has filed other overtime cases in recent
months against Circle K Stores Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. and Navy Federal Credit Union.


BUILDING PRODUCTS: Recalls Gripgard SX Waterproofing Membranes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Posting date:             June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40127

Affected products: Gripgard SX self-adhesive waterproofing
membrane

Gripgard SX is a self-adhesive waterproofing membrane composed of
a rubberized asphalt sheet reinforced with a strong mineral fibre
mat.  The top surface is embedded with sand. It is intended to be
applied to the deck of a building's roof prior to the installation
of shingles.  Certification: CSA A123.22 and ASTM D1970; CCMC
#13273-R.

Embedded sand may become dislodged from the self-adhesive
membrane, which has the potential to create a slippery work
surface until shingles are installed.  There is no risk associated
with Gripgard SX once shingles are installed.

Neither Health Canada nor Building Products of Canada Corp. has
received reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

243,753 units of this product were sold in Canada and 1,675 units
were sold in the United States in 2013 and 2014.

The product was manufactured in the United States and sold between
April 2010 and May 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Johns Manville
                     Denver
                     Colorado
                     United States

   Distributor       Building Products of Canada Corp.
                     Montreal
                     Quebec
                     Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using GRIPGARD SX and email BP
by email for information on exchanging or getting a refund for the
product.


CHINA MOBILE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 26 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against China Mobile Games & Entertainment Group,
Ltd. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 14-cv-4745, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased CMGE's American Depository
Shares ("ADS") between September 20, 2012 and June 19, 2014,
inclusive, including those investors who purchased CMGE ADS
pursuant to the CMGE's secondary public offering that closed on or
about March 26, 2014.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased China Mobile Games
securities during the Class Period, you have until August 19, 2014
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.

A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

China Mobile Games, a Cayman Islands corporation headquartered in
Guangzhou, China, is the largest publisher and developer of mobile
games in China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) CMGE was engaged in a bribery scheme within
the Company's game publishing business; (ii) CMGE was engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions; (iii) CMGE lacked adequate
internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 19, 2014, the price of CMGE shares fell $4.27 per share to
$14.63, before being halted by the NASDAQ on news reports that
CMGE had removed nine executives, including defendant Ying
Shuling, CMGE's President, for alleged involvement in bribery.

Chinese internet news media reported that the misconduct also
involved undisclosed related party transactions involving CMGE.
These reports also indicated that in addition to Shuling, Vice
President Sun Jingzhi, Vice President Du Xinxing, and General
Managers Min Shuzhong and Wang Kun and Distribution Center
Director Du Juan, Overseas Distribution Group Vice General Manager
Luo Xiao, were among those terminated.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


CLEBURNE COUNTY, AR: Arkansas Supreme Court Revives Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Brantley, writing for Arkansas Times, reports that the
Arkansas Supreme Court on June 26 revived a class action lawsuit
in Cleburne Circuit Court over oil and gas leases allegedly
notarized outside the presence of landowners.

According to the complaint, landmen, who were procuring leases for
oil-and-gas companies, would obtain the signatures of landowners
on the leases and then deliver the leases en masse to the clerk's
office.  There, the clerks would notarize the signatures and then
record the leases, although the clerks had not witnessed the
landowners' signing the leases.

The complaint requested that the court grant an injunction to
require [Circuit Clerk Karen] Giles to "inspect and verify each
and every oil and gas lease received for recording and determine
if the notarial acknowledgment is accurate, true, and correct."

Appellants further requested that the court enjoin Giles "to purge
any and all oil and gas leases which contain a false notarial
acknowledgment."  Finally, the complaint requested costs and
attorney's fees.

The case had been dismissed on Giles' response that no facts had
been given on which relief could be granted.  The circuit court
dismissed the case on a lack of damages without giving the
complainants a chance to make their case that they had standing to
challenge officials' actions outside their authority.


CORAVIN INC: Recalls Wine Access System
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2014
Posting date:             June 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Specialized Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Laceration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40215

Affected products: Wine Access System

The recall involves the CoravinTM 1000 Wine Access Systems.  The
system uses a hollow needle to penetrate a wine bottle cork and
allow wine to be dispensed without removing the cork.

The system is approximately 23 centimetres tall and has a silver-
coloured, metallic tubular body with a detachable black plastic
capsule cup attached to the bottom and trigger on the top.  A
black metal handle is attached at the top of the tube and a black
metal, moveable bottle clamp is attached to the front side of the
tube.  A long, metallic needle protrudes from the underside of the
handle.

The Coravin name and logo appears on the front side of the tube.
The system comes with a silver-colored storage base and two argon
gas capsules.

The system can cause wine bottles to break during pressurization,
posing a risk of lacerations.

Coravin has received 13 reports of the bottles breaking, including
four in which the bottles cracked and leaked, eight in which the
bottles broke into pieces, and one in which the bottle burst into
four pieces and resulted in injury involving two chipped teeth and
laceration that required stitches.  No reports of incidents or
injuries have been reported in Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.

Approximately 639 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada and 32,960 in the United States through on-line sales and
internet resellers.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
July 2013 to June 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Importer      Coravin Inc.
                 Burlington
                 United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wine access
system and contact Coravin for a free repair kit that includes a
Coravin wine bottle sleeve to contain broken glass when a bottle
breaks with updated instructions and warnings.  The wine access
system should not be used on wine bottles with damages or flaws.


DAVISON PUBLISHING: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Fax Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Popular Carpet Distributors, Inc., a New York Corporation,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Davison Publishing Company, LLC and Simmons - Boardman Publishing
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04678 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for negligently or intentionally
contacting Plaintiff by sending or having an agents send
unsolicited faxed advertisements, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      1309 Jericho Tpke, Ste 2,
      New Hyde Park, NY 10040
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-9427
      E-mail: stefan.coleman@gmail.com


DOJI INC: Accused of Not Allowing Class to Record All Work Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Boner, David Patton and Wesley Marshall, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOJI, Inc., d/b/a
Demos' Steak & Spaghetti House, and Peter Demos, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01397 (M.D. Tenn., June 27, 2014) alleges that during the relevant
time period, the Defendants did not allow the Plaintiffs to record
all hours worked in some workweeks.  The Plaintiffs add that the
Defendants altered the Plaintiffs' time records to record less
time than the Plaintiffs actually worked in some workweeks.

While the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants, the
Plaintiffs regularly held the position of "server," which included
the duties of taking food and drink orders for Defendants'
customers, cleaning the restaurant, and performing side work,
including rolling silverware.

DOJI, Inc., doing business as Demos' Steak & Spaghetti House is a
Tennessee domestic corporation.  Peter Demos is a corporate
officer and shareholder of DOJI.  The Defendants are engaged in
the restaurant business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall W. Burton, Esq.
          Morgan E. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MORGAN SMITH
          144 Second Avenue, North, Suite 212
          Nashville, Tennessee 37201
          Telephone: (615) 620-5838
          Facsimile: (615) 244-9231
          E-mail: rburtonlaw@gmail.com
                  morgan@lawonyourschedule.com


ELBIT IMAGING: Tel-Aviv Jaffa Court Dismisses Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. on June 26 disclosed that further to its
announcement dated April 15, 2013 that the District Court of
Tel-Aviv Jaffa dismissed the purported class action lawsuit filed
against the Company by a holder of Series B Notes following the
approval of the adjusted plan of arrangement by the Court on
January 2, 2014.  Such dismissal will not derogate from the appeal
filed with the Israel Supreme Court arguing that the Court erred
in approving the Arrangement, as announced by the Company on
February 2, 2014.

                     About Elbit Imaging Ltd.

Elbit Imaging Ltd. operates in the following principal fields of
business: (i) Commercial and Entertainment Centers - Initiation,
construction and sale of shopping and entertainment centers and
other mixed-use real property projects, predominantly in the
retail sector, located in Central and Eastern Europe and in India,
primarily through its subsidiary Plaza Centers N.V. In certain
circumstances and depending on market conditions, we operate and
manage commercial and entertainment centers prior to their sale;
(ii) Hotels - Hotel operation and management; (iii) Medical
Industries - (a) research and development, production and
marketing of magnetic resonance imaging guided focused ultrasound
treatment equipment and (b) development of stem cell population
expansion technologies and stem cell therapy products for
transplantation and regenerative medicine; (iv) Residential
Projects - Initiation, construction and sale of residential
projects and other mixed-use real property projects, predominately
residential, located primarily in India; (v) Fashion Apparel -
Distribution and marketing of fashion apparel and accessories in
Israel.


FARQUHAR'S ORCHARDS: Recalls Fine Foods Salmon Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Farquhar's Orchards Fine Foods
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8965

Farquhar's Orchards Fine Foods is recalling Farquhar's Orchards
Fine Foods brand salmon products from the marketplace because they
may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum.  Consumers should
not consume the recalled products described below.

These products have been sold in Ontario.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis.  In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Gets Favorable Ruling in Firefighter Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation on June 26 disclosed that the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued an opinion supporting the
Company's position in the firefighter hearing loss litigation.
The Court reversed a Cook County trial court's previous
certification of a class action comprised of firefighters who
allege the Company's sirens caused them hearing loss.
Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial
court's ruling failed to satisfy the class-action requirements
that the common issues of the firefighters' claims predominate
over the individual issues and that there is an adequate
representative for the class.

Jennifer Sherman, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel for
the Company, stated, "We are pleased that the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the class certification in this litigation.  It
reaffirms our belief that a class action trial is not an
appropriate mechanism to litigate hearing loss claims.  We believe
strongly in our life-saving siren products, and we will continue
to defend them aggressively."

                      About Federal Signal

Federal Signal Corporation (NYSE: FSS) --
http://www.federalsignal.com-- provides products and services to
protect people and our planet.  Founded in 1901, Federal Signal is
a global designer and manufacturer of products and total solutions
that serve municipal, governmental, industrial and commercial
customers.  Headquartered in Oak Brook, Ill., with manufacturing
facilities worldwide, the Company operates three groups: Safety
and Security Systems, Environmental Solutions and Fire Rescue.


FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Sends ERISA Suit Back to Appeals Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 weakened
the defenses available to banks in class action lawsuits over
retirement plan investment decisions.

The case involved allegations against Fifth Third Bancorp for
putting its own stock in employee retirement plans prior to a drop
in share price.

In a 9-0 vote, the court sent the case back to an appeals court to
review whether the investors had properly framed their lawsuit on
technical grounds, giving a technical win to the bank.

But the justices rejected the bank's central argument that the
plaintiffs were required to allege that the bank's fiduciary
officers had abused their discretion by continuing to put company
stock in the retirement plan.

A spokesman for the bank said it was pleased the case was sent
back to the appeals court for more consideration and declined to
comment further.

The case was being closely watched by the business community,
including companies such as Delta Air Lines Inc. and Cleveland-
based bank KeyCorp that have faced similar lawsuits.

The lawsuit filed by two employees, John Dudenhoeffer and Alireza
Partovipanah, alleged that the bank and officers in charge,
including its president and chief executive officer, Kevin Kabat,
violated their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs said in the 2008 lawsuit that the bank, which they
claim took risks by issuing an increasing number of subprime
loans, should have made a determination about whether it was still
prudent to invest in company stock.

