CAR_Public/140714.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 14, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 138

                             Headlines


200 NINTH RESTAURANT: Denied Equal Access to Facility, Suit Says
9TH AVE LIME: Faces "Hirsch" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Decker" Action Over Violation of FDCPA
AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Faces "Jones" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
ANNIE'S INC: Fails to Disclose Company's Business, Suit Claims

ANTELOPE VALLEY: Newspaper Carriers Obtain Favorable Ruling
ARCELORMITTAL SA: October 17 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
AUTOLIV INC: Inks Settlement in Michigan Antitrust Litigation
BABBO LLC: Fails to Provide Safe Entrance, Tetraplegic Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Costoso" Suit Over Payday Loans

BAYVIEW LOAN: Sued Over Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act
BRINDERSON CORP: Removed "Townsend" Suit to C.D. California
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Suit Over Injuries Related to Plavix
CAMPANIELLO SOHO: Has Denied Full Access to Amputee, Suit Claims
CANADA: Court Approves SISIP Class Action Settlement Agreement

CARMINE LIMITED: Fails to Pay Workers Under FLSA, Suit Claims
CASIMIR INC: Sued for Failing to Remove Architectural Barriers
CENTURYLINK INC: Subsidiary to Contest Remaining Fulghum Claims
CENTURYLINK INC: To Settle Right-Of-Way Complaints in 30 States
CHILDREN'S PLANET: Faces "Zapata" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CHINA CERAMICS: Accused of Disclosing Misleading Fin'l Reports
CHC HEALTH: "Fisher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties
CLEAN HARBORS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
COACH INC: Unpaid Interns File Class Action in New York
COLLECTION BUREAU: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

COLLEGE POINT: "Norris" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
CONAGRA FOODS: Class Cert. Denied in Product Labeling Suit
CONN'S INC: Faces Three Shareholder Litigations in Texas Court
COVISINT CORP: July 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY: Removed "Becerra" Suit to C.D. California

DIODES INC: Defendant in Pending Securities Violations Complaint
FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces Three New UTPCPL Complaints
FIRST MERCHANTS: Plaintiffs Did Not Seek Arbitration
FLAVMA INC: Sent Unsolicited Junk Faxes, Ill. Suit Claims
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: To Start Tank Teardown After Asbestos Woes

FTD COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for Racketeering Suit
FTD COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for RICO Complaint
FTD COMPANIES: Bid to Dismiss Complaints Under Court Submission
FTD COMPANIES: Court Consolidates RICO Suit With Trilegiant Suit
FTD COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for Trilegiant Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Delphi Head to Face Questioning in Crash Probe
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over False Claims on Cadillac Safety Ratings
GO NEW YORK: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GOULAS LLC: Calls Worker "Slave" & "Dog", Ariz. Suit Claims
HAFELE AMERICA: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA

HAMPTON, VA: "Terrill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HEALTHCARE STRATEGIES: Sept. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $76-Mil Bond Under Class Action
HONDA MOTORS: Acura Unit to Recall 14,078 Cars in U.S.
IDT ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Disclose Variable Rates

IKO MANUFACTURING: 7th Cir. Revives Roof Shingles Class Action
INFOBLOX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
LIBERTY CAPITAL: Sued in Ill. for Sending Junk Faxes
M & P INNOVATIVE: "Mainer" Suit Moved From M.D. to N.D. Georgia
MAXLINE REALTY: Refuses to Pay Workers Overtime, "Polo" Suit Says

MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Mayek" Suit to Tennessee District Court
METRO RAIL: COSATU to File Class Action Over Fare Increases
MICHAELS STORES: Class of Former Cal. Store Managers Decertified
MICHAELS STORE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Data Security Breach
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK

NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion
NICK'S PRODUCE: Accused of Unlawful Misappropriation of Assets
NIKE INC: Sued for Denying Full and Equal Access to Tetraplegic
NORTEX WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Jorge" Suit Says
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action

OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
PANTHER DRILLING: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PFIZER INC: New York Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
PJPA LLC: Doesn't Pay Minimum Wage to Delivery Drivers, Suit Says
RAINTREE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Laughlin" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime

RALPH LAUREN: Accused of Failing to Remove Barriers Under ADA
SAN ANTONIO, TX: Faces "Peden" Suit Over Breach of Equal Pay Act
SEARS HOLDINGS: Removed "Lucero" Labor Suit to S.D. California
STANLEY BLACK: Recalls About 108,000 Porter-Cable Routers
SUNOCO INC: Faces "Stern" Suit Over Higher Credit Card Charges

TRICO BANCSHARES: Paid $2,429,000 to Settle Branch Mangers' Suit
TRICO BANCSHARES: Defendant in North Valley Merger Complaint
TRUSTED TRADITIONS: "Kabasa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
WENDY'S OLD: Has Access Barriers at Various Properties, Suit Says
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Pre-Packaged Salads in 3 Northeastern States

* Consumers Have Until Aug. 1 to Claim Money in DRAM Settlement
* Cornerstone Research Names Michael E. Burton President & CEO


                            *********


200 NINTH RESTAURANT: Denied Equal Access to Facility, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. 200 Ninth Restaurant LLC, a New York limited
liability company, d/b/a The Meatball Shop, and 200 Chelsea Corp.,
a New York corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05099 (S.D.N.Y., July 8,
2014), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City
Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff is a tetraplegic, having suffered from Guillain-
Barre syndrome, and uses a wheelchair for mobility.  The Plaintiff
personally visited the Defendants' property, but was allegedly
denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of,
the facilities at the Defendants' Property.

200 Ninth Restaurant LLC, a New York limited liability company
doing business as The Meatball Shop, and 200 Chelsea Corp., a New
York corporation, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.  200 Ninth Restaurant LLC
is the lessee and operator of the real property and the owner of
the improvements where the subject facility is located.  200
Chelsea Corp., is the owner, lessor and operator of the real
property where the subject facility commonly referred to as The
Meatball Shop is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


9TH AVE LIME: Faces "Hirsch" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. 9th Ave Lime Jungle, Inc., a New York
corporation, d/b/a Limon Jungle, and 801-803 LLC, a New York
limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-05096 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 8, 2014), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees
and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York City Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff, a resident of New York, is a double amputee and
uses a wheelchair for mobility.  The Plaintiff personally visited
the Defendants' property, but was allegedly denied full and equal
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at
their property.

9th Ave Lime Jungle, Inc., a New York corporation doing business
as Limon Jungle, and 801-803 LLC, a New York limited Liability
Company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting business
within the state of New York.  9th Ave is the lessee and 801-803
LLC is the owner and lessor of the real property in New York City
where the subject facility is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Decker" Action Over Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine E. Decker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, GE Capital
Retail Bank (now known as Synchrony Bank), a wholly owned
subsidiary of GE Capital Retail Finance Corporation, which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of GE Consumer Finance, Inc., which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric Capital Corporation,
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric Company,
Case No. 2:14-cv-12597 (E.D. Mich., July 2, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, is a Georgia Corporation
and debt collector, located in Bingham Farms State of Michigan.

GE Capital Retail Bank, is a foreign corporation and debt
collector, located at 170 West Election Road, Suite 125 Draper, UT
84020.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian P. Parker, Esq.
      BRIAN P. PARKER ASSOC.
      2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Telephone: (248) 642-6268
      Facsimile: (248) 659-1733
      E-mail: Brianparker@collectionstopper.com


AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Faces "Jones" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Richard Jones, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Amerisave Mortgage Corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-22523-UU (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2014) alleges breach of
contract claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah Richard Jones, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower, 35th Floor
          2 South Biscayne Blvd.
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          E-mail: jeremiah.jones@jacksonlewis.com


ANNIE'S INC: Fails to Disclose Company's Business, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna L. Weiss, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Annie's, Inc., John M. Foraker, Kelly J. Kennedy, and
Zahir M. Ibrahim, Case No. 5:14-cv-03001 (N.D. Cal., June 30,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Annie's, Inc., is a natural and organic food company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


ANTELOPE VALLEY: Newspaper Carriers Obtain Favorable Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Supreme
Court of California has ruled that newspaper carriers are entitled
to class treatment as employees rather than being required to
pursue individual claims in a class action lawsuit against
Antelope Valley Newspapers by four newspaper carriers.

The California Supreme Court held that in California, the key
determining factor on whether or not a worker is an employee or an
independent contractor is whether or not the hirer has the right
to control the conduct of the service provider, according to the
June 30 opinion.

If the hirer has that right, regardless of whether or not that
right is exercised or exercised consistently, the hirer will be
deemed the employer of the worker and will be subject to all
California laws governing employment relationships.

Supreme Court justices Kathryn Werdegar, Tani Cantil-Sakauye,
Carol Corrigan, Goodwin Liu and former Justice Joyce L. Kennard
voted in the majority, with Werdegar authoring the opinion.
Justices Marvin R. Baxter and Ming Chin had concurring opinions
and authored their own opinions.

To deliver the paper to its subscribers, Antelope Valley contracts
with individual carriers.  Four carriers -- Maria Ayala, Josefina
Briseno, Rosa Duran and Osman Nunez -- contend Antelope Valley
illegally treats them as independent contractors rather than
employees, and thereby deprives them of a host of wage and hour
protections to which they are legally entitled.

"The merits of the complaint are not before us," the opinion
states.  "The sole question is whether this case can proceed as a
class action.  The trial court concluded the case could not,
holding that on the critical question whether Ayala and others
were employees, plaintiffs had not shown common questions
predominate; to determine employee status, in the trial court's
view, would necessitate numerous unmanageable individual inquiries
into the extent to which each carrier was afforded discretion in
his or her work."

The Court of Appeal disagreed in part, holding that the trial
court had misunderstood the nature of the inquiries called for,
and remanded for reconsideration of the class certification motion
as to five of the complaint's claims.

"We affirm," the opinion states.  "Whether a common law employer-
employee relationship exists turns foremost on the degree of a
hirer's right to control how the end result is achieved."

In December 2008, the plaintiffs sued on behalf of a putative
class of newspaper carriers, alleging that Antelope Valley
improperly treated them as independent contractors instead of
employees and improperly denied them various statutory wage and
hour protections.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant violated numerous labor laws,
including unpaid overtime, unlawful deductions, failure to provide
breaks and failure to reimburse for business expenses, and unfair
competition based on those violations.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification, contending that the
central question in establishing liability -- whether carriers are
employees or independent contractors -- would be resolved through
common proof, principally the contracts between Antelope Valley
and its carriers.

Antelope Valley opposed certification, arguing in relevant part
that there was insufficient commonality regarding proof of its
right to control the means and manner by which its carriers
accomplish their work, its actual exercise of control and various
secondary factors that are relevant to determining whether a
service provider is an employee or an independent contractor.

Antelope Valley further argued that even were the carriers
employees, some of the causes of action presented additional
unmanageable individual issues that should nevertheless preclude
certification.

The trial court denied the certification motion, finding that the
plaintiffs had failed to show:

- Common questions of law or fact;

- That a class action would be superior to individual lawsuits;
or

- Despite the highly individualized nature of the issues
affecting the class, manageability is achievable through the use
of various procedural tools, including questionnaires, surveys and
representative sampling.

"As to the claims still at issue in this appeal, the Court of
Appeal reversed, believing that the trial court had based its
ruling on 'variations in how the carriers performed their jobs,'
and finding that 'those variations do not present individual
issues that preclude class certification,'" the opinion states.

The Supreme Court of California then granted Antelope Valley's
petition for review.

"On remand, any consideration of common and individual questions
arising from the secondary factors should take into account the
likely materiality of matters subject to common or individual
proof," the opinion states.