The bank would have known that experts were warning that real
estate delinquencies and foreclosures were on the rise, the
plaintiffs alleged. The bank's stock price subsequently declined
74% between July 2007 and September 2009.

The high court ruled that the officers did not merit the high
standard of a "presumption of prudence" in the investment
decisions that the bank suggested.

The decision could mean that judges allow more cases against
investment plan advisers to proceed, said Andrew Oringer, an
attorney at law firm Dechert L.L.P.

"There is now at least a risk that cases will proceed to later
stages, and there is an increased possibility of settlements and
the like," said Mr. Oringer.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups backed the
bank in the case, noting in a friend-of-the-court brief that
companies would be discouraged from including employee stock funds
as an investment choice as part of their retirement plans if the
court ruled for the plaintiffs.

The bank's lawyers said the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act presumes that such investments are reasonable unless the
company is in a dire financial position.

A federal judge in Cincinnati said the claims could not go forward
but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case in a
September 2012 ruling.

The case is Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, U.S. Supreme
Court, No. 12-751.


FOOTPRINTS CAFE: "Gallardo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hermelindo Gallardo, Ricardo Gallardo, and Teodoro Gallardo, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Footprints
Cafe South Inc., Footprints Cafe Express Inc., Footprints Cafe
Inc., Robert Gordon, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-03947
(E.D.N.Y., June 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

Footprints Cafe Inc., operates multiple restaurants in New York
City, each doing business under the "Footprints" brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third A venue - 61th Floor.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com



FROMAGERIE ABBAYE: Recalls Saint-Benoit-du-Lac Firm Goat Cheese
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fromagerie Abbaye
Distribution:             Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8968

Fromagerie Abbaye de Saint-Benoit-du-Lac is recalling Le Moutier
Ripened Firm Goat Cheese from the marketplace because it may
contain the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled.  The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures.  Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever.  In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 186,013 Cars Due to Ignition Switch Woes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 23, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           186013
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014246
TC ID number:             2014246
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14299

On certain vehicles, a defect in the ignition switch could allow
the switch to move out of the "run" position if the key ring is
carrying added weight or the vehicle goes off-road or is subjected
to some other jarring event.  If this were to occur, engine power,
power steering and power braking would be affected, increasing the
risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.  The
timing of the key movement out of the run position, relative to
the activation of the sensing algorithm of the crash event, may
also result in the airbags not deploying in a subsequent
collision, increasing the risk of injury.

Dealers will replace the ignition switch.

Note: Until the correction is performed, all items should be
removed from the key ring.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model         Model year(s) Affected
   -----      -----         ----------------------
  CHEVROLET   MONTE CARLO   2006, 2007
  CHEVROLET   IMPALA        2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
                            2012, 2013
  CADILLAC    DEVILLE       2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
  BUICK       ALLURE        2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
  BUICK       LUCERNE       2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
  CADILLAC    DTS           2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Calif. for Hiding Motor Oil Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Parenteau, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. General Motors, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-04961 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2014), alleges that GM fails to
disclose motor oil defect, as well as its serious safety
consequences.

General Motors, LLC, designs, tests, manufactures, distributes,
warrants, sells, and leases various 15 vehicles under several
prominent brand names, including but not limited to 16 Chevrolet,
Buick, GMC, GM, and Pontiac in this district and throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Payam Shanian, Esq.
      STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 277-1040
      Facsimile: (310) 943-3838


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ashbridge" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ashbridge v. General Motors
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00463, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04781-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR.
          429 Forbes Avenue
          519 Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          E-mail: Yateslaw@aol.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ashworth" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ashworth, et al. v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00607, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04804-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
          Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
          Robert F. Childs, Jr., Esq.
          Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          E-mail: gwiggins@wcqp.com
                  kjent@wcqp.com
                  RFC@wcqp.com
                  Rcalamusa@wcqp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John M. Johnson, Esq.
          Enrique J. Gimenez, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
          400 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 581-0700
          Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
          E-mail: jjohnson@lightfootlaw.com
                  hgimenez@lightfootlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Bender" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Bender v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00134, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The New York
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04768-JMF to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC - LOU
          312 S. Fourth Street
          Marion E. Taylor Bldg., 6th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert B. Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: robert.ellis@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. Leitch, Esq.
          Sarah Tuohy MacGill, Esq.
          RILEY BENNETT & EGLOFF LLP
          141 East Washington Street, Suite 400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (317) 636-8027
          E-mail: rleitch@rbelaw.com
                  smacgill@rbelaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Burton" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Burton, et al. v. General Motors
LLC, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00396, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04771-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward L. White, Esq.
          EDWARD L. WHITE PC
          825 E 33rd St
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 810-8188
          Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
          E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mary Quinn-Cooper, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT-TULSA
          1717 S Boulder Ave., Suite 900
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 574-3065
          Facsimile: (918) 388-5654
          E-mail: maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Detton" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Detton v. General Motors
Corporation LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00500, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-04784-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, PC
          156 N. Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Henry" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Henry, et al. v. General Motors
LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-00218, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04811-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
          PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP, LLP
          2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 252-1888
          Facsimile: (214) 252-1889
          E-mail: dean@paynemitchell.com

Defendant General Motors LLC is represented by:

          Darrell Lee Barger, Esq.
          HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
          800 N Shoreline Blvd., Suite 2000 North Tower
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 866-8009
          Facsimile: (361) 866-8039
          E-mail: dbarger@hdbdlaw.com

Defendant Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc., is represented
by:

          Michele R. Sowers, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP - ST. LOUIS
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105-3341
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: michele.sowers@huschblackwell.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Lavell" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Lavell v. General Motors LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00901, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04802-JMF
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 W. Seventh St.
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (504) 756-4840
          Facsimile: (985) 536-1186
          E-mail: mmoreland@becnellaw.com
                  mattmoreland@cox.net
                  schristina@cox.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          JONES WALKER (NEW ORLEANS)
          Place St. Charles
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 5100
          New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
          Telephone: (504) 582-8294
          Facsimile: (504) 589-8294
          E-mail: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Nettleton" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Nettleton Auto Sales Inc. v.
General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00318, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04760-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Slade, Esq.
          James Allen Carney, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: dslade@cbplaw.com
                  acarney@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@cbplaw.com
                  rpulliam@carneywilliams.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Roach" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Roach v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00443, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04810-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, PC
          156 N. Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Stafford" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Stafford v. General Motors, LLC,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01702, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04808-JMF
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: mram@ramolson.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

               - and -

          Francis (Casey) J. Flynn, Esq.
          Tiffany MArko Yiatras, Esq.
          CAREY DANIS & LOWE, L.L.C.
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (800) 721-2519
          Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
          E-mail: casey@jefflowepc.com
                  tyiatras@careydanis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher William Keegan, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (SF)
          555 California Street, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1882
          Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
          E-mail: chris.keegan@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Andrew Baker Bloomer, Esq.
          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          Richard Cartier Godfrey, Esq.
          Robert Burkart Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (IL)
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  lfeller@kirkland.com
                  rgodfrey@kirkland.com
                  rellis@kirkland.com


GIGI IMPORTING: Recalls Gastone Lago Elledi Poker Cacao Wafer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Gigi Importing Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8970

Affected products: 150 g. Gastone Lago Elledi Poker Cacao Wafer
with Cocoa Cream


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 1.9 Million Infant Car Seats
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Graco Children's Products is
recalling 1.9 million infant car seats, bowing to demands from
U.S. safety regulators, in what is now the largest seat recall in
American history.

The recall, announced on July 1, comes after a five-month spat
between Graco and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.  Earlier this year the company recalled 4.2
million toddler seats because the harness buckles can get stuck.
But it resisted the agency's demand to recall the infant seats.

Buckles can get gummed up by food and drinks, and that could make
it hard to remove children.  In some cases parents had to cut
harnesses to get their kids out.  The agency says that increases
the risk of injuries in emergencies.

Graco argued that infant seats are used differently, and in an
emergency, an adult can remove the whole seat rather than using
the buckle.

When Graco announced the initial recall in February, NHTSA sent
the company a sternly worded letter questioning why the infant
seats weren't included.  The agency said parents have filed
complaints with the agency and the company about stuck buckles on
the infant seats.

The letter also accused the company of soft-pedaling the recall
with "incomplete and misleading" documents that will be seen by
consumers.  The agency threatened civil penalties.

But Graco, a division of Atlanta-based Newell Rubbermaid Inc.,
told The Associated Press at the time that rear-facing infant
seats weren't being recalled because infants don't get food or
drinks on their seats.  Graco had agreed to send replacement
buckles to owners of infant seats upon request.

In a June 27 letter to NHTSA, however, Graco said that further
investigation showed a "higher than typical level of difficulty"
in unlatching the infant seat buckles.

The company says there have been no injuries reported because of
the problem.  Spokeswoman Ashley Mowrey said in a statement that
the July 1 move, which brings the recall to 6.1 million seats,
comes after months of sharing data and research with NHTSA.  The
company said the recall "is in the best interest of consumers and
underscores our shared commitment to child passenger safety."

Infant-seat models covered by the July 1 recall include the
SnugRide, SnugRide Classic Connect (including Classic Connect 30
and 35), SnugRide 30, SnugRide 35, SnugRide Click Connect 40, and
Aprica A30.  They were manufactured between July 2010 and May
2013, according to NHTSA.

Graco will replace the buckles for free.  Graco also is offering
to send free replacement buckles to any customer, even those with
seats not being recalled.

The company says owners can check to see if their seats are
included by going to www.GracoBuckleRecall.com or by calling (877)
766-7470.


GRUMA SAB: Deceives "Mission Guacamole" Consumers, Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nichole Herndon and Matthew Foist, as individuals, and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated v. Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V., a
Mexican Corporation, Gruma Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-02985-MEJ (N.D.
Cal., June 27, 2014) arises from the Defendants' sale of
"guacamole" products.  Gruma Corporation manufactures and markets
a "dip" product under its "Mission" brand name called "Mission
Guacamole."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants fraudulently hold out
their "Mission" brand product as "guacamole" when it is not
guacamole at all, but rather (at best) a flavored whipped-oil
paste that virtually no one would buy if the customers knew the
Defendants were lying about the product being guacamole.  The
Plaintiffs add that to further deceive consumers, the Defendants
use artificial food coloring to turn their product avocado green
and further mislead the public into believing it is guacamole
when, under any reasonable definition, it is not.

Guacamole is a Spanish language derivation of the Aztec word
meaning "avocado sauce."  Guacamole is a delicious and flavorful
dip that consists principally of avocados, which are mashed and
mixed with secondary ingredients in smaller quantities.  There are
many variations, but these secondary ingredients usually include
tomatoes, onions, citrus juice (usually lime or lemon), cilantro,
garlic, and sometimes other spices.