In Justice Chin's concurring opinion, he stated that he agreed
that the trial court committed error in the course of ruling on
the class certification motion of the plaintiffs, that remand for
further consideration is necessary and that the "affirmance of the
court of appeal's judgment is appropriate."

"However, in several respects, I question the majority's legal
analysis," Justice Chin states.  "I also do not endorse its dicta
regarding some of the secondary factors that are relevant to
determining whether someone who provides service to another is an
employee or an independent contractor.  I therefore concur only in
the judgment."

In his concurring opinion, Baxter stated that he concurred with
the majority's conclusion that the trial court's denial of class
certification proceeded on incorrect principles.

"As the majority indicates, the trial court erred by focusing its
attention exclusively on evidence that defendant actually imposed
more detailed supervisory control over some of its contract
newspaper carriers than others, and that the degree of such actual
supervision varied widely from carrier to carrier," he stated.

"I therefore join the majority's holding that the Court of
Appeal's judgment, overturning the trial court's order and
remanding for further proceedings, should be affirmed.  In my
view, nothing more need be said to reach this conclusion, and I
therefore express no opinion on any other matter discussed by the
majority."

This opinion has statewide significance because there are numerous
cases throughout California where this issue has arisen, according
to a press release by Callahan & Blaine.

A lawsuit against the Sacramento Bee for the same issues went to
trial earlier this year, and the court awaited the June 30 ruling
from the Supreme Court of California before entering its judgment.

"The carriers in the Sacramento Bee case should be entitled to in
excess of $20 million for reimbursement of expenses incurred in
performing their service for the newspaper," said Daniel J.
Callahan, founding partner of Callahan & Blaine in a press
release.  "The Fresno Bee case is headed for trial in November
2014.  It was also certified properly as a class and after the
presentation of evidence should also be entitled to an award in
excess of $20 million."

The Antelope Valley Press is the only case where the trial court
found that the newspaper carriers were not entitled to class
certification.

"The practice in the newspaper industry of attempting to treat
their carriers as independent contractors and thus avoid
obligations in an employer/employee relationship is nearly
universal throughout the United States," Mr. Callahan said.

"This opinion clearly holds that that practice is illegal,
therefore, this opinion, relying upon established common law
principles, could modify the entire industry's method of
conducting business and contractual relationships with the
newspaper carriers nationwide."

California Supreme Court case number: S206874


ARCELORMITTAL SA: October 17 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If you bought Steel Products from one or more Defendants between
April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, you may be affected by a
Class Action Settlement.

What is the Settlement about?

Eight steel manufacturers, ArcelorMittal S.A. and ArcelorMittal
USA, LLC, Nucor Corporation, United States Steel Corporation,
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, AK Steel Holding Corporation, Steel
Dynamics, Inc., SSAB Swedish Steel Corporation and Commercial
Metals Company were sued by several businesses who allege that the
Defendants conspired, in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, to
restrict their output and thereby raise or "fix" the prices for
certain steel products sold for delivery in the United States
between April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007.

A settlement has been reached with ArcelorMittal, which has agreed
to pay $90 million into a Settlement Fund.  This is in addition to
$15.9 million in settlements (pending court approval) that were
achieved with Commercial Metals Company, AK Steel Holding
Corporation, and Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation earlier this year.
Proposed settlements in the case to date now total $105.9 million.

ArcelorMittal denies the allegations.  The litigation is
continuing against the four non-settling Defendants.

Who is a Settlement Class Member?

You are a Settlement Class Member if you Purchased certain Steel
Products directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries
or controlled affiliates at any time between April 1, 2005 and
December 31, 2007 for delivery in the United States.

In general, "Steel Products" include carbon steel slabs, plates,
sheet and coil products, galvanized and other coated sheet
products; billets, blooms, rebar, merchant bar, beams and other
structural shapes; and other steel products derived from raw
carbon steel and sold by Defendants.  The terms "Steel Products"
and "Purchased" are more specifically defined in the full Notice
and the Settlement Agreement.

Will I get a payment?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
be eligible to file a claim at a later date to receive money from
the Settlement.

What are my rights?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
release certain legal rights against ArcelorMittal, as set forth
in the full Notice and in the Settlement Agreement with
ArcelorMittal.  If you do not want to take part in the
ArcelorMittal Settlement, you have the right to opt out.  To opt
out of the Settlement, you must do so by August 19, 2014.
Settlement Class Members have the right to object to the
Settlement.  If you want to object, you must do so by August 19,
2014.  Information on how to opt out or object to the Settlement
is contained in the full Notice and at
www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com

You may speak to your own attorney at your expense for help.

When is the Approval Hearing?

A Final Approval Hearing to consider approval of the ArcelorMittal
Settlement is scheduled to be held in Courtroom 2503, Everett
McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn
Street, Chicago, IL 60604, on October 17, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.  At
that time, the Court will also consider Plaintiffs' Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of litigation
expenses.  You may appear at the hearing, but your attendance is
not required.  The date and location for this hearing may be
changed on further Order of the Court.

This is a Summary, where can I get more information?

You can get complete settlement information, including a copy of
the full Notice and the ArcelorMittal Settlement Agreement, by
visiting www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com


AUTOLIV INC: Inks Settlement in Michigan Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement in the Occupant
Safety Systems segment of the Automotive Parts Antitrust Multi-
District Litigation, according to the company's June 2, 2014, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Autoliv, Inc. ("Autoliv") and certain of its subsidiaries are
defendants in multiple putative antitrust class actions that have
been consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems segment of the
Automotive Parts Antitrust Multi-District Litigation ("MDL")
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan. These class actions are brought on behalf of
three separate alleged classes of purchasers of occupant safety
systems in the United States, namely: direct purchasers, auto
dealers and end-payors.

On June 2, 2014, Autoliv announced in a press release that it
entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives
of each of the three classes. In entering into the settlement
agreements, Autoliv does not admit any liability and is settling
for the purpose of avoiding the uncertainty, risk, expense and
distraction of further class action litigation in the MDL.
Pursuant to the settlement agreements, Autoliv has agreed to pay
$40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million
to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-
payor settlement class. The direct purchaser settlement amount is
subject to potential downward adjustments to a floor of $24
million based on the volume of Autoliv's sales represented by
direct purchasers who elect to be excluded, i.e. opt out, from the
settlement class. Each settlement agreement gives Autoliv the
option to void that settlement if the opt-outs from the settlement
class exceed varying thresholds. Each settlement agreement also
provides that such settlement class members will release Autoliv,
its subsidiaries, and its and their respective current and former
officers, directors and employees, from the claims and demands
that were or could have been asserted in the MDL, but class
members who affirmatively opt out of the settlement will not be
bound by the release and will not receive any settlement proceeds.
Each settlement is subject to certain conditions including court
approval following notice to the settlement class members. If
approved, the settlements will resolve the claims asserted against
Autoliv and its subsidiaries on behalf of the three settlement
classes.

These class action settlements do not include the three putative
indirect purchaser antitrust class actions that Autoliv is
defending in Canada and will not prevent claims by anyone who
elects to opt out of a settlement class.


BABBO LLC: Fails to Provide Safe Entrance, Tetraplegic Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Babbo LLC, a New York limited liability
company, d/b/a Babbo Ristorante, and Babbo Realty LLC, a New York
limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-05102 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants fail to provide a safe,
accessible entrance, due to a step at entrance, without a
compliant ramp or wheelchair lift, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a tetraplegic, having suffered from Guillain-
Barre syndrome, and uses a wheelchair for mobility.  The Plaintiff
personally visited the Defendants' property, but was allegedly
denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of,
the facilities at the Defendants' property.

Babbo LLC, a New York limited liability company doing business as
Babbo Ristorante, and Babbo Realty LLC, a New York limited
liability company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.  Babbo LLC is the lessee
and Babbo Realty LLC is the owner and lessor of the real property
in New York City where the subject facility is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Costoso" Suit Over Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette Costoso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-
04100 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
processes debits on its customers' bank accounts from payday
lenders it knew were making unlawful payday loans in New York.

Bank of America, N.A., is a federally chartered national banking
association headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Lawrence Berger, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8522
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com


BAYVIEW LOAN: Sued Over Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Garland and Teresa Garland, on Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similary Situated v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No.
6:14-cv-02044-EJM (N.D. Iowa, July 8, 2014), alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Ashley Zubal, Esq.
          Samuel Z. Marks, Esq.
          MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          4225 University Ave.
          Des Moines, IA 50311
          Telephone: (515) 276-7211
          Facsimile: (515) 276-6280
          E-mail: ashley@markslawdm.com
                  sam@markslawDM.com


BRINDERSON CORP: Removed "Townsend" Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kierre Townsend v. Brinderson
Corporation, et al., Case No. BC547587, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-05320-FMO-RZ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
          Michael S. Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
          E-mail: cemail@ebglaw.com
                  mkun@ebglaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Suit Over Injuries Related to Plavix
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Grove, Hattie Adams, Anna Anderson, John Cannon, Allen
Cerritelli, Lynette Hawkins, Asa Holcomb, individually and on
behalf of the estate of Vicky Holcomb, deceased, Denise Hicks,
Houston E. Jackson, III individually and on behalf of the estate
of Houston Jackson, Jr, deceased, Mary McCaughan, Phyllis
Oswiecinski, Vernon Pearman, Consolation Shaffer, Neva Stapleton,
Leon Tackett, and Suzanne Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., formerly known
as Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-01602-GEB-CMK (E.D. Cal., July 8, 2014) is brought for
alleged injuries suffered as a result of ingesting the drug,
Plavix.

Plavix was heavily marketed directly to consumers and was touted
as a "super-aspirin," that would give a person even greater
cardiovascular benefits than a much less expensive, daily aspirin
while being safer and easier on a person's stomach than aspirin,
according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs contend that those
assertions have proven to be false.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their duty to
the medical community, the Plaintiffs' physicians, the Plaintiffs,
and other foreseeable users similarly situated because the
Defendants failed to conduct post market safety surveillance of
Plavix, and failed to report any significant data regarding the
adequacy and accuracy of the product's warnings, efficacy, or
safety of the Plavix drug products.

New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical
manufacturing and marketing company that partners with Sanofi-
Aventis (now Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-Aventis U.S, Inc.)
to manufacture and market Plavix in the United States.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. L.L.C. and Sanofi US Services Inc. are
subsidiaries of the French pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis,
which partner with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company to manufacture and
market Plavix in the United States.  The American base for these
companies is located in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
commercial headquarters in New York City.  Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc.
did business as Sanofi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and was the sponsor
for the drug application for Plavix.  Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. is
an affiliate of Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and
Sanofi-Aventis, Inc. that was instrumental in bringing Plavix to
market.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barrett Beasley, Esq.
          SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
          1901 Texas Street
          Natchitoches, LA 71457
          Telephone: (318) 238-1827
          Facsimile: (318) 354-1227
          E-mail: bbeasley@salim-beasley.com


CAMPANIELLO SOHO: Has Denied Full Access to Amputee, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Campaniello Soho, Inc., a Florida corporation,
d/b/a Campaniello Soho, Inc., and 225 East 57th Street Owners,
Inc., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05097 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants have discriminated, and
continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated by denying full and equal access to, and full
and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and accommodations at the Defendants' property in New
York City.

The Plaintiff, a resident of New York, is a double amputee and
uses a wheelchair for mobility.  The Plaintiff personally visited
the Defendants' property, but was allegedly denied full and equal
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at
their property.

Campaniello Soho, Inc., a Florida corporation, and 225 East 57th
Street Owners, Inc., a New York corporation, are authorized to
conduct, and are conducting business within the state of New York.
Campaniello is the lessee and 225 East is the owner and lessor of
the real property in New York City where the subject facility is
located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


CANADA: Court Approves SISIP Class Action Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
McInnes Cooper disclosed that thousands of disabled Canadian
Forces veterans will benefit from the Federal Court of Canada's
approval of a class action settlement agreement on July 3.

The Federal Court approved settlement of the final remaining issue
in the SISIP class action lawsuit, the Government of Canada's
calculation of Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increases.  This
settlement will result in an additional $38.6 million in benefits
to existing and new class members.

The SISIP class action was initiated in March 2007 on behalf of
representative plaintiff Dennis Manuge and all other disabled
Canadian Forces veterans whose Service Income Security Insurance
Plan (SISIP) Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits were reduced by
the amount of their monthly Veterans Affairs Canada disability
pension.

Lawyers Peter Driscoll -- peter.driscoll@mcinnescooper.com -- and
Dan Wallace -- daniel.wallace@mcinnescooper.com -- from McInnes
Cooper and Ward Branch -- wbranch@branmac.com -- from Branch
MacMaster represented the class of disabled Canadian Forces
veterans.

On April 4, 2013, the Federal Court approved an agreement between
the class and the federal government, which ended the reduction
going forward and provided, among other things, a refund for past
reductions plus interest.  The estimated total value of the
settlement approved in April 2013 was $887.8 million.

As part of the approved settlement relating to COLA, the class
will expand from the original 8,000 members to 14,000 members.
The additional 6,000 class members are disabled Canadian Forces
veterans who received long term disability benefits, but those
benefits had not been reduced by a Veterans Affairs Canada
benefit.


CARMINE LIMITED: Fails to Pay Workers Under FLSA, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Rukaj v. Carmine Limited and Mautner-Glick Corp., Case No.
1:14-cv-05068-AKH (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants have failed to make a good faith effort to comply with
the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to its compensation of
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

Carmine Limited is a foreign corporation organized pursuant to the
laws of Bermuda and authorized to do business in the state of New
York, with its principal place of business located in New York
City.  Carmine Limited is engaged in the business of the lease and
rental of residential and dwelling apartment building complexes.
Mautner-Glick Corp. is a New York domestic corporation with its
principal place of business located in New York City.  Mautner-
Glick Corp. is engaged in the business of management and
maintenance of residential and dwelling apartment complexes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631)499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com
                  mm@shulmankessler.com


CASIMIR INC: Sued for Failing to Remove Architectural Barriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Girotto v. Casimir, Inc., a New York corporation, d/b/a
Casimir Restaurant, and PSA 190 Avenue B LLC, a New York limited
liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-05092 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants have discriminated, and continue to
discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly
situated, by denying full and equal access to goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations at the
Defendants' property, and by failing to remove architectural
barriers pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff suffered from what constitutes a "qualified
disability" under the ADA and uses a wheelchair for mobility.  The
Plaintiff personally visited the Defendants' property, but was
denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of,
the facilities at their property, which is the subject of the
lawsuit.

Casimir, Inc., a New York corporation doing business as Casimir
Restaurant, and PSA 190 Avenue B LLC, a New York limited liability
company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting business
within the state of New York.  Casimir, Inc., is the lessee and
PSA 190 Avenue B LLC is the owner and lessor of the real property
where the subject facility is located and commonly referred to as
Casimir Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert J. Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Subsidiary to Contest Remaining Fulghum Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary, Embarq, will
continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in the William
Douglas Fulghum putative class action lawsuit challenging the
decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits
programs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq
Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of
retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits
programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and
prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006
and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was
expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject
benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq,
certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and
the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits
plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of
its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of
plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other
claims. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new,
related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at
issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members
of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court
has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited
discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the
plaintiffs. On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the
majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013,
the Fulghum court granted plaintiffs' request to seek
interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit. Embarq and the other defendants will defend the
appeal, continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in
Fulghum and seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed
on similar grounds. We have not accrued a liability for these
matters because we believe it is premature (i) to determine
whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a
reasonable estimate of probable liability."

CenturyLink, Inc. is an integrated communications company. The
Company is engaged primarily in providing a range of
communications services to its residential, business, governmental
and wholesale customers. The Company's communications services
include local and long-distance, network access, private line,
public access, broadband, data, managed hosting (including cloud
hosting), colocation, Wireless and video services. In certain
local and regional markets, the Company also provides local access
and fiber transport services to competitive local exchange
carriers (CLECs) and security monitoring. The Company operates in
four segments: Regional markets, Wholesale markets, Enterprise
markets-network and Enterprise markets-data hosting. In November
2013, CenturyLink Inc acquired Tier 3 LLC.


CENTURYLINK INC: To Settle Right-Of-Way Complaints in 30 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc., as of March 31, 2014, has received final
approval to settle in 30 states, several putative class actions
challenging the Company's right to install its fiber optic cable
in railroad rights-of-way, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Several putative class actions relating to
the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way
were filed against Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates
and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable
(Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most
part, the complaints challenge our right to install our fiber
optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that
the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not
include the right to permit us to install our cable in the right-
of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. Most of the currently
pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide
classes in the named plaintiffs' respective states, although one
action pending before the Illinois Court of Appeals purports to be
brought on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. In general, the
complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts
to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court
proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval
of settlements on a state-by-state basis. To date, the parties
have received final approval of such settlements in 30 states
(Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin). The
settlement administration process, including claim submission and
evaluation, is continuing in relation to a number of these
settlements. The parties have not yet received either preliminary
or final approval in one state where an action is pending (Texas)
and three states where actions were at one time, but are not
currently, pending (Arizona, Massachusetts, and New Mexico). We
have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for resolving
these matters; however, the amount is not material to our
consolidated financial statements."

CenturyLink, Inc. is an integrated communications company. The
Company is engaged primarily in providing a range of
communications services to its residential, business, governmental
and wholesale customers. The Company's communications services
include local and long-distance, network access, private line,
public access, broadband, data, managed hosting (including cloud
hosting), colocation, Wireless and video services. In certain
local and regional markets, the Company also provides local access
and fiber transport services to competitive local exchange
carriers (CLECs) and security monitoring. The Company operates in
four segments: Regional markets, Wholesale markets, Enterprise
markets-network and Enterprise markets-data hosting. In November
2013, CenturyLink Inc acquired Tier 3 LLC.


CHILDREN'S PLANET: Faces "Zapata" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Zapata and Rubilia Velazquez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Children's Planet Inc.(d/b/a
Children's Planet), and Luz Bedoya, Case No. 1:14-cv-04114
(E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Children's Planet Inc., owns, operates, and controls a child care
provider located at 1081 Merillon Ave, Westbury, New York 11590
under the name "Children's Planet."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES
      60 East 42nd St., Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: lfranco@faillacelaw.com


CHINA CERAMICS: Accused of Disclosing Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Finlayson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund,
Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L.
Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang, Jianwei Liu, and China
Ceramics Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-04997 (S.D.N.Y., July 2,
2014), alleges that the Defendants disclosed materially false and
misleading financial reports.

China Ceramics Co., is a Chinese manufacturer of ceramic tiles
used for exterior siding and for interior flooring and design in
residential and commercial buildings.

Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K.
Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen
Cheng Liang, and Jianwei Liu, are directors of China Ceramics, Co.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)661-1100
      Facsimile: (212)661-8665
      E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CHC HEALTH: "Fisher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzana Fisher, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. CHC Health Care, Inc., doing business as: Coventry
Health Care, Inc. a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Case No. 8:14-
cv-01625 (M.D. Fla., July 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief
under Fair Labor Standards Act.

CHC Health Care, Inc., operates health plans, insurance companies,
network rental and worker's compensation service companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan, PA
      20 N. Orange Ave-Ste 1600
      PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


CLEAN HARBORS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roderick C. Demmings, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01017-TSZ (W.D. Wash., July 8, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COACH INC: Unpaid Interns File Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, Allissa Wickham and Kat Greene, writing for Law360,
report that a former employee hit Coach Inc. with a proposed class
action in New York state court on July 1 for allegedly
misclassifying employees as unpaid interns and failing to pay them
minimum wage, making Coach the latest in a growing number of
companies to be hit with such allegations.

Plaintiff Johnetta Campbell says that since July 2008, Coach has
wrongfully withheld wages from her and others who are considered
employees under New York labor law.  Coach hired Ms. Campbell and
others to create trend boards, research new trends and fabrics,
work in the warehouse, and perform other tasks -- but did not
provide any compensation, according to the suit.

"This action is brought on behalf of the plaintiff and a class
consisting of each and every other person who worked for the
defendant as interns and were thus misclassified as exempt from
minimum wage requirements," the complaint says.  "Defendant's
unlawful conduct has been pursuant to a corporate policy or
practice of minimizing labor costs by denying plaintiff and the
putative class members compensation in violation of the NYLL and
its implementing regulations."

The suit raises allegations that Coach has failed to pay all
earned wages, misclassified employees as exempt from wage
compensation and failed to provide minimum wages for work
performed.  Ms. Campbell, who was employed by Coach from January
2012 through March 2012, says she typically worked five days each
week for about five to eight hours per day.

"Plaintiff was not paid any wages and thus was not compensated at
a rate in compliance with the statutory minimum wage rate,"
counsel for Campbell wrote in the 12-page complaint.

The suit is the latest in a series of class actions brought by
interns who say companies are taking advantage of their work
without legally compensating them for it.

The action against Coach comes less than two weeks after a former
unpaid intern for Def Jam Recordings and Motown Records hit the
labels' parent company, Universal Music Group Inc., with a
putative collective action in New York federal court alleging
similar conduct.

William E. Stokely III claims in that suit that since at least
June 2008, UMG has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York's state labor law by improperly classifying certain
employees as interns and neglecting to pay them minimum wage and
overtime.  Mr. Stokley worked for UMG as an intern twice, first
from roughly June 2009 to February 2010 and then from
approximately July 2010 to January 2011, according to the
complaint.

Arnold Worldwide LLC also faces similar claims in New York state
court.  A former intern sued the Boston-based advertising agency
in mid-June for allegedly breaking state labor laws when it
refused to pay interns but had them perform the work of regular
employees.

And on June 10, a former fan relations staffer for the Los Angeles
Clippers filed suit on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, accusing the Clippers and owner Donald Sterling's family
trust of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
Labor Law by requiring interns to perform the work of paid
employees without compensation.

Now, Ms. Campbell seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to
her and all similarly situated people who are or were employed by
Coach or its affiliates.  Ms. Campbell is suing for damages to be
determined at trial, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiff and putative class are represented by Lloyd R.
Ambinder of Virginia & Ambinder LLP and Jeffrey K. Brown and
Daniel Markowitz of Leeds Brown Law PC.

The case is Johnetta Campbell v. Coach Inc., case number
156453/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.


COLLECTION BUREAU: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
June Evans, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:14-cv-04282-JAP-TJB (D.N.J., July 8, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLEGE POINT: "Norris" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Namel Norris v. College Point Check Cashing Incorporated, a New
York corporation, d/b/a College Point Check Cashing, and 146
Stanton Street Realty Corp., a New York corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-05095 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2014) is brought for injunctive
relief, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law and the New
York State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff, a resident of New York, is a paraplegic and uses a
wheelchair for mobility.  The Plaintiff personally visited the
Defendants' property, but was denied full and equal access to, and
full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at their property.