Gruma S.A.B. de C.V. is a Mexican corporation with its principal
place of business in Nuevo Leon, Mexico.  Gruma Corporation is a
Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Texas.
Gruma Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gruma SAB.  Gruma
sold, marketed, and distributed its product in California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
          Patrick V. Chesney, Esq.
          GALLO LLP
          1299 Fourth Street, Suite 505
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 257-8800
          E-mail: rgallo@gallo-law.com
                  pchesney@gallo-law.com


HEADWATERS INC: Court Okays Settlement of Suit v. Kirk A. Benson
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah entered
an Order Preliminarily Approving Derivative and Class Action
Settlement filed on behalf of Headwaters Incorporated against Kirk
A. Benson, et al., according to the company's June 6, 2014, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 19, 2014, the United States District Court for the District
of Utah entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Derivative and
Class Action Settlement and Providing for Notice (the "Order") in
James W. Edwards, derivatively on behalf of Headwaters
Incorporated and individually on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated shareholders of Headwaters Incorporated v. Kirk
A. Benson, et al., Civil Case No.: 2:13-CV-00330-BSJ (the
"Action").  The Order preliminarily approved settlement of the
Action, and approved distribution of the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Derivative and Class Action.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles Securities Derivative Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a
settlement reached was reached on June 30 to end securities
derivative suits against Hewlett-Packard Co. over its disastrous
acquisition of British software firm Autonomy Inc.

In exchange for freeing HP officers from claims they ignored red
flags in Autonomy's accounting and hid warning signs from
shareholders, plaintiffs attorneys at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd have agreed to team up with HP to
go after former Autonomy executives.

"This is an unusual resolution of derivative claims pending in the
Northern District of California, but one that perfectly aligns the
interests of the settling plaintiffs and of HP," the attorneys
wrote to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer.  "As a result, HP's
interests will be vigorously prosecuted and zealously protected by
leading law firms and lawyers from both sides of the complex
litigation bar."

HP, which purchased Autonomy in 2011 for $11 billion, a year later
wrote down the deal by more than $8 billion and accused Autonomy
executives of accounting fraud.  HP stock plummeted by 12 percent,
spurring a host of derivative claims in state and federal courts.
Under the proposed settlement, plaintiffs attorneys would work
under the authority of HP's legal team, led by Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz partner Marc Wolinsky -- MWolinsky@wlrk.com -- in
New York.  HP will control the litigation, according to filings
submitted with the proposed settlement on June 30 in San Francisco
federal court, and Cotchett Pitre and Robbins Geller will be paid
a fixed monthly retainer of $562,500 for 32 months.

If the claims against Autonomy executives are successful, the
plaintiffs firms stand to make significantly more than they might
in an average derivative suit, where victories usually amount to
changes in company bylaws but little cash.  Plaintiffs attorneys
will be eligible to receive a contingent fee of 10 percent on
recoveries up to $100 million and 25 percent of any amount topping
$100 million, up to a maximum of $30 million, according to the
proposed settlement.

The team of former rivals has its sights on former Autonomy CEO
Michael Lynch and former CFO Sushovan Hussain.  The proposed
settlement also leaves the door open to take on "other
non-released persons and entities responsible for HP's losses."

The decision to jointly pursue action against Autonomy executives
came from an independent committee assigned to investigate the
contentious merger and was negotiated with help from former
Northern District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker.

It's no small task to turn legal adversaries into partners, which
may be why securities experts say it's a rarely used strategy.
The two sides in this case began negotiations in February, and
attended seven daylong mediation sessions with Judge Walker.

"The negotiations, while cordial, were contentious and hard-
fought," Walker wrote to the court.  "Indeed, they seemed to have
completely collapsed more than once."

HP executives also have agreed to set up new methods of evaluating
potential mergers and acquisitions, in an effort to safeguard its
shareholders against another Autonomy.  They are in the process of
creating a new risk management committee and giving more oversight
to existing committees, according to the settlement motion.

The proposed settlement doesn't affect a securities fraud action
against HP pending in the Northern District of California.  In
that case, lead plaintiffs counsel at Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check are scheduled to submit their motion for class certification
in November.  The U.S. Department of Justice also has opened an
investigation into allegations of accounting fraud at Autonomy.

A preliminary approval hearing for the proposed settlement in the
derivative suits is scheduled for Aug. 29 in San Francisco.


HONDA: Recalls Vehicles Due to Airbag Issues
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           0
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014242
TC ID number:             2014242

On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury.  This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment.  Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the passenger
airbag inflator.

The recall is an expansion of recall 2013111.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model         Model Year(s) Affected
   -----      -----         ----------------------
   HONDA      CIVIC         2002, 2003
   HONDA      ACCORD        2003
   HONDA      ODYSSEY       2002, 2003
   HONDA      CR-V          2002, 2003
   ACURA      EL            2002, 2003
   HONDA      PILOT         2003
   ACURA      MDX           2003
   ACURA      TSX           2003
   HONDA      ELEMENT       2003


HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Blade 700 X Pro Series Helicopter Kits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Muscatine Journal reports that Horizon Hobby is recalling Blade
700 X Pro Series helicopter kits sold nationwide from July to
August 2013.  The main rotor washer can fail, causing the blades
to come off the helicopter during use.  This poses an injury
hazard.

This recall involves Blade 700 X Pro Series Kit, Pro Series Combo
and the replacement spindle set.  The recalled Pro Series Kit is
model number BLH5725.  The recalled Pro Series Combo is model
number BLH5725C.

Consumers should contact Horizon Hobby at 877-504-0233 from
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Saturday and noon to 5:00 p.m. Sunday, or online at
www.horizonhobby.com for replacement washers and instructions on
how to install them.  More info at www.recallss.org


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Settles Suit Over HVAC Systems for $21MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. entered into an agreement to settle
for $21 million a suit alleging that the HVAC systems installed in
certain of the Company's homes are in violation of applicable New
Jersey building codes, according to the company's June 6, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C.
(collectively, the "Company Defendants") have been named as
defendants in a class action suit. The action was filed by Mike
D'Andrea and Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Gloucester County. The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006
alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain of the
Company's homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey building
codes and are a potential safety issue. On December 14, 2011, the
Superior Court granted class certification; the potential class is
1,065 homes. The Company Defendants filed a request to take an
interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification decision.
The Appellate Division denied the request, and the Company
Defendants filed a request for interlocutory review by the New
Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the
Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May
8, 2012. The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments
on December 4, 2012, reviewing the Superior Court's original
finding of class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Appellate
Division affirmed class certification. On July 3, 2013, the
Company Defendants appealed the June 2013 Appellate Division's
decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which elected not to
hear the appeal on October 22, 2013. The plaintiff class was
seeking unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to
the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company Defendants' motion to
consolidate an indemnity action they filed against various
manufacturer and sub-contractor defendants to require these
parties to participate directly in the class action was denied by
the Superior Court; however, the Company Defendants' separate
action seeking indemnification against the various manufacturers
and subcontractors implicated by the class action is ongoing. The
Company Defendants, the Company Defendants' insurance carriers and
the plaintiff class agreed to the terms of a settlement on May 15,
2014 in which the plaintiff class will receive a payment of $21
million in settlement of all claims, with the majority of the
settlement being funded by the Company Defendants' insurance
carriers, which settlement is subject to Court approval.


HUDSON NEWS: "Nabi" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Nabi and Rifat Rizvi, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and Class members v. Hudson News Company,
Hudson Group LLC, Hudson Group (HG) Retail, LLC, Airport
Management Services, LLC, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 14-cv-4635
(S.D.N.Y, June 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Hudson News Company, Hudson Group LLC, Hudson Group Retail, LLC,
Airport Management Services, LLC, operate over 600 stores in over
70 locations across North America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERTEK: Recalls LED Lamps With Counterfeit cETLus Mark
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Posting date:             June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Suspected quality concern
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40149

Affected products: LED Lamps

The recall involves LED lamps that bear a counterfeit Intertek
Testing Services (cETLus) certification mark.  The products were
manufactured by Lonyung LED Lighting Company, Ltd and are
identified by model LY-T8L-1200-22W.  The lamps are missing the
ETL control number adjacent to the ETL certification mark.

The LED lamps bear a counterfeit cETLus certification mark and
have not been evaluated by Intertek. It is unknown if the lamps
are in compliance with the applicable safety standard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these lamps.

The units sold are manufactured in China and the time period sold
is unknown.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Lonyung LED Lighting Company, Ltd.
                    China

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled LED lights
and dispose of them in their regular household garbage.


JOS A BANK: "Camasta" Appeals Dismissal of Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Edward Camasta has appealed the dismissal of the First
Amended Class Action Complaint it filed over Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers, Inc.'s advertising of its normal retail prices to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according
to the company's June 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2014.

On August 29, 2012, Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed
a putative class action complaint (the "Original Camasta
Complaint") against the Company in the Circuit Court of the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Case No.
12CH4405). The Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (Case No. 12 CV 7782). The Original Camasta Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's pattern and
practice of advertising its normal retail prices as temporary
price reductions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The Original Camasta Complaint seeks, among other
relief, certification of the case as a class action, actual and
punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief.
On February 7, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S.
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing
the Original Camasta Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice.
On March 1, 2013, Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint in the said United States District Court making
substantially the same allegations as in the Original Camasta
Complaint. On July 25, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the
said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice. Camasta has appealed the dismissal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


JOS A BANK: Moves to Dismiss Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Class Action Complaint by Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents, according to the
company's June 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the "Johnson
Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action complaint (the
"Original Johnson Complaint") against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District
(Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Original Johnson Complaint alleges,
among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by the
Company relating to its use of the words "free" and "regular
price." The Original Johnson Complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including
attorneys' fees). On January 8, 2014, upon the motion of the
Company, the U.S. District Court issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing the Original Johnson Complaint in its entirety, without
prejudice. On January 31, 2014, the Johnson Plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court
making substantially the same allegations as the Original Johnson
Complaint. On February 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously. (The law firm which
filed the original Johnson Complaint and amended complaint on
behalf of the plaintiffs is one of the law firms which filed the
"Schneider Complaint," which is discussed in the company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May
4, 2013. On July 24, 2013, the Schneider Complaint was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio. Approximately one week later,
the substantially similar Johnson Complaint was filed in United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.)


JOS A BANK: Lawsuit by Boston Retirement System Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The suit State-Boston Retirement System v. Wildrick, et al., C.A.
No. 9291 remains in the Delaware Court of Chancery, according to
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.'s June 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 3, 2014.

On January 29, 2014, State-Boston Retirement System ("Boston"), a
purported Company stockholder, filed a purported class action
complaint against the Company's directors (the "Boston
Defendants") in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned State-
Boston Retirement System v. Wildrick, et al., C.A. No. 9291. In
its complaint, Boston asks the court to: (i) certify a purported
class action lawsuit, designating Boston and Boston's counsel as
representatives of the purported class; (ii) declare that the
Boston Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
care to the Company; (iii) enjoin the Boston Defendants from
committing any further purported fiduciary duty breaches; (iv)
enjoin the effectuation of the Company's Rights Agreement, forcing
the Board to redeem or invalidate the Rights Agreement; (v) enjoin
the Boston Defendants from entering into any agreement on behalf
of the Company to acquire another company or material assets; (vi)
award Boston costs, expenses and disbursements of the Boston
litigation, including attorneys' and experts' fees and, if
applicable, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and (v) award
Boston and the purported class such other relief as the court
deems just, equitable, and proper.