College Point Check Cashing Incorporated, a New York corporation,
and 146 Stanton Street Realty Corp., a New York corporation, are
authorized to conduct, and are conducting business within the
state of New York.  College Point is the lessee and 146 Stanton
Street is the owner and lessor of the real property in New York
City where the subject facility is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          Robert J. Mirel, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com
                  rjm@weitzfirm.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Class Cert. Denied in Product Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Victoria L. Loughery, Esq., Lindsey A. Olson, Esq., Lee Popkin,
Esq., at Proskauer Rose LLP, report that on June 13, 2014, U.S.
District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of
California, issued an order denying class certification to a
putative class of consumers who had purchased ConAgra food
products labeled as "natural," finding that the putative class was
unascertainable due to the lack of purchase records or any other
reliable method of identifying class members.  The following week,
on June 19, 2014, U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins of the
Central District of California, issued an order granting class
certification to a class of consumers who purchased a dietary
supplement allegedly deceptively advertised as an aphrodisiac,
rejecting similar arguments that the absence of retail purchase
records rendered the class unascertainable.  These decisions are
just two of the latest examples of the deepening split within the
Ninth Circuit on the issue of class ascertainability in cases
involving low-cost or routine retail purchases for which consumers
are not likely to keep receipts.

               ConAgra 100% All Natural Hunt's Sauce

In Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. C 12-01633 CRB (N.D. Cal.),
plaintiffs alleged that defendant deceptively labeled its Hunt's
tomato products, PAM cooking spray products, and Swiss Miss hot
cocoa products with various "natural" claims (e.g., "100%
natural", "natural source of antioxidants") that were not
supported by the actual product ingredients.  Plaintiffs sought to
certify three consumer classes, one for each category of food
product at issue.  Defendant opposed class certification on a
number of grounds, including that the class was unascertainable.

The Court in Jones acknowledged that District Courts within the
Circuit have split on the issue of whether or not the
ascertainability requirement can ever be met in consumer class
actions involving inexpensive retail purchases (due to the fact
that consumers were not likely to retain receipts or have any
other reliable way of recalling the purchase), and that some
courts have found such class to be ascertainable primarily out of
concern that finding otherwise would essentially eviscerate
consumers' ability to bring such class actions.  Nonetheless, the
Court sided with the line of cases within the Circuit (including
the recent decisions in In re POM Wonderful LLC, No. 10-2199 (C.D.
Cal.) and Sethavanish v. ZonePerfect Nutrition Co., No. 12-2907-SC
(N.D. Cal.)), which found that the lack of purchase records or any
other reliable method of identifying class members rendered the
putative class unascertainable.  However, the Court went on to
note that ascertainability alone is "not dispositive" of the issue
of whether class certification was appropriate, and ultimately
found that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy several other
requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3).  In particular, the Court determined that plaintiffs
also had not met their burden of proving that class treatment was
superior to individual actions, noting that the same issues that
rendered the class unascertainable also caused the class to be
administratively unmanageable.

In contrast, the Court in Ortega et al. v. Natural Balance Inc. et
al, Case No. 2:13-cv-05942 (C.D. Cal.), granted plaintiffs' motion
for certification, rejecting defendants' arguments that the class
was not ascertainable.  In Ortega, plaintiffs alleged that
defendants falsely advertised their nutritional supplement, Cobra
Sexual Energy, as being an aphrodisiac and "scientifically
formulated to improve virility."  As in the Jones case, defendants
opposed class certification, arguing (among other things) that the
class was unascertainable because there were no records of which
consumers purchased the product.

                   Cobra Powerful Men's Formula

Without any acknowledgment or discussion of the conflicting law
within the Circuit, the Court found the class was "readily
identifiable" by using the objective criteria set forth in
plaintiffs' class definition (i.e. "(1) all persons who purchased
(2) Defendants' Cobra Products (in all packaging sizes and
iterations), (3) on or after January 1, 2006, (4) in California
(5) for their own personal use (6) exclusive of Defendants'
officers, directors and employees.").  In rejecting the argument
that the class was unascertainable because, in the absence of
purchase records, there was no reliable way to identify class
members, the Court held that identifying individual class members
was "not germane to ascertainability."

Given the growing District Court disagreement on the issue, the
Ninth Circuit may soon need to weigh in (as the Third Circuit
recently did in Carrera v. Bayer Corp.) on whether the lack of
receipts or other purchase records poses an insurmountable hurdle
to ascertainability in class actions involving low-cost or routine
retail purchases which consumers were unlikely to recall or to
retain proofs of purchase.  In the meantime, class action
defendants may want to pay particular attention to the issue of
ascertainability when opposing class certification.


CONN'S INC: Faces Three Shareholder Litigations in Texas Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. is facing securities lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to
the company's June 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2014.

On March 5, 2014, the Company and three of its current executive
officers were sued in a purported securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
captioned Milton S. Linder, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Similarly Situated v. Conn's, Inc., Theodore M. Wright,
Brian E. Taylor, and Michael J. Poppe, Case No. 4:14-cv-00548. On
March 7, 2014, a similar suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas captioned Peter
Holman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Conn's, Inc., Theodore M. Wright, Brian E. Taylor, and
Michael J. Poppe, Case No. 4:14-cv-00570. A third and similar
lawsuit was filed on May 5, 2014 in the United States District
Court of the Southern District of Texas by Laborers Pension Trust
Fund-Detroit and Vicinity, Connecticut Carpenters Benefit Funds,
and St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated against the same
defendants named in the other cases, Case No. 4:14-cv-01229. Each
of these complaints allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The
complaints allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaints do not specify the amount of damages
sought.


COVISINT CORP: July 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, who filed the
initial class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws against Covisint Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors, reminds investors that they have until
July 29, 2014 to file a motion seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff.  If you purchased Covisint common stock in connection
with the Company's September 26, 2013 initial public stock
offering, and have substantial losses, you are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding your legal rights.  The case is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Additional Information about the Lawsuit:

The complaint alleges Covisint, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's September 26,
2013 IPO violated the Securities Act of 1933.  Covisint provides a
cloud engagement platform that enables organizations to securely
connect, engage and collaborate with large, distributed
communities of customers, business partners and suppliers.  In the
IPO, the Company sold 6.4 million shares of Covisint common stock
to the public at $10 per share, raising approximately $64 million
in gross proceeds for the Company.

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Covisint's publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 29, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this action,
have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or
interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker --
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at 619-814-4471.  If you email,
please include your phone number.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia.  The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits.


DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY: Removed "Becerra" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Claudia Becerra, et al. v. Dependable Highway
Express, Inc., et al., Case No. BC545230, was removed from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-05270-DSF-SS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of, among other things,
failure to pay minimum wages and to reimburse business expenses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nina Jane Baumler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF NINA BAUMLER
          14127 Hawthorne Boulevard
          Hawthorne, CA 90250
          Telephone: (424) 269-0624
          E-mail: nina@baumlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew N. Sirolly, Esq.
          THE WAGE JUSTICE CENTER
          3250 Wilshire Boulevard, 13th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 273-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 596-5991
          E-mail: matthew@wagejustice.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 460
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


DIODES INC: Defendant in Pending Securities Violations Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diodes Incorporated is a defendant in a putative securities class
action alleging violations to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly misleading public statements,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company is also currently a party to a putative securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and
Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-
cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013), (the "Class Action")
against the Company, Dr. Lu and Richard D. White. In this action,
plaintiff purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 9, 2011 and
June 9, 2011, alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
allegedly misleading public statements during the class period
regarding the labor market in China and its impact on the
Company's business and prospects.

On June 14, 2013, the Court entered an order appointing Local 731
I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund as lead
plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead plaintiff's counsel and the Ward &
Smith Law Firm as lead plaintiff's liaison counsel. On August 1,
2013, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint reiterating the
same claims for relief against the same defendants as asserted in
the original complaint. On September 16, 2013, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Lead plaintiff's
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on October
31, 2013. No hearing date has been set for this motion. Pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, all
discovery and other proceedings are stayed pending a ruling on any
motion to dismiss. The defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously.

Diodes Incorporated is a global manufacturer and supplier of
application specific standard products within the discrete, logic
and analog semiconductor markets, serving the consumer
electronics, computing, communications, industrial and automotive
markets.  These products include diodes, rectifiers, transistors,
metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFETs),
protection devices, functional specific arrays, single gate logic,
amplifiers and comparators, Hall-effect and temperature sensors,
power management devices, including light emitting device (LED)
drivers, direct current to direct current (DC-DC) switching and
linear voltage regulators, and voltage references along with
special function devices, such as universal serial bus (USB) power
switches, load switches, voltage supervisors, and motor
controllers. On August 31, 2012, it acquired approximately 51% of
the common stock of Eris. On October 29, 2012, the Company
acquired Power Analog Microelectronics, Inc. (PAM).


FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces Three New UTPCPL Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation received in December
2013, three new complaints asserting, among other things, claims
for fraud in the inducement and violation of the UTPCPL, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank was filed as a class action on
January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. The action alleges that First Commonwealth
Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum interest rate
of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as long as the
class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA account. The
class asserted that the Bank committed fraud, breached its
modified contract with the class members, and violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL) when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market Rate
Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a roll-over
IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate. Plaintiffs sought monetary
damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for
the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law violations and attorney's fees. The court granted
class certification as to the breach of modified contract claim
and denied class certification as to the fraud and Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law claims. The
breach of contract claim was predicated upon a letter sent to
customers in 1998 which reversed an earlier decision by the Bank
to reduce the rate paid on the accounts.

The letter stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as
notification that a decision has been made to re-establish the
rate on your account to eight percent (8)%. This rate will be
retroactive to your most recent maturity date and will continue
going forward on deposits presently in the account and on annual
additions." On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order
granting the Bank's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
class action claims. The Court found that the Bank retained the
right to resign as custodian of the accounts and that the act of
resigning as custodian and closing the accounts did not breach the
terms of the underlying IRA contract. On appeal, the Superior
Court affirmed the denial of class certification to the claims of
fraud in the execution and violation of the UTPCPL. The Superior
Court found that none of the other issues were ripe for appeal.
Jurisdiction was returned to the Court of Common Pleas where the
individual fraud and UTPCPL claims of Mr. and Mrs. McGrogan await
trial.

In December 2013, three new complaints were filed by 34 former
members of the McGrogan class:

(1)Jarrett et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action filed by
eight plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland County
Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL,
breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel.

(2)Young et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action filed by 12
plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland County Court of
Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the inducement, fraud
in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL, breach of fiduciary
duty and promissory estoppel.

(3)Fisanik et. al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action filed by
14 plaintiffs on December 9, 2013 in the Cambria County Court of
Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the inducement, fraud
in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL, and breach of fiduciary
duty.

The 36 plaintiffs who have filed individual actions held Market
Rate Savings IRA balances totaling approximately $4 million at the
time of the Bank's resignation as custodian of the IRAs in 2008.
The average age of the plaintiffs at that time was 62.

At this time, the Bank believes the claims are without merit.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation (First Commonwealth) is a
financial holding company. The Company provides a range of
consumer and commercial banking services through its bank
subsidiary, First Commonwealth Bank (FCB or the Bank). It also
provides trust and wealth management services and offer insurance
products through the Bank and its other operating subsidiaries. As
of December 31, 2011, it had total loans of $4.1 billion and total
deposits of $4.5 billion.


FIRST MERCHANTS: Plaintiffs Did Not Seek Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
First Merchants Corporation reported that as of March 31, 2014,
plaintiffs in a class action filed against the Company challenging
First Merchants' checking account practices, have made no effort
to initiate arbitration proceedings, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On April 16, 2013, First Merchants was named in a class action
lawsuit in Delaware County Circuit Court challenging First
Merchants' checking account practices associated with the
assessment of overdraft fees. The plaintiff sought damages and
other relief, including restitution and injunction relief. First
Merchants removed the case from state court to federal district
court. First Merchants filed a motion to stay the federal action
pending arbitration. The motion was granted by the court and the
action was stayed. To the extent the plaintiff desires to further
pursue the matter, the plaintiff must do so through a separate
arbitration proceeding. To date, there has been no effort by the
plaintiff to initiate arbitration proceedings and no further
activity in the court proceedings. If arbitration is pursued,
First Merchants believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
brought by the plaintiff.

First Merchants Corporation is a financial holding company. The
Company has one full-service bank charter, First Merchants Bank,
National Association (the Bank).


FLAVMA INC: Sent Unsolicited Junk Faxes, Ill. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Al and Po Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Flavma, Inc., a California corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-05043 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for sending unsolicited junk faxes in bulk -- fax
blasts -- to unwilling recipients with deficient opt-out notices.

Flavma, Inc., offers an application called iMedicare which allows
pharmacies to, among other things, maximize reimbursements from
patients' Medicare Part D Plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq.
      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State St., Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              gbarbakoff@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: To Start Tank Teardown After Asbestos Woes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that after running into asbestos
problems, the company at the center of a January spill into West
Virginia's biggest water supply plans to start dismantling its
tanks on July 7.

Freedom Industries Chief Restructuring Officer Mark Welch
described the new start time on July 8 in bankruptcy court in
Charleston.

The company has delayed the teardown multiple times.  Freedom
stalled its start last weekend because of asbestos issues in tank
gaskets and elsewhere.

Freedom is under state orders to demolish its Charleston site,
where a leaky tank contaminated the water source downstream.  For
days, 300,000 residents couldn't use tap water for most purposes.

Welch says the site should be cleared out in three or four weeks,
but the company is proceeding slowly and carefully.

Freedom then must remediate the chemical damage done to the site.


FTD COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for Racketeering Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action complaint alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
filed against FTD Companies, Inc., seek class certification,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii)
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the
"E-Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo
Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). The complaint alleges (1)
violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank
fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3)
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA")
by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California
Business and Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant,
Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust
enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

FTD Companies, Inc. (FTD) is a floral and gifting company. The
Company provides floral, gift and related products and services to
consumers and retail florists, as well as to other retail
locations offering floral and gift products primarily in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of
Ireland. The Company operates in one segment, which includes
floral and related products and services. Its business uses the
FTD and Interflora brands, both supported by the Mercury Man logo.
The Company's portfolio of brands also includes Flying Flowers,
Flowers Direct, and Drake Algar in the United Kingdom. On November
1, 2013, United Online, Inc. (United Online) completed the
separation of United Online into two independent, publicly traded
companies: FTD Companies, Inc. and United Online, Inc.


FTD COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for RICO Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc., is a defendant in a purported class action
complaint alleging, among other things, violations of RICO in
which plaintiffs seek class certification, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014.

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
(collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., PeopleFinderspro,
Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc.,
Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
(collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of
America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA,
N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card
Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of
federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the
Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (4)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5)
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17602 by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies; and
(6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from the plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

FTD Companies, Inc. (FTD) is a floral and gifting company. The
Company provides floral, gift and related products and services to
consumers and retail florists, as well as to other retail
locations offering floral and gift products primarily in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of
Ireland. The Company operates in one segment, which includes
floral and related products and services. Its business uses the
FTD and Interflora brands, both supported by the Mercury Man logo.
The Company's portfolio of brands also includes Flying Flowers,
Flowers Direct, and Drake Algar in the United Kingdom.  On
November 1, 2013, United Online, Inc. (United Online) completed
the separation of United Online into two independent, publicly
traded companies: FTD Companies, Inc. and United Online, Inc.


FTD COMPANIES: Bid to Dismiss Complaints Under Court Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc., reported that its motion to dismiss the
consolidated racketeering and RICO complaints was argued before
the district court on September 25, 2013, and taken under
submission, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants. The defendants have responded to the
consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss
filed by other defendants on December 7, 2012. Those motions were
argued before the district court on September 25, 2013, and taken
under submission.

FTD Companies, Inc. (FTD) is a floral and gifting company. The
Company provides floral, gift and related products and services to
consumers and retail florists, as well as to other retail
locations offering floral and gift products primarily in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of
Ireland. The Company operates in one segment, which includes
floral and related products and services. Its business uses the
FTD and Interflora brands, both supported by the Mercury Man logo.
The Company's portfolio of brands also includes Flying Flowers,
Flowers Direct, and Drake Algar in the United Kingdom. On November
1, 2013, United Online, Inc. (United Online) completed the
separation of United Online into two independent, publicly traded
companies: FTD Companies, Inc. and United Online, Inc.


FTD COMPANIES: Court Consolidates RICO Suit With Trilegiant Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court granted on March 28, 2014, the motion to consolidate
a purported class action complaint against FTD Companies, Inc.,
alleging among other things, RICO violations, with the In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action, with the latter designated as
the lead case, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May
9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

In December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States District
Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants:
Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank Membership
Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com,
Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc.,
FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory
Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc.,
Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United
Online, Inc., and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the
"Frank Marketing Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One
Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech
Solutions, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies"). The
complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants; (2)
aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit
Card Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud,
wire fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4)
violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the
Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action.
In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to
why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named
plaintiff status. The plaintiff filed his response to the order to
show cause on February 15, 2013. On March 28, 2014, the court
granted the motion to consolidate the Frank Class Action with the
In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action, with the latter
designated as the lead case.

FTD Companies, Inc. (FTD) is a floral and gifting company. The
Company provides floral, gift and related products and services to
consumers and retail florists, as well as to other retail
locations offering floral and gift products primarily in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of
Ireland. The Company operates in one segment, which includes
floral and related products and services. Its business uses the
FTD and Interflora brands, both supported by the Mercury Man logo.
The Company's portfolio of brands also includes Flying Flowers,
Flowers Direct, and Drake Algar in the United Kingdom. On November
1, 2013, United Online, Inc. (United Online) completed the
separation of United Online into two independent, publicly traded
companies: FTD Companies, Inc. and United Online, Inc.


FTD COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for Trilegiant Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated RICO complaint with Trilegiant
Corp., filed a motion seeking entry of partial final judgment on,
and certification for interlocutory appeal of, the court's March
28, 2014 orders dismissing, among other things, the RICO claims
against FTD Companies, Inc., and other defendants, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

On March 28, 2014, the court issued an order in the In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action dismissing for lack of Article
III standing plaintiffs' claims against United Online, Inc.,
Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD
Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc. The court ruled
that because none of the named plaintiffs alleged they used
services from or were otherwise injured by any of those
defendants, the claims against them are dismissed. The court's
dismissal was without prejudice. The deadline for plaintiffs to
file a motion for reconsideration of the court's order expired on
April 11, 2014, without any such motion being filed. On April 28,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking entry of partial final
judgment on, and certification for interlocutory appeal of, the
court's March 28, 2014 orders dismissing the RICO claims and RICO
conspiracy claims, the claims against the Credit Card Company
Defendants, the nationwide CUPTA class action allegations, and the
claims of plaintiffs Reilly, Restrepo, Brian Schnabel and Warfel
based on their participation in a previous class action
settlement. The plaintiffs' motion did not seek entry of a partial
final judgment on, nor certification for interlocutory review of,
the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against United Online, Inc.,
Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD
Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc. for lack of
Article III standing.

FTD Companies, Inc. (FTD) is a floral and gifting company. The
Company provides floral, gift and related products and services to
consumers and retail florists, as well as to other retail
locations offering floral and gift products primarily in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of
Ireland. The Company operates in one segment, which includes
floral and related products and services. Its business uses the
FTD and Interflora brands, both supported by the Mercury Man logo.
The Company's portfolio of brands also includes Flying Flowers,
Flowers Direct, and Drake Algar in the United Kingdom. On November
1, 2013, United Online, Inc. (United Online) completed the
separation of United Online into two independent, publicly traded
companies: FTD Companies, Inc. and United Online, Inc.


GENERAL MOTORS: Delphi Head to Face Questioning in Crash Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the head of Delphi Automotive Plc, maker of
ignition switches linked to at least 16 fatal car crashes, is
expected to face intensive questioning from a U.S. Senate panel
investigating General Motors Co.'s handling of the issue.

A Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing, scheduled for July 17,
will mark the first appearance by an executive of the switch
manufacturer before committees investigating GM.  Delphi has been
named as a co-defendant along with GM in some personal injury
lawsuits filed by accident victims and their families.

Delphi CEO Rodney O'Neal is expected to join GM CEO Mary Barra at
the witness table along with GM's chief counsel Michael Milliken.
The witness list includes Kenneth Feinberg, who helped GM
establish a victims compensation fund, and Anton Valukas, who
recently issued a report detailing GM decade of inaction in
recalling millions of automobiles to fix the safety defect.

Ms. Barra testified at the first subcommittee hearing on April 14
and faced often hostile questioning from Democrats and Republicans
on the panel.

Shortly afterward, four senators on the Senate Commerce, Science
and Transportation Committee, including Chairman Jay Rockefeller,
wrote Mr. O'Neal demanding information on Delphi's role in the
ignition switch problem.

"It is our understanding that a fix was proposed by Delphi
regarding the ignition switch in 2005 but GM did not adopt the
change," wrote Rockefeller and Senators John Thune, Claire
McCaskill and Dean Heller.

The ignition defect has caused GM vehicles, including Chevrolet
Cobalts and Saturn Ions, to unexpectedly stall.  That, in turn,
has caused air bags to fail to deploy during crashes.

The senators have asked Delphi to provide documents and
information on why GM may have rejected the ignition switch
redesign and whether Delphi communicated with federal regulators.

The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee is
also investigating GM and has held two hearings with Ms. Barra
testifying.

A committee aide said on July 8 that Delphi has submitted
approximately 7,500 pages of documents in the probe and that the
company is continuing to produce more documents.

The aide would not say whether Delphi officials have been
interviewed by committee investigators.

Mr. O'Neal rose through the ranks of GM before moving to Delphi,
which was part of GM before it was spun off as an independent
company.

Mr. O'Neal and Ms. Barra both graduated from Kettering University,
the General Motors institute, and worked in GM production before
climbing the executive ranks.

Delphi currently has 160,000 employees, 126 manufacturing sites
and 15 technical centers in 32 countries.

In 2006, a GM engineer authorized Delphi to change the internal
workings of the switch, but the part number was not changed, a
departure from industry procedures.

The Senate committee has asked Delphi whether GM engineers or
others attempted to conceal the change.

Since taking the reins at GM early this year, Ms. Barra has
announced steps to improve GM's corporate culture, which has been
blamed for allowing the safety problem to fester.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over False Claims on Cadillac Safety Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
two West Palm Beach law firms are collaborating with a Boston firm
in a class action against General Motors for alleged false claims
on safety ratings.

Geri Siano Carriuolo of Plantation bought a 2014 Cadillac CTS from
Ed Morse Sawgrass Auto Mall in Sunrise on Dec. 29, 2013.

She claims the luxury sedan had a Monroney sticker indicating the
automobile achieved five-star ratings in three categories --
frontal crash driver, frontal crash passenger and rollover
protection -- assigned by the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration.

Eighteen weeks later, Ms. Carriuolo received a letter from General
Motors notifying her of an "inadvertent error."

"The 2014 CTS sedan has not been tested or rated by NHTSA as to
its vehicle crash performance.  Therefore, the vehicle does not
have any star ratings from NHTSA in any category," the letter
stated in part.

The firm of Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & Littky-
Rubin brought the lawsuit on Ms. Carriuolo's behalf and for other
people in Florida who bought GM vehicles contained false safety
claims.  Clark Fountain attorney W. Hampton Keen --
hkeen@clarkfountain.com -- said the GM claim violated the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act.

"Our client, along with all other innocent consumers, have
protection from the state against automotive companies touting
safety claims for this exact reason," he said.  "Not only has GM
decreased the value of vehicles for Florida residents, they have
given them a false sense of security as safety was clearly a
paramount buying decision."

The class is also represented by Liggio Benrubi in West Palm Beach
and Shapiro Haber & Urmy in Boston.  The lawsuit filed June 27 was
assigned to U.S. District Judge James Cohn in Fort Lauderdale.