On March 4, 2014, Boston filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint that purports to raise direct claims against the
Boston Defendants (the "Amended Boston Complaint"). In addition to
the allegations, the Amended Boston Complaint, among other things,
alleges that the Boston Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by moving forward with the Everest Transactions (hereinafter
defined) while failing to give good-faith consideration of a
revised offer from Java (hereinafter defined) to acquire all
outstanding Shares (hereinafter defined) at a price of $63.50 per
share. In addition to the requests mentioned, the Amended Boston
Complaint asks the court to (i) determine that the action is a
proper derivative action and to excuse demand, and (ii) enjoin the
Company from consummating the Everest Transactions. On March 11,
2014, the Company, Men's Wearhouse (hereinafter defined) and Java
entered into the Merger Agreement and the Company terminated the
Everest Purchase Agreement (hereinafter defined). The Company
believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend
against them vigorously.


JOS A BANK: Faces Suit for Requiring Personal Info Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. faces a suit in the Superior Court
Department Business Litigation Session for Suffolk County,
Massachusetts for allegedly requiring personal identification
information from buyers who are using credit card to make a
purchase, according to the company's June 6, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On May 8, 2014, Nicholas Derby, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
(the "Derby Complaint") against the Company in the Superior Court
Department Business Litigation Session for Suffolk County,
Massachusetts (C.A. No. 14-1512 BLS). The Derby Complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company violated Massachusetts law
through its practice of requiring, as a condition of using a
credit card to make a purchase, plaintiff's and class members'
personal identification information, specifically their ZIP codes.
The Derby Complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification, declaratory relief, statutory damages, double or
treble damages, litigation expenses and attorneys' fees.


LAZY ONE: Recalls Children's Bathrobes Due to Flammability Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Posting date:             June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40089

Affected products: Children's bathrobes

The recall involves the Lazy One Brown Bear children's bathrobe,
identified by model number BR077.  The robes are made of 100%
polyester and come in sizes youth small, youth medium, youth large
and youth x-large.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that these products do not meet the flammability requirements for
children's sleepwear under Canadian law.

Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources
such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than
tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly,
potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the
child's body.  For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose-
fitting sleepwear.

Neither Health Canada nor Lazy One has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
bathrobes.

For information on what makes safe sleepwear, visit the Healthy
Canadians children's sleepwear page.

Approximately 880 of the recalled products were sold in Canada by
various retailers.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
July 2010 to June 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Lazy One
                    Langley
                    British Columbia
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected robes and
contact Lazy One for an exchange of equal value.


LABORERS' JOINT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Benton Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Benton, 7216 Flower Avenue, Apt. #4, Takoma Park, MD 20912 v.
Laborers' Joint Training Fund, 5332 1st Place NE, Washington, DC
20011 and James Anastase, 5332 1st Place NE, Washington, DC 20011
Case No. 1:14-cv-01073 (D.D.C., June 25, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Laborers' Joint Training Fund is a labor organization and
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip B. Zipin, Esq.
      Jason Friedman, Esq.
      THE ZIPIN LAW FIRM, LLC
      836 Bonifant Street,
      Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      Email: pzipin@zipinlaw.com
             jfriedman@zagfirm.com


LOANUP.COM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pacleb" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Florence Pacleb, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Loanup.com, and Does 1 Through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-04932-GW-MRW (C.D.
Cal., June 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Loanup.com provides loan services in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA. 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumer.com
              nbontrager@attorneyforconsumers.com

        - and -

      L. Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF L. PAUL MANKIN, IV
      8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (800) 219-3577
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com


MAZDA: Recalls 2,411 MAZDA6 and RX-8 Cars Due to Airbag Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 23, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           2411
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014245
TC ID number:             2014245
Manufacturer recall
number:                   7714F

On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury.  This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment.  Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant.

Dealers will replace the passenger airbag inflator.

Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 2013112.

Affected products: 2004 MAZDA6 and RX-8


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Lucas" Suit to Tennessee District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Lucas v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT- 002833-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby
County, Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02503-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Joshua Lucas alleges that he was injured by his
physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek
USA, Inc.'s Infuse(R) Bone Graft device.  Infuse is a Class III
medical device whose design, manufacturing method, and labeling
were specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration
pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Renfro, Esq.
          BECKER LAW OFFICE
          9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 581-1122
          E-mail: krenfro@beckerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600

               - and -

          Laura Yaeger, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MRB INC: "Park" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Parks, Brittany Freeman, Krissy Bell, Jasmine Duckett, and
Lisa Harper, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MRB, Inc., a Georgia for profit corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-01996 (N.D. Ga., June 25, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

MRB, Inc., owns and operates several retail business
establishments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      Todd Kevin Maziar, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      P.O. Box 4979, 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600,
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
              tmaziar@forthepeople.com


NEW YORK TIMES: Faces Class Action Over Subscription Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that The New York Times
Co., Dow Jones & Co. Inc. and Forbes Inc. have been hit with a
class action in New York federal court claiming they provided
subscriber lists to fraudsters who collected inflated subscription
renewal fees and pocketed the extra money.

The three news media companies provided subscription lists to
Circulation Billing Services, an outside vendor, which then sent
official-looking renewal notices to the subscribers with prices
higher than the newspapers' real renewal fees, according to a
complaint filed on June 23 on behalf of plaintiff I. Stephen
Rabin.  Circulation Billing would then pay the actual renewal fees
directly to the newspapers and keep the excess funds.

Despite being aware of the fraudulent activity, the newspaper
companies turned a blind eye to Circulation Billing's activities
on their behalf and failed to notify their subscribers, the
complaint says.

"Defendants have knowingly permitted the names of their
publications to be used by fraudsters to scam their subscribers,
so they could profit from maintaining their subscriber lists
inexpensively and profit from the sale of their subscription lists
and other information," Mr. Rabin's complaint states.

Dow Jones-owned Barron's ran a full page ad in November alerting
subscribers to Circulation Billings' fraudulent activity, even
though the company had been aware of it for years at that point,
the complaint says.  A Dow Jones spokeswoman also said the Wall
Street Journal ran a similar ad at the same time.

Included with the complaint are a number of exhibits highlighting
prior media coverage of similar subscription scams, along with a
warning sent by Catholic Digest to their subscribers alerting them
of fraudulent activity by CBS on their behalf.  This documentation
makes the argument that sophisticated news media operations like
the New York Times, Dow Jones and Forbes weren't aware of
Circulation Billing's actions on their behalf implausible, the
complaint states.

"I fully believe that all of them were fully aware of these
activities, and they ignored it," attorney Raymond Bragar --
bragar@bespc.com -- who represents the proposed plaintiff class,
told Law360, referring to the defendants in the case.

The number of potential class members could be as high as tens of
thousands but cannot be accurately estimated at this time,
Mr. Bragar told Law360.  The proposed class would include anyone
who purportedly renewed subscriptions to or placed new orders with
the New York Times, Barron's, Forbes or the Dow Jones-owned Wall
Street Journal through CBS during a prescribed time period, states
the complaint.

Mr. Bragar told Law360 that he has little doubt the use of
fraudulent subscription renewal services like Circulation Billing
is a widespread practice and not just limited to the named
defendants in the suit, but said he is not currently involved in
or aware of any other litigation involving similar allegations
against other newspapers.

A spokeswoman for Dow Jones told Law360 that Rabin's suit was
"completely meritless" and that the company will defend against it
vigorously.

The plaintiffs are represented by Raymond A. Bragar of Bragar
Eagel & Squire PC.

The case is Rabin v. The New York Times Co. et al., case number
1:14-cv-04498, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


OAK BEVERAGES: Faces "Goris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elvin Goris and Jose Rosa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Oak Beverages, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-
4688 (S.D.N.Y, June 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and overtime premiums pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Oak Beverages, Inc., a wholesale beverage distributor
headquartered at 1 Flower Lane, Blauvelt, NY 10913.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


P F CHANG'S: Sued Over Stolen Customer Financial Data
-----------------------------------------------------
John Lewert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04787 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to secure and safeguard
its customers' personal financial data, including credit and debit
card information.

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., owns and operates over 200
restaurants in the United States under its Bistro brand, as well
as 170 restaurants under its Pei Wei brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
      Gregory W. Jones, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 267-1906
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              gbarbakoff@siprut.com
              gjones@siprut.com


PARIGI GROUP: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derwin Edwards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Parigi Group, 330 Warminster Avenue, Hatboro, PA 19030
and Corestaff, Inc., 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 716,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, Case No. 2:14-cv-03906 (E.D. Pa., June 25,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Parigi Group is a retail company located at 330 Warminster Avenue,
Hatboro, PA 19030 and at 112 W. 34th Street, 5th Floor, New York,
NY 10120.

CoreStaff, Inc. is staffing agency which maintains a principal
place of business located at 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 716,
Philadelphia, PA 19102.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
      MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
      1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 375-0961
                 (267) 273-1054
      Facsimile: (215)-525-0210
      E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


PEEKSKILL SCHOOL DISTRICT: Removed "Jackson" Suit to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jackson, et al. v. Peekskill City
School District, et al., Case No. 58805/2014, was removed from the
Supreme Court, County of Westchester, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (White Plains).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:14-cv-04774-VB to the
proceeding.

The case alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lewis R. Silverman, Esq.
          RUTHERFORD & CHRISTIE, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 599-5799
          Facsimile: (212) 599-5162
          E-mail: lrs@rutherfordchristie.com


PETROLOGISTICS LP: Fails to Conduct Fair Sale Process, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Maggi, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Petrologistics LP, Petrologistics GP
LLC, Propylene Holdings, LLC, Jaime Buehl-Reichard, Alan E.
Goldberg, Lance L. Hirt, Zalmie Jacobs, Phillip D. Kramer, Robert
D. Lindsay, David Lumpkins, Nathan L. Ticatch, John B. Walker,
Andrew S. Weinberg, Hallie A. Vanderhider, Sharon Spurlin, Flint
Hills Resources, LLC, and FHR Propylene, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-
1786 (S.D. Tex., June 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to fulfill its most basic obligation to conduct a full
and fair sale process to ensure that PetroLogistics' unit holders
receive the highest reasonably available value for their units of
PetroLogistics.

Petrologistics LP is a major producer of propylene and is the only
independent dedicated propylene producer in the United States.

Petrologistics GP LLC controls the day-to-day operations of
PetroLogistics and serves as its general partner.

Propylene Holdings, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
that wholly owns all of the issued and outstanding membership
interests in GP.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-7211

         - and -

      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      Ofer Ganot, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue,
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100


PFIZER INC: Key Plaintiffs Expert Can't Testify in Zoloft MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the road to victory for plaintiffs alleging that Pfizer's
antidepressant Zoloft causes birth defects has gotten steeper
since a federal judge barred the testimony of one of their key
expert witnesses.