GO NEW YORK: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Jose Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Go New York Tours Inc. and Asen
Kostadinov, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04982
(S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2014), seeks to recover underpaid overtime
compensation, spread-of-hours wages, and uniform maintenance
pay.

Go New York Tours Inc., is a tour operator located at 348 West
57th Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOULAS LLC: Calls Worker "Slave" & "Dog", Ariz. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Grammatikopoulos, an individual v. Antonios Magoulas, and
Georgia Magoulas, husband and wife; Goulas L.L.C. d/b/a Burger
Factory, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Does I through X;
ABC Entities I-X, Case No. 2:14-cv-01530-JJT (D. Ariz., July 8,
2014), is an action seeking to redress for the Plaintiff's unpaid,
earned, rightfully owed, accrued wages and overtime pay as
guaranteed under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the
wrongful termination in retaliation for being injured while
working for the Defendants in violation of the Arizona Employment
Protection Act.

Over the Plaintiff's approximate 15 months of employment with the
Defendants, he was paid approximately $15,000 for approximately
6,524 hours of work, which equates to approximately $2.30 per
hour, according to the complaint.  The Plaintiff also points out
that he was called the Defendants' slave and their dog.

Goulas L.L.C., doing business as Burger Factory, is an Arizona
limited liability company whose principle place of business is in
the state of Arizona in Maricopa County.  Antonio Magoulas and
Georgia Magoulas are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, and
are officers and owners of the Company.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Steven Martinez, Esq.
          Krista S. Robinson, Esq.
          GILLESPIE, SHIELDS & DURRANT
          7319 North 16th Street, Suite 100
          Phoenix, AZ 85020
          Telephone: (602) 870-9700
          Facsimile: (602) 870-9783
          E-mail: Bmart27@gmail.com
                  krobinson@gillaw.com


HAFELE AMERICA: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Hafele America Co., a North Carolina
corporation, d/b/a Hafele America Co., and Madison Sixty LLC, a
New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-05104
(S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2014) is an action for declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a tetraplegic, having suffered from Guillain-
Barre syndrome, and uses a wheelchair for mobility.  The Plaintiff
personally visited the Defendants' property, but was allegedly
denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of,
the facilities at the Defendants' Property.

Hafele America Co., a North Carolina corporation, and Madison
Sixty LLC, a New York limited liability company, are authorized to
conduct, and are conducting business within the state of New York.
Hafele America Co. is the lessee and Madison Sixty LLC is the
owner and lessor of the subject real property located in New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


HAMPTON, VA: "Terrill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Terrill, Michael R. Vandenheede, Brandon Williams, Ernest
Williams, Jr., Jennifer S. Williams, Colgan G. Wilson, Sean
Wolkowich, and Sandra K. Youngs, et al. on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. City Of Hampton, Virginia,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00081 (E.D. Va., July 2, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTHCARE STRATEGIES: Sept. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a fiduciary of a 401(k) or 401(a) ERISA plan that
contracted with ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company, you should
be aware of a class action settlement.

What is this about?

In a lawsuit in federal court in Connecticut, the plaintiffs,
Healthcare Strategies, Inc. and The DeRosa Corporation
("Plaintiffs"), have alleged that ING Life Insurance and Annuity
Company ("ILIAC") violated ERISA by receiving payments from mutual
fund companies whose funds are offered as investment options to
401(k) and 401(a) retirement plans ("revenue sharing payments").
The Court has not made any rulings about whether ILIAC did
anything wrong, and ILIAC denies any wrongdoing.  Plaintiffs have
agreed to settle the case because they believe that the settlement
provides substantial and meaningful relief to the members of the
settlement class and in light of the potential risks of further
litigation.  ILIAC has agreed to settle to avoid the expense and
distraction of further continued litigation.  Both parties agree
that the settlement provides meaningful and carefully tailored
relief to the settlement class that relates directly to the
allegations in Plaintiffs' case.

What does the Settlement provide?

Plans that have contracted with ILIAC between February 23, 2005 to
February 7, 2013 can receive a payment from a settlement fund of
$14,950,000.  ILIAC also has agreed to make a number of changes in
its business practices for the next five years and will provide
settlement class members with enhanced disclosures of information
regarding the revenue sharing payments and other compensation that
it receives in connection with investments by its 401(k) and
401(a) retirement plan customers, as well as a way of paying ILIAC
for services rendered without ILIAC receiving any revenue sharing
payments.

Who represents me?

The Court has appointed lawyers to represent the class of
retirement plans at no cost to class members.  These attorneys
will ask the Court to award them attorneys' fees and expenses, and
the Court will determine the reasonable fees and expenses to be
paid.  For more information regarding the attorneys' fees and
expenses being requested, please visit the website or call the
number below.  You may hire your own attorney if you wish, but at
your own cost.

What are my rights?

To get money, your plan must submit a completed Instruction Form
by December 1, 2014.  If you do nothing, you will remain in the
class but receive no money.  You do not need to do anything to get
the benefit of the new business practices.  You do not need to do
anything to get the benefit of the settlement.

You may exclude yourself from the class by sending a letter to the
addresses listed in the full class notice and it must be received
no later than September 3, 2014.  Your plan cannot get any money
if you do so.

You may object to the settlement by filing an objection with the
Court, Lead Counsel, and Counsel for ILIAC no later than
September 3, 2014 as detailed in the full class notice.

If the settlement is approved by the Court, class members who do
not opt out will give up any claims covered by the settlement and
will be bound by the Court's orders in the case.

The Court will hold a hearing on September 17, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
in Courtroom 18 to consider whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

To request a copy of the full class notice or an Instruction Form,
or for further information:

Call: 1 866-274-4004
Visit: www.ingerisasettlement.com
Write: Settlement Administrator
       Strategic Claims Services
       Attn: ING ERISA Settlement
       P.O. Box 230
       600 N Jackson Street - Suite 3
       Media, PA 19063


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $76-Mil Bond Under Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that it has an
outstanding bond of $76 million under a class action lawsuit
against Hilton and a noncontributory retirement plan to support
potential future plan contributions from the Company.

The Company states: "We have an outstanding bond of $76 million
under a class action lawsuit against Hilton and the Domestic Plan
to support potential future plan contributions from us. We funded
an account, which is classified as restricted cash and cash
equivalents in our condensed consolidated balance sheets, to
support this requirement. If the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia approves of our compliance with the findings
from the class action lawsuit, then the bond may be released in
2014.

"We have a noncontributory retirement plan in the U.S. (the
"Domestic Plan"), which covers certain employees not earning union
benefits."

Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. is a hospitality company. As of
December 3, 2013, the Company operated 4,080 hotels, resorts and
timeshare properties, which consisted of 671,926 rooms in 90
countries and territories. The Company's flagship full-service
brand is Hilton Hotels & Resorts. The Company's brand portfolio
also includes its luxury hotel brands, Waldorf Astoria Hotels &
Resorts and Conrad Hotels & Resorts, its full-service hotel
brands, DoubleTree by Hilton and Embassy Suites Hotels, its
focused-service hotel brands, Hilton Garden Inn, Hampton Inn,
Homewood Suites by Hilton and Home2 Suites by Hilton and its
timeshare brand, Hilton Grand Vacations. The Company owns or
leases interests in 156 hotels, many of which are located in
global gateway cities.


HONDA MOTORS: Acura Unit to Recall 14,078 Cars in U.S.
------------------------------------------------------
Subrat Patnaik, writing for Reuters, reports that Acura, the
luxury division of Japanese automaker Honda Motors Co. Ltd., said
it would recall 14,078 model-year 2013-2014 ILX vehicles to
replace their halogen projector beam headlights.

The car manufacturer said if a vehicle is parked with the engine
running with the low-beam headlights on for a long time, the
headlights could melt plastic components, resulting in a fire.

There was one fire reported but there were no related crashes or
injuries, Acura said in a statement.

Honda has expanded to the state of California its U.S. regional
recall of vehicles over potentially explosive air bags made by
Takata Corp.


IDT ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Disclose Variable Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Mclaughlin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IDT Energy, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04107
(E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendant fails to
clearly and conspicuously disclose in both its contracts and in
all marketing materials that the Company charges variable rates
and the factors that affect variable rates, fails to adequately
inform consumers that with variable rates the consumers' energy
costs can precipitously rise, by highlighting potential savings
and it fails to mention that any purported savings would be
quickly erased by a significant increase in energy prices,
misrepresents the amount a consumer is likely to receive from
rebate program and bolstering its misrepresentation by stating
that those estimates are based on a customer's prior usage and
miscalculates and underpays its promised rebate.

IDT Energy, Inc., markets and sells residential and commercial gas
and electricity to over a million consumers in New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, and the District of
Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. WITTELS
      18 Half Mile Road,
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 319-9945
      Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
      E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com


IKO MANUFACTURING: 7th Cir. Revives Roof Shingles Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, report that the
Seventh Circuit on July 2 allowed plaintiffs to seek class
certification of their claims against a roofing shingles maker
they allege overstated the quality of organic asphalt roofing
shingles it sold, finding the plaintiffs' claims don't flout
standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in
Comcast.

A three-judge panel reversed an Illinois federal district court's
ruling earlier this year that had denied their class certification
bid, finding that U.S. District Judge Harold Baker, who issued
that ruling, had not applied the correct legal standards.  The
plaintiffs, whose suits were consolidated in Illinois federal
court in 2009, had sought to certify a class that would cover IKO
Manufacturing Inc. roofing shingle sales in several states since
the late 1970s, according to the order.

The panel distinguished the case from those in recent Supreme
Court rulings that decertified classes, including its landmark
ruling in Comcast v. Behrend, in which the court found that
plaintiffs in an antitrust class action had not shown that common
issues predominated on the issue of damages.  In this case, the
Seventh Circuit said on July 2 that the plaintiffs had argued on
two theories of damages that the court said matched their theory
of liability, as the high court's Comcast ruling requires.

"Elsewhere, the district court wrote that "commonality of damages"
is essential," the panel wrote in its opinion.  "If this is right,
then class actions about consumer products are impossible, and our
post Comcast decision in Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. must be
wrong."

In the Sears case, the Seventh Circuit controversially backed the
certification of classes of washer buyers who claimed the products
have a defect that can cause them to get moldy.

Earlier in 2013, the Supreme Court vacated its pro-certification
ruling in the washer case, instructing it to reconsider its
decision in light Comcast.  But the Seventh Circuit again upheld
certification in the washer dispute, finding that Comcast does not
apply to the cases.

In this case, the plaintiffs had argued that each customer who had
purchased an IKO tile incurred the same amount of damages for each
tile that did not meet the standard that IKO claimed it did,
according to the order.  The plaintiffs had argued also that
customers whose tiles failed because it did not meet those
standards should also be entitled to damages, according to the
order.

Neither of these theories by themselves preclude class
certification, the panel said, though it noted also that it is not
commenting on whether or not to grant the certification bid or
what issues should be certified, if at all.

Chief Judge Diane P. Wood and Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook
and Michael S. Kanne sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.

The case is In the matter of: IKO Roofing Shingle Products
Liability Litigation, case number 14-1532, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


INFOBLOX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 3 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Infoblox, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 5:14-cv-02644, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Infoblox between
September 6, 2013 and February 10, 2014, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of 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 Infoblox securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 29, 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.

Infoblox develops, markets, and sells automated network control
solutions worldwide.  Its appliance-based solution combines
real-time IP address management with the automation of network
control, and network change and configuration management processes
in physical and virtual appliances.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, Defendants made
numerous statements regarding Infoblox's financial strength that
were false and misleading in light of Defendants' concealment of
the fats that: (i) the Company's Federal business prospects were
weak and would continue to be weak for the foreseeable future;
(ii) the Company had been implementing enormous discounting in
order to maintain market share; and (iii) the Company was failing
to close on big-ticket deals that had previously driven its
revenue growth.

Infoblox insiders -- including the Individual Defendants -- sold
significant amounts of Company stock at artificially inflated
prices, reaping considerable profits at a time when these
individuals were privy to material adverse information concerning
the Company's financial prospects.  The Individual Defendants and
other directors and senior executives sold their shares after
publicly providing guidance that they knew or should have known
was baseless and unreasonable.  Infoblox management further
delayed correcting their previously-issued guidance in order to
continue to sell shares at inflated prices.

On February 10, 2014, after the market close, Infoblox provided
preliminary fiscal second quarter 2014 results and updated its
outlook for fiscal year 2014.  For the first time, the Company
disclosed that it had been "discounting enormously to get deals."
The Company revised its guidance downward both for its second
quarter ending January 31, 20014 and for its fiscal year ending
July 31, 2014.  The Company announced that it now predicted
revenue of $60 to $61 million for 2Q 2014, down from the previous
expectation of $65 to $66 million and a non-GAAP earnings per
share of $0.10 to $0.12, versus previous estimates of $0.09 to
$0.11.  For its full year outlook, Infoblox revised external
revenue projections to $250 to $254 million, down from previous
guidance over the last two quarters of $270 to $276 million.  EPS
was updated to be $0.30 to $0.34 diluted earnings per share, lower
than previous guidance over the last two quarters for full year
earnings of $0.44 to $0.54.

On this news, shares of Infoblox declined $15.95 per share, or
over 48.12%, to close at $17.19 per share on February 11, 2014.

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.


LIBERTY CAPITAL: Sued in Ill. for Sending Junk Faxes
----------------------------------------------------
Bruce Packaging, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Liberty Capital Group, Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05038 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for sending unsolicited junk faxes
in bulk -- fax blasts -- to unwilling recipients with deficient
opt-out notices.

Liberty Capital Group, Inc., offers financial products and
services to businesses, including loans and equipment financing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq.
      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State St., Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              gbarbakoff@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


M & P INNOVATIVE: "Mainer" Suit Moved From M.D. to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mainer v. M & P Innovative
Enterprises, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00060, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta).  The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-02162-JEC to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Anna Mainer contends that she should be compensated at
the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for those
hours that she worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

M & P Innovative Enterprises operates a preschool/daycare center
in Clayton County, Georgia. Cherry Pearson operates M & P.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


MAXLINE REALTY: Refuses to Pay Workers Overtime, "Polo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roque David Silva Polo and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Maxline Realty LLC, Riverview South Apartments
LLC, Santa Monica Apartments, LLC, Tribeca Apartments LLC, Middle
River Apartments LLC, Chelsea Manor Apartments LLC, Benjamin
Maximov, Case No. 0:14-cv-61517 (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Maxline Realty LLC, Riverview South Apartments LLC, Santa Monica
Apartments, LLC, Tribeca Apartments LLC, Middle River Apartments
LLC, Chelsea Manor Apartments LLC, operates real estate businesses
in Broward County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Mayek" Suit to Tennessee District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Mayek, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CT-002961-14, 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-02523-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were injured by Plaintiff Stephen
Mayek's physician's off-label use of Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic
Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s Infuse(R) Bone Graft device.

The Plaintiffs are 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

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, Esq.
          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


METRO RAIL: COSATU to File Class Action Over Fare Increases
-----------------------------------------------------------
COSATU on July 2 said it condemns Metro Rail for its decision to
proceed with the rail fare increases.

COSATU said "This fare increase is a double blow to commuters in
the light of the bad services that are presently provided by
Metro Rail.  When the train services are delayed workers and
commuters must take busses and taxis to get to their destinations,
which means extra costs on top of the cost of the weekly/monthly
ticket.  Workers also lose money for arriving late for work due to
the delays in the train services."

"When commuters buy a ticket they enter into an agreement that the
service will be relatively reliable, not endemically unreliable.
The financial prejudice that workers suffer due to the unreliable
Metro Rail service must be recovered from somewhere.  The fact
that Metro Rail is not prepared to delay the increase until the
service improves and workers are not prejudiced has left COSATU
with no alternative but to file a Class Action suit against Metro
Rail to recover the lost money for workers.

"COSATU believes this action in the interest of COSATU members has
been compelled by Metro Rail's price increases and the general
level of price increases in the economy from petrol to electricity
to food prices.  Metro Rail has added insult to injury in the
manner in which it treats commuters.  COSATU will also be leading
a mass protest against Metro Rail on 12th of July 2014, to which
all commuters are invited."

The papers for the Class Action will be filed with the Cape Town
high Court.


MICHAELS STORES: Class of Former Cal. Store Managers Decertified
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class of former Michaels Stores, Inc. store managers was
decertified in a suit now pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, according to the
company's June 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On September 15, 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed
in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange
("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a class action
proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current
store managers employed by Michaels in California. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company stores improperly classified its store
managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages,
overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate
wage statements.  The lawsuit also alleges that the foregoing
conduct was in breach of various laws, including California's
unfair competition law.  On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court
entered an Order certifying a class of approximately 200 members.
The Company subsequently successfully removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California and on May 8, 2014, the class was de-certified.


MICHAELS STORE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Data Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. is facing a consolidated suit in the United
States District Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division over data security incident, according to the company's
June 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

Five putative class actions were filed relating to a recent Data
Breach. The plaintiffs generally allege that the Company failed to
secure and safeguard customers' private information including
credit and debit card information and as such, breached an implied
contract, violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other
states' similar laws) and are seeking damages including
declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre
and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The
cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc. was
filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize and
Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February 21,
2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc. was filed on March
14, 2014. All four of these cases were filed in the United States
District Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. A
case, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on March 18, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
on April 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint. On April 16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating
the current actions.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESPN.com and The Associated Press report that a federal judge on
July 7 granted preliminary approval to a landmark deal that would
compensate thousands of former NFL players for concussion-related
claims.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody in Philadelphia came
about two weeks after the NFL agreed to remove a $675 million cap
on damages.  Judge Brody had previously questioned whether that
would be enough money to pay all claims.

"A class action settlement that offers prompt relief is superior
to the likely alternative -- years of expensive, difficult, and
uncertain litigation, with no assurance of recovery, while retired
players' physical and mental conditions continue to deteriorate,"
Brody wrote.

More than 4,500 former players have filed suit, some accusing the
league of fraud for its handling of concussions.  They include
former Dallas Cowboys running back Tony Dorsett and Super Bowl-
winning Chicago Bears quarterback Jim McMahon, who suffers from
dementia.

The settlement is designed to last at least 65 years and give $1
million or more to retirees who develop Lou Gehrig's disease and
other profound neurological problems.

"This is an extraordinary settlement for retired NFL players and
their families -- from those who suffer with neuro-cognitive
illnesses today, to those who are currently healthy but fear they
may develop symptoms decades into the future," plaintiffs'
attorneys Sol Weiss and Christopher Seeger said in a statement.

NFL senior vice president Anastasia Danias said in a statement
that the league was "grateful to Judge Brody for her guidance and
her thoughtful analysis of the issues as reflected in the
comprehensive opinion she issued."

Mr. Dorsett told ESPN's Ed Werder on July 8 that he's not "totally
satisfied" with the settlement.

"Now, I'm going to get help with health care.  But I'm not totally
satisfied," Mr. Dorsett told Mr. Werder.  "There's not enough
money they can give.  I'm a human being and it's hard knowing that
my quality of life is going to diminish tremendously."

The original settlement included $675 million for compensatory
claims for players with neurological symptoms, $75 million for
baseline testing and $10 million for medical research and
education.  The NFL would also pay an additional $112 million to
the players' lawyers, for a total payout of more than $870
million.

The revised settlement eliminates the cap on overall damage claims
but retains a payout formula for individual retirees that
considers their age and illness.  A young retiree with amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, would receive $5
million, a 50-year-old with Alzheimer's disease would get $1.6
million and an 80-year-old with early dementia would get $25,000.

Even with the cap removed, both sides said they believe the NFL
will spend no more than about $675 million on damage claims by ex-
players.

Mr. Dorsett, however says that while the money is nice, it's still
not enough.

"[I]t's great from the standpoint of the money and that's going to
help, but it can't give us back what we really want -- quality of
life," Mr. Dorsett told Mr. Werder.  "It's priceless when you're
talking about my brain and my ability to make a living like other
people.  Is it enough? It will never be enough."

Critics of the deal have said the league, with annual revenues
approaching $10 billion, was getting off lightly.  They could
raise objections at a fairness hearing scheduled for Nov. 19, and
ultimately opt out of the settlement.

However, they would then face the risk of a protracted legal
fight, and would have to prove any injuries were caused by NFL
concussions and not any suffered in youth or college sports.  The
proposed NFL settlement had originally barred claimants from
seeking a separate settlement against the NCAA, but that clause
has been removed.  A separate lawsuit is pending against the NCAA
in Illinois.

"I think the judge has forced them to make improvements," said
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias, who teaches
product liability law.  "I think she always felt she had an
obligation to the players, to be sure they were getting a fair
deal . . . given the treatment to date."

The settlement would be capped at $4 million on behalf of players
diagnosed with traumatic brain injury after their deaths, such as
San Diego star Junior Seau or Pro Bowler Dave Duerson.  Both of
their families, through lawyers, have expressed concerns about the
settlement.  Mr. Duerson died at age 50.  A family lawyer has
called their projected $2.2 million award to the family "not
adequate."


NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Court denied on March 24, 2014, denied plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification without prejudice in a putative class
action complaint against a subsidiary of Navient Corporation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class
action complaint against Existing SLM in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. The complaint is
captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., Case No. C-
11-01320EDL. The plaintiff purports to bring the complaint on
behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated
California borrowers. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that Existing SLM's practice of charging late fees proportional to
the amount of missed payments constitutes liquidated damages in
violation of California law; and Existing SLM engages in unfair
business practices by charging daily interest on private
educational loans. Following motion practice and additional
amendments to the complaint, which added usury claims under
California state law, the operative complaint (Modified Third
Amended Complaint) was filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs filed
their Motion for Class Certification on October 22, 2013. On March
24, 2014, the Court denied plantiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice, but granted plantiffs leave to
amend. Plaintiffs seek restitution of late charges and interest
assessed against members of the class, injunctive relief,
cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as
permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among
other relief. Prior to the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005,
Existing SLM followed prevalent capital market practices of
acquiring and securitizing private education loans purchased in
secondary transactions from banks who originated these loans.
Plaintiffs allege that the services provided by Existing SLM and
SMI to these the originating banks result in Existing SLM and SMI
constituting lenders on these loans. Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank
has originated the vast majority of all private education loans
acquired by Existing SLM. The claims at issue in this case
expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank since its
inception. As a subsidiary of Navient, Existing SLM will remain
the named party to this lawsuit. Navient has agreed to indemnify
SLM BankCo for any costs or expenses, including legal fees,
arising out of any litigation such as this resulting from the
operation of the business of Existing SLM and its subsidiaries
prior to the distribution date. It is not possible at this time to
estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that
may be payable in connection therewith.

Navient Corporation holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP Loans), as well as the portfolio of private education loans
(Private Education Loans). FFELP Loans are insured or guaranteed
by state or not-for-profit agencies and are also protected by
contractual rights to recovery from the United States pursuant to
guaranty agreements among the United States Department of
Education(ED), and these agencies. The Company operates in four
segments: Consumer Lending, Business Services, FFELP Loans and
Other. At December 31, 2013, 84% of its FFELP Loan portfolio was
funded to term with non-recourse, long-term securitization debt.
The Company also sold its Campus Solution business and its 529
college-savings plan administration business in 2013 in connection
with better aligning its core business. The results of both of
these businesses are reported in discontinued operations for all
periods presented.