After a week of Daubert hearings in April, U.S. District Judge
Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled this
week that Dr. Anick Berard's testimony would be excluded from
trial.

Zoloft is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that is
sometimes prescribed to pregnant women.  Mothers who took the drug
while pregnant and had babies with birth defects filed the suit.
Dr. Berard had done studies that would have supported their
argument that Zoloft had led to the birth defects.

"Dr. Berard opines that SSRIs, in general, and Zoloft, in
particular, cause a wide range of birth defects when used during
pregnancy," Judge Rufe said in her opinion.  "Other researchers in
her field have concluded that the epidemiological research on
which Dr. Berard relies provides no conclusive evidence of an
association between Zoloft and birth defects."

Some of those other researchers actually recommend Zoloft as a
first-line treatment for depression in pregnant women, the judge
said.

"This does not represent a mere professional difference of
opinion; Dr. Berard's opinions regarding Zoloft are only made
possible by her departure from use of well-established
epidemiological methods," Judge Rufe said.

Dr. Berard is a professor at the University of Montreal who
researches the effect of medications on pregnancy.  The field is
teratology and drugs that cause birth defects are called
teratogens.

Since traditional epidemiological studies can't ethically be done
on pregnant women, those who study that group calculate risk to
fetuses from drugs in other ways, Judge Rufe explained.

The judge found that Dr. Berard's methods weren't sturdy enough to
pass muster for the court.

"The court is particularly concerned about the risk of reaching an
erroneous conclusion using Dr. Berard's methodology," Judge Rufe
said.  "Dr. Berard opines that, although one cannot assume
teratogenicity from one weak association in one study, one can
assume teratogenicity based upon multiple weak associations found
across many studies."

"However, an equally plausible conclusion from multiple studies
finding only weak associations, not greater than one would expect
by chance, is that the true association is weak; so weak that one
cannot conclude that the risk is greater than that seen in the
general population.  This is, in fact, the conclusion most
researchers in Dr. Berard's field have reached regarding the
association between Zoloft and birth defects, even those cited by
Dr. Berard in support of her contrary opinion," Judge Rufe said.

The Daubert hearing -- named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and which allows parties in
the case to challenge expert testimony before the start of trial
-- focused mostly on Dr. Berard, who was an important expert
witness for the plaintiffs.

The defense, led by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's Mark
Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- characterized Dr.
Berard's method for citing to scientific studies as flawed,
arguing that she "cherry-picked" studies and disregarded ones that
didn't support her proposition that Zoloft can cause birth defects
in babies born to women who took the drug while pregnant.

"The court finds that the expert report prepared by Dr. Berard
does selectively discuss studies most supportive of her
conclusions, as Dr. Berard admitted in her deposition, and fails
to account adequately for contrary evidence, and that this
methodology is not reliable or scientifically sound," Judge Rufe
said in her opinion.

The judge later explained that "'cherry-picking' is always a
concern, but is of heightened concern in this case, where many of
Dr. Berard's conclusions and opinions were formulated by
identifying trends in odds ratio estimates selected from the
published literature, rather than being based upon replicated,
statistically significant odds ratio estimates.  The fact that her
conclusions are drawn from trends she observed in a self-selected
subset of supportive studies, not the totality of the
epidemiological evidence, further underscores her problematic
methodology."

Pfizer released a statement following the entry of Judge Rufe's
opinion, saying, "We are pleased the court found that the
plaintiffs' only epidemiology expert does not meet the necessary
standards for reliable testimony and ordered her exclusion from
the cases consolidated in the MDL.  The ruling is significant as
plaintiffs put their best science case forward, and after a full
evidentiary hearing, the court determined that 'her methods are
not scientifically sound.'"

Joanne Matusko of NastLaw, who is on the legal team for the
plaintiffs, couldn't be reached for comment.


PREVENT SEARCH: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Background Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keyona N. Bryant, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Prevent Search LLC, Case No. 1:14-CV-4706 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 25, 2014), arises from the alleged inaccurate, prejudicial,
misleading and illegal background reports performed by the
Defendant and sold to employers and prospective employers.

Prevent Search LLC, a consumer reporting agency located at 4714
Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam G. Singer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER
      1 Baker Lane,
      Suffern, NY 10901
      Telephone: (212) 842-2428
      Facsimile: (209) 844-2428
      E-mail: asinger2@alumni.law.upenn.edu

          - and -

     James A. Francis, Esq.
     John Soumjxas, 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: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsouniilas@consumerlawfirm.com


PROSPECT CAPITAL: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 27 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Prospect Capital Corporation and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-
3847 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Prospect Capital securities
between August 23, 2013 and May 6, 2014, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Prospect Capital securities
during the Class Period, you have until July 28, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Prospect Capital is a financial services company that primarily
lends to and invests in middle market privately-held companies.
The Company is a closed-end investment company that has filed an
election to be treated as a business development company under the
Investment Company Act of 1940.  The Company invests primarily in
senior and subordinated debt and equity of companies in need of
capital for acquisitions, divestitures, growth, development and
recapitalization.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
certain of Prospect Capital's wholly owned companies were
investment companies for accounting purposes that were required to
be consolidated by the Company; (2) as such, certain of Prospect
Capital's wholly owned holding companies should have been
accounted for as investment companies; (3) as a result, the
Company's reported investment income and financial results were
misstated; (4) as such, the Company's financial statements were
not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"); (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal
and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 6, 2014, after the market close, the Company filed its Form
10-Q with the SEC and announced that the SEC's staff had asserted
that some of the Company's wholly owned companies are investment
companies for accounting purposes and must be consolidated.  The
Company announced that the Company may have to restate its prior
financial statements to resolve the issue. One potential effect of
a restatement would be to decrease the Company's historical net
investment income by the amount of interest and structuring income
paid by such wholly-owned companies in excess of the amount of
income that can be reported as dividend income based on taxable
earnings and profits.

On this news, shares of Prospect Capital declined $0.54 per share,
over 5%, to close on May 7, 2014, at $10.20 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


SALAAM BOMBAY: "Samuel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prabir Samuel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Salaam Bombay, Inc. d/b/a Salaam Bombay, Pratishtha, Inc. d/b/a
Yuva, Ramesh Shah and Yuva Kedar Shah, Case No. 1:14-cv-04633
(S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Salaam Bombay, Inc., is a restaurant located in Lower Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


SATELLITES UNLIMITED: Does Not Pay OT, "Burkhauler" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Jovan Burkhauler, and Zackery Davis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Satellites Unlimited,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00491 (S.D. Miss., June 25, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Satellites Unlimited, Inc., is a contractor for Dish Network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis H. Watson, Jr., Esq.
      WATSON & NORRIS, LLC
      1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G
      Jackson, MI
      Telephone: (601) 968-0000
      Facsimile: (601) 968-0010
      E-mail: mick@watsonnorris.com


SETRA: Recalls S407CC & S417TC Bus Models Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           5
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014249
TC ID number:             2014249

On certain buses, an electrical overload could occur in the
control unit of the fog and cornering lights.  This could
potentially result in a fire increasing the risk of injury and/or
damage to property.

Dealers will replace the control unit.  The recall supersedes TC
recall no. 2013-326.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model      Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----      ----------------------
   SETRA                 2011, 2012
   SETRA      S407CC     2012


SINO-FOREST CORP: Reaches Partial Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on June 27 disclosed that there
has been a partial settlement reached in several class action
lawsuits pending in Canada and the United States brought on behalf
of purchasers of securities in Sino-Forest Corporation.  The total
settlement is in the amount of C$4.2 million (approximately US$3.9
million).  Named plaintiffs in the Canadian class actions, along
with Lead Plaintiffs in the U.S. class action, reached the
settlement with David J. Horsley, a former officer of SFC, in May
2014.

On March 30, 2012, SFC obtained creditor protection in Canada
under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice ordered a stay of proceedings against
the company and other parties.  The CCAA Proceeding was recognized
by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York on February 4, 2013, and subsequently a settlement for
C$117 million with Ernst & Young was approved by the Ontario Court
and recognized by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

If approved and recognized, the Horsley Settlement will be funded
through the Sino-Forest Canadian class actions and held in escrow
for the benefit of the Canadian Class and the U.S. Class.  The
distribution of the settlement fund will be subject to a further
order of the Ontario Court.

The final approval hearing for the Horsley Settlement will take
place on July 24, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (EST), before the Ontario
Court.  A simultaneous hearing relating to recognition of the
final approval order will take place in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The Courts will likely be linked by video conference.  Objections
to the approval of the Horsley Settlement and/or the recognition
of that approval in the United States must be filed by July 17,
2014 with the respective courts.

A notice regarding the details of the Horsley Settlement has been
sent to class members in the United States and Canada.  If you
have not received one or if you would like further information on
the Horsley Settlement and the SFC class actions, visit:
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/274/sino-forestor contact
Richard Speirs of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC at 88 Pine
Street, New York, New York 10005, (212) 838-7797.

Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC --
http://www.cohenmilstein.com-- is a national leader in plaintiff
class action lawsuits and litigation.  As one of the premier firms
in the country handling major complex cases, Cohen Milstein, with
80 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., New York,
Philadelphia, Chicago, and Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.


SKADDEN ARPS: Plumbers Seek Docs Related to Dana Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, et al., ask the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to compel
third-party Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP to produce
documents responsive their subpoenas.

Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, West Virginia
Laborers Pension Trust Fund and Hawaii Ironworkers Annuity Trust
Fund are the lead plaintiffs/class representatives in two federal
securities actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the former top executives and
senior management of Dana Corporation.  The Actions are:

   (1) Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund et al. v.
       Burns et al, N.D. Ohio Civil Action No. 3:05 cv 07393-JGC,
       in which West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund is also
       a lead plaintiff/class representative; and

   (2) Hawaii Ironworkers Annuity Trust Fund v. Cole et al.,
       N.D. Ohio Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00371-JGC.

The Actions have been consolidated for purposes of discovery.  On
January 16, 2014, the Plaintiffs in both Actions issued identical
subpoenas to Skadden for certain documents pertaining to an
independent investigation Skadden conducted on behalf of Dana's
Audit Committee in connection with accounting improprieties at
Dana, which resulted in a restatement of Dana's financial
statements.

The Actions arise out of the accounting improprieties at Dana,
which resulted in a $31.6 million restatement of Dana's financial
results for 2004 and the first and second quarters 2005.  The
Defendants in the two cases are the former CEO and CFO of Dana and
several top officers and senior executives, who oversaw the
Commercial Vehicle Group where the majority of the accounting
impropriates occurred.

The Plaintiffs are seeking to compel Skadden to produce written
notes from interviews it conducted of the Defendants and current
and former Dana employees as part of an independent investigation
Skadden undertook on behalf of the Dana Audit Committee.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Dowd, Esq.
          Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
          Laurie L. Largent, Esq.
          Maureen E. Mueller, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: miked@rgrdlaw.com
                  debraw@rgrdlaw.com
                  llargent@rgrdlaw.com
                  mmueller@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Barz, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 674-4674
          Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
          E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Louis P. Malone III, Esq.
          O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP
          4748 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 362-0041
          Facsimile: (202) 362-2640

Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP is represented by:

          Rona Gail Shamoon, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-2833
          Facsimile: (917) 777-2833
          E-mail: rona.shamoon@skadden.com

The case is Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund, et al.
v. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Docket No. 1:14-mc-
00197-P1, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


SOUTHERN UNITED: Faces "Anthony" Suit in Texas Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Anthony, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Southern United Neighborhoods and Local 100 United Labor
Unions, Case No.: 4:14-cv-01787 (S.D. Tex., June 25, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Southern United Neighborhoods offers assistance to low income
families by creating affordable housing programs, providing
financial literacy trainings, hosting community health fairs, and
helping individuals obtain affordable health care coverage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, Texas 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: Charles@rosslawgroup.com


STAR FARMS: Accused of Violating Agricultural Worker Protect Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juana Armijo, and those similarly situated v. Star Farms, Inc.,
and Angelo Palombo, Case No. 1:14-cv-01785-MJW (D. Colo.,
June 27, 2014) alleges violations of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protect Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Frank Siegel, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE-BOULDER
          1434 Spruce Street, Suite 100
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (970) 343-4464
          Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
          E-mail: ed@towardsjustice.org

               - and -

          Alexander Neville Hood, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE-GOLDEN
          601 16th Street, Suite C-207
          Golden, CO 80401
          Telephone: (720) 239-2606
          Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
          E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org


STILE PRODUCTS: Recalls Tern Folding Bicycles
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 24, 2014
Posting date:             June 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40225

Affected products: 2011/2012 Tern folding bicycles models: Link
Uno, Link D7i, Link D8, Link P9, Link P7i, and Link P24h

The recall includes some 2011 and 2012 Link Uno, Link D7i, Link
D8, Link P9, Link P7i, and Link P24h Tern Folding Bicycle models.
These models were sold in black/grey, dark grey/light grey,
black/blue, white/pink, grey/orange, black/red, and black/green
color combinations.  "Tern" is printed on the front end of the top
tube and on other portions of the frame.

The model name is printed on the middle of the top tube.  The
frame has a 10-character alphanumeric serial number that begins
with AI1133 to AI1137 or AI1151 to AI1213.  The serial number is
stamped on the bottom bracket shell of the bike.  An alphanumeric
service tag number is located on the front of the seat tube.

The frames have a potential to crack at the hinge located on the
top tube, posing a fall hazard.

Stile Products is aware of 11 incidents involving the affected
models outside of North America, five of which involved minor
injuries.  Stile Products has received no reports within Canada of
the frames cracking or any injuries.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these bicycles.

There were 19 bicycles sold in Canada and approximately 650
bicycles were sold in the United States.

The recalled bicycles were manufactured in China and sold between
November 2011 and April 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Taicang A&I Medical Appliances Co.
                    China

   Distributor      Stile Products, Inc.
                    Lakewood
                    California
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles and contact
Stile Products or take the bicycles to an authorized dealer.
Consumers will receive a free replacement frame and have it
installed at no cost or they can upgrade their bike to one of
three designated models at an additional cost.


SUNRISE COMMUNITY: Faces "Veras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Veras, Marisol Sierra, Julya Tandiama, Nicolette Redwood
and other similarly situated v. Sunrise Community, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-22373 (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sunrise Community, Inc., is a facility that provides mental health
treatment and support programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Daeha Crackers Due to Undeclared Egg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           T-Brothers Food And Trading Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly
                          National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8974

T-Brothers Food & Trading Ltd. is recalling Daeha brand crackers
from the marketplace because they contain egg which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to egg should not
consume the recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


TAHA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Shangrila Naturals Peach Juice
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Taha International Inc.
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8967

Affected products: 1.5 L. Shangrila Naturals Peach Juice where
sulphites are not properly declared on the label


TJX CANADA: Recalls Spiderman Water Bottle
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 23, 2014
Posting date:             June 23, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40169

Affected products: Spiderman Water Bottle

The recall involves a water bottle that has a Spiderman figurine
attached on top of the bottle.  The recalled water bottle is
identified by the following model number: SPTU7ZA.

The figurine on top of the water bottle is attached using 3
screws.  The screws may become detached and fall into the cup
posing a choking hazard.

Neither TJX Canada nor Health Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products in Canada.

Approximately 286 water bottles have been sold at Winners and
Marshalls locations across Canada.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold in May
2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Winners Merchants International LP
                Mississauga
                Ontario
                Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected water bottle
and return them to any Winners or Marshalls Canada store for a
full refund.


TJX COMPANIES: Removed "Roberts" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Roberts v. The TJX
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CA-000464, was removed from
the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial, Clay County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00746-BJD-MCR
to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY, MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Ave S, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: gegleston@gme-law.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY & MCKENNA
          295 Madison Ave., 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmlaw2001@yahoo.com

               - and -

          William J. Sheppard, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, WHITE & KACHERGUS, PA
          215 Washington St.
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 356-9661
          Facsimile: (904) 356-9667
          E-mail: sheplaw@att.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron Jarett Reed, Esq.
          Brigid A. Patrick, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          333 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: areed@littler.com
                  bpatrick@littler.com


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Still Faces Suit Over Motor Fuel Temp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC reveals at its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2013 that the only case over motor fuel temperature
in which TA remains a defendant is the case in which one remaining
plaintiff is pursuing non-California claims.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the company's predecessor and the company's
subsidiaries, in U.S. district courts in over 20 states. Major
petroleum refiners and retailers were named as defendants in one
or more of these lawsuits. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
generally alleged that they are retail purchasers who purchased
motor fuel at temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale. One theory alleged that the plaintiffs purchased
smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which defendants
charged them because the defendants measured the amount of motor
fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher temperatures,
contain less energy. A second theory alleged that fuel taxes are
calculated in temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are
collected by governmental agencies from suppliers and wholesalers,
who are reimbursed in the amount of the tax by the defendant
retailers before the fuel is sold to consumers. These "tax" cases
allege that, when the fuel is subsequently sold to consumers at
temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell a greater volume
of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax, and therefore reap
unjust benefit because the customers pay more tax than the
retailer pays. A third theory alleged that all purchasers of fuel
at any temperature are harmed because the defendants do not use
equipment that adjusts for temperature or disclose the temperature
of fuel being sold, and thereby deprive customers of information
they allegedly require to make an informed purchasing decision.
All of these cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas pursuant to multi-district litigation
procedures. On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled that, with respect
to two cases originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief (implementation of
fuel temperature equipment and/or posting of notices regarding the
effect of temperature on fuel). On January 19, 2012, the Court
amended its prior ruling, and certified a class with respect to
plaintiffs' claims for damages as well. A TA entity was named in
one of those two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named
plaintiffs were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA. TA
was thereafter dismissed from the Kansas case. Several defendants
in the Kansas cases, including major petroleum refiners, have
entered into multi-state settlements. Following a September 2012
trial against the remaining defendants in the Kansas cases, the
jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of those Kansas
defendants, and the judge likewise ruled in the Kansas defendants'
favor on the sole non-jury claim. In early 2013, the Court
announced its intention to remand three cases originally filed in
federal district courts in California back to their original
courts. On April 9, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in connection with the California claims in
the California cases. On August 14, 2013, the Court granted
summary judgment for the defendants with respect to all California
claims in the California cases, and in February 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California entered
judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to those claims.
The plaintiffs in the California cases all dismissed their non-
California claims against TA, except for one individual plaintiff,
who continues to assert claims based on purchases of fuel in
states other than California. In January 2014, TA was dismissed
with prejudice in all the non-California cases in all states in
which it remained a defendant at that time. Therefore, the only
case in which TA remains a defendant is the case in which one
remaining plaintiff is pursuing non-California claims.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Settlement Hearing Set for July 14
------------------------------------------------------------
A July 14, 2014 hearing is scheduled to consider the final
approval of a $130,000,000 settlement agreed by independent truck
stop owners with Comdata Network, Inc. and TravelCenters of
America LLC, according to TravelCenters' Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add the company as a defendant, which was allowed on
March 25, 2010. The amended complaint also added as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc. Comdata markets fuel cards which are
used for payments by trucking companies at truck stops. The
amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards. The plaintiffs have sought unspecified
damages and injunctive relief. On March 24, 2011, the Court
dismissed the claims against TA in the amended complaint, but
granted plaintiffs leave to file a new amended complaint. Four
independent truck stop owners, as plaintiffs, filed a new amended
complaint against the company on April 21, 2011, repleading their
claims.

On May 6, 2011, the company renewed the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint with prejudice while discovery otherwise
proceeded. The Court denied the company's renewed motion to
dismiss on March 29, 2012, and the company filed an answer to the
complaint on April 30, 2012. During December 2013, the company
entered into settlement discussions among the co-defendants and
the plaintiffs that continued into 2014. On February 28, 2014, the
company entered into a Definitive Master Class Settlement
Agreement with the plaintiffs, or the settlement agreement. The
settlement agreement provides for the Company and the co-
defendants to pay an aggregate of $130,000,000 to a settlement
fund for class members, including $10,000,000 from the company, in
exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and
the unconditional release of all claims that class members brought
or could have brought against the company and the co-defendants
with respect to the litigation and related actions. The settlement
agreement is subject to the approval of the Court. On March 17,
2014, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement,
authorized notice to the class and scheduled a hearing for July
14, 2014, to consider the final approval of the settlement. The
company recognized a $10,000,000 loss in connection with this
matter in December 2013 and made the cash payment in March 2014.


TRIBECA FOOD: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qi Chun Chen, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
v. Tribeca Food Group LLC d/b/a Koko Asian Fusion Restaurant,
Kenneth Yin, Xin Yin and Yee Yun Fung Tang, Case No. 1:14-CV-04634
(S.D. N.Y., June 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Tribeca Food Group LLC, restaurant located at 120 Greenwich
Street, New York, NY 10006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee (CL 4086)
      Anne Seelig (AS 3976)
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Boston for Misclassifying Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Farrell, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that
adding to the growing list of challenges facing Uber Technologies
Inc. , a well-known Boston labor lawyer is suing the upstart car
service claiming that it is exploiting drivers.

The suit filed on June 26 in Suffolk County Superior Court in
Boston by Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has won major labor lawsuits
representing Starbucks baristas, house cleaners, skycaps, and
exotic dancers, accuses Uber of misclassifying its drivers as
independent contractors to avoid paying them the same as employees
with benefits.

The suit also accuses Uber of not giving drivers all the money
they receive in gratuities from riders, that the company "retains
a portion of the gratuity for itself."  That alleged conduct
violates the Massachusetts tips law, said Ms. Liss-Riordan.

"By not classifying its drivers as employees, Uber is shifting the
expenses of running a business to its workers," Ms. Liss-Riordan
said. "Making the workers pay for these business expenses saves
Uber an enormous amount of money."

Ms. Liss-Riordan filed the case on behalf of an Uber driver,
Hakan Yucesory of Brookline, but is seeking class action status so
the case could apply to other drivers.

Uber releases few statistics about its business: It does not, for
example, disclose how many drivers are in the service.  But in May
Uber said is "generating 20,000 new driver jobs every month"
worldwide.  It now operates in 38 countries, including 77 cities
in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

In one online post on the company's website Uber boasted that its
drivers can make $90,000 in New York and $74,000 in San Francisco.
Ms. Liss-Riordan said those figures do not take into account the
expenses the drivers incur as independent contractors that the
company would otherwise foot if they were treated as employees.

Launched four years ago in San Francisco, Uber makes a smartphone
app that riders use to hail a private car service.  The company
describes itself as a software platform that its "partners" -- not
drivers -- use to build their own small businesses.

But Ms. Liss-Riordan said Uber is at heart a transportation
service whose drivers provide its core function and should be
treated as regular employees with protections and rights under
state law.

"It's these so-called new technology companies that are using old-
school methods to keep their workers from having their rights
under the law," she said.  "It's the newest spin to avoid employee
classification."

Uber spokesman Taylor Bennett said that while the company would
not comment on the lawsuit, "I can tell you that Uber will
vigorously defend the rights of riders to enjoy competition and
choice, and for drivers to build their own small business."

Ms. Liss-Riordan filed a similar labor suit against Uber on behalf
of six drivers in US District Court in California, where the
company is based.

The federal judge presiding in that case in June issued an order
forcing Uber to allow drivers to opt out of an arbitration clause
in their contract with the company.  That clause prevents drivers
from joining Ms. Liss-Riordan's class action lawsuit.

If Ms. Liss-Riordan wins the case in Boston or California, Uber
may be forced to change a key part of its business model.

"If their drivers are classified as employees then that suddenly
makes their business model untenable," said Denise Cheng, a
research assistant at the MIT Center for Civic Media.

Ms. Cheng studies the growth of the so-called peer-to-peer economy
in which companies such as Uber act as middlemen and use software
to link customers with service providers, whether they're drivers,
housecleaners, or even fitness coaches.

Uber is perhaps the highest profile example of a company that fits
into the peer economy category.  If these services continue to
grow, Cheng said states should consider a new hybrid employment
classification for the people providing the labor.

"There needs to be a third classification that eases the
transition between being a freelancer and being an employee," she
said.

Massachusetts has some of the most stringent employment laws in
the country.  Under state law, for workers not to be considered
employees they must be engaged in activities that are "outside the
usual course of business of the employer."

Ms. Liss-Riordan has made a career of going after companies over
Massachusetts employee classification and other labor laws.

Over the past decade she has filed numerous cases against FedEx
Ground Package System Inc. over its classification of drivers as
contractors.  The company has argued it is a "sophisticated
information and distribution network" and not a delivery company
required to treat drivers as employees.  She has settled suits
with FedEx in some states, but her firm has an ongoing case
against it in Massachusetts, Montana, and Pennsylvania.

Her biggest judgment came in a lawsuit against Starbucks.  In a
case over tipping practices at the coffee chain, Ms. Liss-Riordan
won $14 million for about 11,000 baristas.  A federal judge in
Boston ruled in 2012 that the chain was in violation of
Massachusetts law by letting shift supervisors take a cut of the
pooled tips.

Adored by techies and many urban professionals, Uber has garnered
plenty of enemies, too.  Taxi companies and regulators around the
United States have accused the company of running an unlicensed
car service and ignoring government rules put in place to protect
riders.

One such lawsuit was filed last year against Uber by Boston Cab
Dispatch, a local taxi operator.  Ms. Liss-Riordan has also sued
Boston Cab for the same issue as her complaint against Uber --
that it is misidentifying drivers as contractors instead of
employees.


UNITED STATES: Files Motion to Dismiss NSA Spying Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
defendants have filed their motion to dismiss in a lawsuit that
alleges the National Security Agency conducted surveillance and
intelligence-gathering programs that collected data from American
citizens.

As an initial matter, the court should dismiss this case on
grounds of claim-splitting, according to the memo.

"(T)he complaint in this case is a near carbon copy of the
complaint in Klayman v. Obama, Civ. No. 13-0881 (Klayman II),
overlaps substantially with the complaint in Klayman v. Obama,
Civ. No. 13-0851 (Klayman I), and can only be explained as an
attempt to evade the deadline under the local rules to move for
class certification in those two cases," the memo states.

"Plaintiffs cannot maintain more than one action involving the
same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against
the same defendants."

The plaintiffs' complaint also should be dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, according to the memo.

"They have not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that
information about their calls has been acquired or reviewed by the
NSA under the bulk telephony metadata program, and any fear they
might have that the NSA may in some way 'misuse' data allegedly
collected about their calls is neither a cognizable injury nor
fairly traceable to the program's actual operation."

Similarly, the plaintiffs have not established that the NSA
acquired or reviewed information about their communications under
the bulk Internet metadata program, nor can they seek prospective
injunctive relief when the program has been discontinued and the
collected data destroyed, according to the memo.

"As to PRISM collection of the communications of non-U.S. persons
located abroad, this court has already ruled, on almost identical
allegations, that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge
that program," the memo states.  "And Plaintiffs' vague and
speculative allegations about a claimed program they call
'MUSCULAR' are also insufficient to confer standing under Article
III."

The government's interest in identifying terrorist operatives and
intercepting their communications to prevent terrorist attacks is
a national security concern that far outweighs any residual
privacy interest that the plaintiffs may have in their
communications not already protected by the Fourth Amendment, and
by the same token outweighs any risk of erroneous deprivation of
that interest, according to the memo.

The NSA's collection of information about and the contents of
telephonic and electronic communications thus promotes a
governmental interest of the highest order, it says.

"Requiring the government, however, to provide advance notice to
every individual before acquiring information about his or her
communications would be incompatible with the secrecy required for
such intelligence-gathering programs, and fatal to their
objectives," the memo states.

The class action complaint was first filed on Jan. 23 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and named as
defendants the NSA; President Barack Obama; U.S. Attorney General
Eric Himpton Holder Jr.; Keith B. Alexander, the director of the
National Security Agency; Roger Vinson, a judge for the U.S.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; James Clapper, the
director of National Intelligence; John O. Brennan, the director
of the Central Intelligence Agency; James Comey, the director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Department of
Justice; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Central
Intelligence Agency.

Larry Klayman; Charles and Mary Ann Strange; Michael Ferrari; and
Matt Garrison claim the NSA began a classified surveillance
program to intercept the telephone communications of American
citizens and on June 5, The Guardian reported the first of several
"leaks" of classified material from Edward Snowden, a former NSA
contract employee.

The leaks revealed, and continue to reveal, multiple U.S.
government intelligence collection and surveillance programs,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim Mr. Vinson, acting in his official and
personal capacities and under the authority of Obama, Holder, the
FBI, the NSA and the DOJ, ordered that the Custodian of Records
"shall produce the production of tangible things from Verizon
Business Network Services Inc. on behalf of MCI Communication
Services . . . to the NSA and continue production on an ongoing
daily basis thereafter."

The U.S. Government, on the orders authorization of the president,
the attorney general, the DOJ and the NSA, obtained a top secret
court order that directs Verizon to turn over the telephone
records of more than 100 million Americans to the NSA on an
ongoing daily basis, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim Mr. Vinson ordered access to electronic
copies of all call detail records or "telephony metadata" created
by Verizon for communications between the United States and
abroad.

Telephony metadata includes "comprehensive communications routing
information, including but not limited to session identifying
information (e.g. originating and terminating telephone number,
International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number,
International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number,
etc.) trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers and time
and duration of call," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim to date, the defendants have not issued
substantive and meaningful explanations to the American people
describing what has occurred.

"Rather, on information and belief, the NSA, under the
authorization of President Obama, continues to engage in a
systematic program of warrantless eavesdropping upon phone and
email communications of hundreds of millions of individuals,
including American citizens and permanent legal residents, both
within and outside of the U.S.," according to the suit.

The NSA surveillance program collects not only the identities of
people's communications with the targets of surveillance, but also
the contents of those communications, the complaint says.
Such intrusive and illegal surveillance have directly impacted
each and every plaintiff, according to the suit.

"The revelation that the government has been carrying on
widespread warrantless interception of electronic communications
has impaired plaintiffs' ability to communicate via telephone,
email, and otherwise on the internet, out of fear that their
confidential, private, and often privileged communications are
being and will be overheard by the NSA's surveillance program,"
the complaint says.

The plaintiffs claim the risk and knowledge that the plaintiff's
telephonic and internet conversations may be overheard,
undoubtedly chills speech, in violation of the plaintiff's First
Amendment rights.  The defendants violated the plaintiffs' First,
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and caused them damages,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with
pre- and post-judgment interest in an amount in excess of $20
billion.  Mr. Klayman is representing himself and the rest of the
class.

The defendants are being represented by Assistant Attorney General
Stuart D. Delery, Federal Programs Branch Director Joseph H. Hunt,
Deputy Branch Director Anthony J. Coppolino, James J. Gilligan,
Marcia Berman, Bryan Dearinger, Rodney Patton, and Julia A. Berman
of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Richard J. Leon.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case number:
1:14-cv-00092


UTI WORLDWIDE: Faces Securities Litigation in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. faces a securities lawsuit filed by Michael J.
Angley in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's June 6, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

On March 17, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, Eric W. Kirchner and Richard G. Rodick
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Michael J. Angley, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. UTi Worldwide Inc., Eric W.
Kirchner and Richard G. Rodick, No. 5:14-cv-00508, purportedly on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's
common stock on the open market during the period from December 5,
2013 through February 25, 2014. The complaint generally alleges
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
misstating or failing to disclose, in certain public statements
made and in filings with the Securities Exchange Commission prior
to February 26, 2014, material facts relating to the Company's
liquidity position, financial condition, financial covenants and
freight forwarding operating system. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.


VERT CAPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben H. Droste, Individually and as Class Representative v. Vert
Capital Corp, and Wolff-Fording & Co., Case No. 3:14-cv00467 (E.D.
Va., June 25, 2014),  is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by
the Defendants, as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

Vert Capital Corp specializes in turning around struggling
businesses.

Wolff-Fording & Co., manufactures and sells dance costumes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Michael DeCamps, Esq.
      SANDS ANDERSON PC
      Bank of America Center
      1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400
      Richmond, VA
      Telephone: (804)783-7297
      E-Mail: mdecamps@sandsanderson.com

         - and -

      Charles A. Ercole, Esq.
      Lee D. Moylan, Esq.
      KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG, LLP
      1835 Market Street, 14th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215)569-2700
      E-Mail: cercole@klehr.com
              lmoylan@klehr.com


VESTAS WIND: Settles US Class Action for $5 Million
---------------------------------------------------
Vestas on March 21, 2011, disclosed that a lawsuit had been filed
in a US court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S, its US subsidiary
and certain of its officers and directors (ref. company
announcement No. 8/2011 of March 21, 2011).  A conditional
settlement of this dispute has now been reached with the lawyers
representing the purchasers of American Depositary Receipts and
ordinary shares in US domestic transactions during the period from
February 11, 2009 to February 9, 2012.  The claims against the
individual officer and director defendants have been dropped.

The settlement consists of a cash payment of USD5 million to the
plaintiffs and will resolve the US class action lawsuit.  The
settlement will be paid entirely by Vestas' insurer.

The settlement is subject to approval by a court in the USA and to
other conditions specified in the settlement documents.  A
preliminary decision is expected later this year, with a hearing
on final approval likely to be held by the end of 2014 or at the
beginning of 2015.

Among the allegations raised by the plaintiffs were that Vestas'
share price had been inflated during the class period due to
purported misstatements and omissions in relation to the company's
accounting for supply-and-installation contracts under IFRIC 15.

Vestas expressly denies all allegations in the claims and is
convinced that its disclosures to the public were appropriate at
all times.  Vestas therefore does not concede any wrongdoing or
liability in relation to the claims raised against it.
Nevertheless, Vestas believes that resolving the claims would be
desirable in order to end the substantial expenses, burdens and
uncertainties associated with a continued litigation in the USA.

Bert Nordberg, Chairman of the Board said: "We look forward to
putting this case behind us, which will allow us to continue our
focus on the operation of the business to the benefit of our
customers and our owners."

The settlement relates only to the above purchases of American
Depositary Receipts and ordinary shares bought in US domestic
transactions during the US class period.  The settlement has no
influence on other transactions or on the lawsuit that was filed
in the City Court of Aarhus by 87 shareholders in August 2013
(ref. company announcement No. 35/2013 of August 16, 2013).


VIOLIN MEMORY: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Violin Memory, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated
securities lawsuit filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's June 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company,
a number of the Company's present or former directors and
officers, and several underwriters of the Company's September 27,
2013 IPO. The four complaints have been consolidated into a
single, putative class action, and lead co-lead plaintiffs have
been appointed by the court. On March 28, 2014, a consolidated
complaint was filed. The complaint purports to assert claims under
the federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock issued in the IPO, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief. On April 18, 2014, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. That motion is
now pending before the court, and a hearing is scheduled for June
17, 2014. It is not known when the court will rule on the motion.


WAL-MART STORES: Certification, Awards in "Braun/Hummel" Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The upholding of the certification order and grant of awards in
the wage-and-hour suit Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is on
appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to the
company's June 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., a class-action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court
of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs
allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours
worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and
rest breaks. On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages
to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for
off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor
of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On November
14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the
approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest
accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per
annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was November
14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set
aside on appeal. On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice
of Appeal. The Company filed its opening appellate brief on
February 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed their response brief on April
20, 2009, and the Company filed its reply brief on June 5, 2009.
Oral argument was held before the Pennsylvania Superior Court of
Appeals on August 19, 2009. On June 10, 2011, the court issued an
opinion upholding the trial court's certification of the class,
the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties
and prejudgment interest, but reversing the award of attorneys'
fees. On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for
Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July
2, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's
Petition. The Company served its opening brief in the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court on October 22, 2012, plaintiffs served their
response brief on January 22, 2013, and the Company served its
reply on February 28, 2013. Oral argument was held in the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 8, 2013. No decision has been
issued.


WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces FCPA & Securities Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit in the US
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, alleging
violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA")
and sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to
the company's June 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2014.

The Company is a defendant in several lawsuits in which the
complaints closely track the allegations set forth in a news story
that appeared in The New York Times (the "Times") on April 21,
2012. One of these is a securities lawsuit that was filed on May
7, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, and subsequently transferred to the Western
District of Arkansas, in which the plaintiff alleges various
violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA")
beginning in 2005, and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating
to certain prior disclosures of the Company. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
stock of the Company between December 8, 2011, and April 20, 2012,
and seeks damages and other relief based on allegations that the
defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock. In addition,
a number of derivative complaints have been filed in Delaware and
Arkansas, also tracking the allegations of the Times story, and
naming various current and former officers and directors as
additional defendants. The plaintiffs in the derivative suits (in
which the Company is a nominal defendant) allege, among other
things, that the defendants who are or were directors or officers
of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
oversight of FCPA compliance. Most, but not all, of the derivative
suits have been combined into two consolidated proceedings, one of
which is currently pending in the Western District of Arkansas and
the other in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Securities Class Action: City of Pontiac General Employees
Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., USDC, Western Dist. of
AR, 5/7/12.


WAVECREST MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Waldron v. The Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., Case No. 1:14-
cv-04789 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2014) is brought to remedy unpaid
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, the New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Wavecrest is a full service management company, duly organized and
existing in the state of New York and headquartered in the County
of Queens, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin S. Clark, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3601
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
          E-mail: jclark@levineblit.com


WHITE-RODGERS: Recalls Home Heating & Cooling Thermostats
---------------------------------------------------------
Muscatine Journal reports that White-Rodgers is recalling home
heating and cooling thermostats sold nationwide and in Canada from
January 2006 to December 2013.  The alkaline batteries used in the
thermostat can leak onto the circuit board posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves four models of White-Rodgers digital
thermostats.

The thermostats are white with blue lighted screens and have one
of the following names printed on the front of them:
"COMFORTSENTRY," "DICO," "Emerson," "Frigidaire," "Maytag,"
"Nutone," "Partners Choice," "Rheem," "Ruud," "Unico," "Water
Furnace," "Westinghouse," "White-Rodgers" or "Zonefirst."

Consumers should contact White-Rodgers at 888-624-1901 from
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday or at
www.white-rodgers.com to receive a free repair or a replacement
thermostat.


WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Deadly Side Effects of Effexor
---------------------------------------------------------------
M.S, a deceased minor child by Christiane Schultz, Mother, and
Christiane Schultz, Individually v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
Wyeth, LLC; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals; Pfizer, Inc.; and Pfizer
International, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03967-CMR (E.D. Pa.,
June 27, 2014) alleges that the pharmaceutical drug Effexor,
Effexor XR(R) and venlafaxine is defective, dangerous to human
health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce
and lacked proper warnings as to the dangers associated with its
use.

Christiane Schultz, is the biological parent and guardian of
Matthew Schultz, a deceased minor, who was born on February 21,
2009, in British Columbia, Canada, and passed away on
February 21, 2009.  Ms. Schultz asserts that the Minor Plaintiff
was born with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn,
congenital brain defects, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake
inhibitor withdrawal and other related conditions as an alleged
result of her ingestion of Effexor manufactured by the Defendants
while living British Columbia, Canada.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Wyeth, LLC, formerly known as
Wyeth, Inc., formerly known as American Home Products Corporation,
are headquartered in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, and are
subsidiaries of Pfizer, Inc.  Wyeth Pharmaceuticals is a division
of Wyeth, Inc.  Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer International, LLC, are
Delaware corporations headquartered in New York City.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rosemary Pinto, Esq.
          Laura Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN & PINTO
          1604 Locust Street, 2R
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 546-2604
          Facsimile: (215) 546-9904
          E-mail: rpinto@feldmanpinto.com
                  Lfeldman@feldmanpinto.com


YUM YUM: Recalls La Cage Aux Sport Buffalo Chicken Wings Chips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Yum Yum Potato Chips Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8973

Affected products: 180 g. La Cage aux Sports Buffalo Chicken Wings
Chips


* Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac May Sue Servicers, LPI Providers
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Morgan, writing for DSNews.com, reports that in 2012,
lender-placed insurance issues cost Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a
combined $360 million, and now the federal government may take
legal action against servicers for charging excessive LPI rates,
according to a report released on June 25 by the Federal Housing
Finance Agency's Office of the Inspector General.

The report comes on the heels of several lawsuits -- most of which
have been settled out of court and for substantial amounts of
money -- that borrowers have filed against the nation's top
lenders in the past few years.  Wells Fargo and QBE, for example,
settled a class action suit in Florida last spring for $19 million
and agreed to reimburse or credit affected borrowers 25 percent of
any LPI premiums they assessed.

Last September, JPMorgan Chase and Assurant settled with a
nationwide class of borrowers for $300 million and agreed to
reimburse or credit affected borrowers 12.5 percent of any LPI
premiums they assessed.  And in February, Citibank and a class of
borrowers agreed to a $95 million settlement in which the lender
also agreed to reimburse or credit affected borrowers 12.5
percent.

The trouble itself stems from GSE-serviced mortgage holders
defaulting on Fannie/Freddie-required coverage.  Fannie and
Freddie's servicers are required to ensure that their client
homeowners maintain hazard insurance for the life of the mortgage.
These servicers often outsource the tracking of this insurance and
the payments to specialty insurers.

When an insurer identifies a payment lapse it initiates LPI
coverage, which homeowners are expected to keep up with.  However,
not all do, and in the event of a foreclosure Fannie and Freddie
get stuck with the bill.

In 2012 and 2013, insurance regulators in several states
determined that LPI rates in their respective states were
excessive and may have been driven up by profit-sharing
arrangements under which servicers were paid to steer business
toward LPI providers in the form of commission structures and
reinsurance deals.

This, of course, led to the class-action suits that have so far
amounted to $674 million in settlement payments.  Last November,
FHFA sought to mitigate financial harm to Fannie and Freddie by
directing them to prohibit their servicers from receiving LPI-
related commissions and entering into reinsurance arrangements
with LPI providers.  But those new rules did not take effect until
June 1 and the grand total for how much the GSE's are out due to
LPI-related issues is not yet clear.

FHFA is still considering whether Fannie and Freddie should pursue
litigation against servicers and LPI providers to recover
potential damages that the enterprises have lost cleaning up LPI-
related messes.


* Four Strains Linked to Salmonella Chia Outbreak in US, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety News reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada
has reported that, as of June 20, 2014, four strains of
Salmonella-causing illness have been associated with this
outbreak: Salmonella Newport, Salmonella Hartford, Salmonella
Oranienburg and Salmonella Saintpaul.

In total, 52 cases have been reported in British Columbia (13),
Alberta (10), Ontario (26) and Quebec (3).  Six cases have been
hospitalized; five cases have been discharged and have recovered
or are recovering.  The status of one case was not provided to the
agency.  No deaths have been reported.

The investigation is ongoing, but currently, 37 of 39 cases who
have been interviewed have reported consumption of sprouted chia
seeds or sprouted chia seed powder.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has reported that, as of June 9, 2014, a total of 21
ill persons infected with the outbreak strains of Salmonella
Newport (13 persons), Salmonella Hartford (6 persons), or
Salmonella Oranienburg (2 persons) have been reported from 12
states.

The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows:
Arizona (1), California (3), Colorado (1), Connecticut (3),
Florida (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), New York (4), Ohio
(1), Utah (1), Washington (1), and Wisconsin (3).  Two ill persons
infected with a strain of Salmonella Oranienburg have been
identified in two U.S. states.  Through product testing and
interviews with ill people, these illnesses have been combined
with the Salmonella Newport and Salmonella Hartford infections
previously identified as part of this investigation.

As a part of this investigation, the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have issued food
recall warnings for various products containing sprouted chia
seeds and sprouted chia seed powder.


                             *********

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  * * *