NICK'S PRODUCE: Accused of Unlawful Misappropriation of Assets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob's Village Farm Corp. and Jacob Yusifov v. Naum Yusifov a/k/a
Nick Yusifov, Lana Yusifov a/k/a Svetlana Beyn, Nick's
Produce Corp., John Montes, and John Doe # 1-10, persons being
unknown to Plaintiffs who knowingly participated with any of the
named defendants in the activities alleged herein, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04109 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2014), arises from the Defendants'
unauthorized writing of checks and making wire transfers from the
bank account of Jacob's Corp. to themselves, making payments from
Jacob's Corp. bank account to third persons, ordering produce in
the name of Jacob's Corp. and diverting and reselling the produce
and causing the suppliers to make claims against Jacob's Corp.
instead of the Defendants, misappropriation or conversation of
produce, produce proceeds and other assets of Jacob's Corp during
the period from 2009 to 2013.

Nick's Produce Corp, a New York corporation, incorporated by
Defendants Nick and Lana for the purpose of continuing their
unlawful misappropriation and diversion of the PACA trust fund
assets held by Jacob's Corp. and Jacob.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carl E. Person, Esq.
      CARL E. PERSON
      225 East 36th Street, Suite 3A
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 307-4444
      Facsimile: (212) 307-0247
      E-mail: carlpers@ix.netcom.com


NIKE INC: Sued for Denying Full and Equal Access to Tetraplegic
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Nike, Inc., an Oregon corporation, d/b/a Nike
Running Flatiron, and 156 Fifth Avenue Corp., a New York
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05101 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff personally visited the Defendants'
property, but was denied full and equal access to, and full and
equal enjoyment of, the facilities at their property, which is the
subject of the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is a tetraplegic, having suffered from Guillain-
Barre syndrome, and uses a wheelchair for mobility.  The Plaintiff
personally visited the Defendants' property, but was allegedly
denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of,
the facilities at the Defendants' Property.

Nike, Inc., an Oregon corporation doing business as Nike Running
Flatiron, and 156 Fifth Avenue Corp., a New York corporation, are
authorized to conduct, and are conducting business within the
state of New York.  Nike, Inc., is the lessee and 156 Fifth Avenue
Corp., is the owner and lessor of the subject property located in
New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


NORTEX WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Jorge" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rito Jorge, and all others similarly situated v. Nortex Wholesale
Nursery, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02392 (N.D. Tex., July 2, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly

Nortex Wholesale Nursery, Inc., purchases plants and other
materials for resale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
      URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      5440 Harvest Hill Rd., Suite 145E
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (214) 420-3366
      Facsimile: (214) 206-9802
      E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 3 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-3251, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Och-Ziff securities
between February 9, 2012 and April 25, 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 Och-Ziff securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 7, 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.

Och-Ziff is a publicly owned investment management company that
was founded in 1994 and is based New York, New York with
additional offices in London, United Kingdom; Hong Kong; Tokyo,
Japan; Bangalore, India; and Beijing, 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) the Company violated relevant anti-bribery
laws by accepting an investment from the Libyan Investment
Authority, a sovereign wealth fund; (ii) the Company loaned $234
million to help finance two ventures in the Democratic Republic of
Congo in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; (iii)
beginning in 2011, the Company received subpoenas from the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States
Department of Justice in connection with the transactions
mentioned above; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 3, 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Department of Justice joined a widening investigation of
banks, private-equity firms and hedge funds, including Och-Ziff,
relating to the possible violation of anti-bribery laws in their
dealings with Libya's government-run investment fund.  The article
also stated that the criminal investigation by the DOJ was
proceeding alongside a civil probe by the SEC that began in 2011.

On the news, Och-Ziff stock fell $0.87, or 6.7%, to close at
$12.08 on heavy volume.

On April 27, 2014, the WSJ published an article providing details
about the Och-Ziff investments in Africa under investigation by
the SEC and DOJ.  The article stated that the probe centered on
two loans totaling $234 million, to companies controlled by a
controversial mining executive, which helped finance two ventures
in the Democratic Republic of Congo involving properties that were
the subject of ownership disputes.

On this news, shares in Och-Ziff fell $1.28, or almost 10%, on
heavy trading volume, to close at $11.65 on April 28, 2014.

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.


OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 3 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against OvaScience, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, and docketed under 1:14-cv-12412-DJC, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of OvaScience between February 25,
2013 and September 10, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors as a result of 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 OvaScience securities
during the Class Period, you have until August 5, 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.

OvaScience is a life sciences company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of new treatments for
infertility.  The Company's patented technology is based on the
discovery of egg precursor cells (EggPCSM), which are found in the
ovaries.  By applying proprietary technology to identify and
purify EggPCs, AUGMENTSM aims to improve egg quality and increase
the success of in vitro fertilization.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, OvaScience
represented to the FDA and investors that it believed that AUGMENT
qualified for designation as a 361 HCT/P, which allows human
cellular and tissue based products to be tested and marketed
without FDA licensure.  Yet despite this representation,
OvaScience never qualified for this designation.

On September 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was
suspending enrollment of AUGMENT in the U.S. after receiving an
"untitled" letter from the FDA "questioning the status of AUGMENT
as a 361 HCT/P and advising the Company to file an Investigational
New Drug (IND) application."

On this news, OvaScience shares declined $3.33 per share or more
than 23%, to close at $10.95 per share on September 11, 2013.

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.


PANTHER DRILLING: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Lucas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Panther Drilling Systems, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00689
(W.D. Okla., July 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Panther Drilling Systems, LLC, is an oilfield service company with
significant operations in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Jones, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500,
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: jjones@brucknerburch.com


PFIZER INC: New York Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Pfizer Inc. won
the dismissal on July 8 of a long-running shareholder class action
accusing the company of misleading investors about the safety of
its Celebrex and Bextra pain-relieving drugs.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in New York
came ahead of a Sept. 9 trial in the case, which investors
launched in 2004 and followed an earlier ruling precluding
testimony by the plaintiffs' damages expert.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, James Sabella, had acknowledged at a
hearing after that May ruling that "without a damages expert a
securities fraud trial can't be tried."

They sought to amend a report issued by their expert,
Daniel Fischel, a former dean of the law school at the University
of Chicago whose methodology for calculating damages Swain had
found to be flawed.

Judge Swain, however, said the plaintiffs did not deserve a second
chance and agreed with Pfizer the case should be dismissed.

"Plaintiffs' failure to proffer admissible loss causation and
damages evidence is fatal to plaintiffs' claims," Swain wrote.

Pfizer in a statement said it was pleased with the ruling, adding
it "has always believed the evidence in this case demonstrates
that the company's historical statements about Celebrex and Bextra
were accurate."

Mr. Sabella, a partner at law firm Grant & Eisenhofer who
represented lead plaintiff Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The class action, which Swain had previously certified, covered
investors who bought Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000, and
October 19, 2005.

Concerns about the safety of Celebrex and Bextra began to mount
following the release of medical studies in late 2004, when rival
Merck & Co Inc. withdrew its own Vioxx drug from the market
because of associated cardiovascular risks.

The lawsuit contended before fall of 2004, Pfizer and its
executives hid material results of tests conducted starting in
1998 regarding the safety of Celebrex and Bextra that indicated
similar risks.

Revenues from Celebrex and Bextra fell by over $2 billion in the
first nine months of 2005 after the safety concerns were made
public, the lawsuit said.

The company's market capitalization meanwhile dropped by $68.4
billion between October 2004 and October 2005, the lawsuit said.

Pfizer pulled Bextra from the U.S. market in April 2005 at the
recommendation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In September 2009, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle a
U.S. Department of Justice probe into the marketing of drugs
including Bextra.

The case is In re: Pfizer Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 05-md-01688.


PJPA LLC: Doesn't Pay Minimum Wage to Delivery Drivers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Morris, for himself and all others similarly situated v.
PJPA, LLC, Case No. :14-cv-04055 (E.D. Pa., July 2, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay delivery drivers
less than the required minimum wage.

PJPA, LLC, is an unincorporated company that owns and operates
several dozen Papa John's Pizza Stores in Delaware, Pennsylvania
and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      KOLMAN ELY PC
      414 Hulmeville Ave
      Penndel, PA 19047
      Telephone: (215) 750-3134
      E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net


RAINTREE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Laughlin" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Laughlin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Raintree Construction, Inc. and Corbin
Mcmillion, Case No. 5:14-cv-00593 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages under Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Raintree Construction, Inc., hauls and installs modular buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net


RALPH LAUREN: Accused of Failing to Remove Barriers Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Ralph Lauren Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
d/b/a Denim & Supply, Ralph Lauren, and 99 University Corp., a New
York corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05098 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants fail to remove architectural barriers
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, where the removal
is readily achievable.

The Plaintiff, a resident of New York, is a double amputee and
uses a wheelchair for mobility.  The Plaintiff personally visited
the Defendants' property, but was allegedly denied full and equal
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at
their property.

Ralph Lauren Corporation, a Delaware corporation doing business as
Denim & Supply, Ralph Lauren, and 99 University Corp., a New York
corporation, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting
business within the state of New York.  Ralph Lauren Corporation
is the lessee and 99 University Corp. is the owner and lessor of
the real property in New York City where the subject facility is
located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Bank of America Building
          18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


SAN ANTONIO, TX: Faces "Peden" Suit Over Breach of Equal Pay Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine A. Peden and Jeanne M. Martinez, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. City Of San Antonio, Texas,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00592 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 2014), arises from the
Defendant's common policy or scheme of paying females less than
males for equal work in violation of The Equal Pay Act.

City of San Antonio, Texas, is a municipality and may be served
through its City Clerk Leticia M. Vacek at City Hall, 100 Military
Plaza, San Antonio, Texas 78205.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
      THE MORALES LAW FIRM
      115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Removed "Lucero" Labor Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lucero, et al. v. Sears Holdings
Management Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00000431-CU-OE-
CTL was transferred from the San Diego Superior Court, Central
Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-01620-AJB-WVG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph C. Liburt, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 614-7400
          Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
          E-mail: jliburt@orrick.com


STANLEY BLACK: Recalls About 108,000 Porter-Cable Routers
---------------------------------------------------------
Ian Simpson at Reuters reports Stanley Black & Decker Inc is
recalling about 108,000 Porter-Cable routers because the power
tool's uninsulated handles pose a risk of electrical shock, the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on July 2.

The recall by Porter-Cable, a Black & Decker unit based in Towson,
Maryland, involves four production routers and one production
router base, the commission said in a statement.

About 100,000 routers, which are used to cut grooves in metal or
wood, are being pulled in the United States along with about 7,800
in Canada, it said.

The side handles are uninsulated and could be a risk for
electrical shock. No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The Mexican-made routers were sold at equipment suppliers from
1990 to April 2014 at prices ranging from $85 to $690, depending
on the model, the statement said.


SUNOCO INC: Faces "Stern" Suit Over Higher Credit Card Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Stern, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sunoco, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04061 (E.D. Pa., July
2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose
to its consumers that it charges the higher credit/debit card
price for gasoline instead of the lower cash price for Gift Cards.

Sunoco, Inc., is an American petroleum and petrochemical
manufacturer and retail operator and distributor of Sunoco branded
gas stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart J. Guber, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600,
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      E-mail: sguber@faruqilaw.com


TRICO BANCSHARES: Paid $2,429,000 to Settle Branch Mangers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares disclosed that it has paid the $2,429,000
settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging improper
classification of its assistant branch managers under California
laws, according to the Company's, the Form 10-Q filed on May 9,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On September 27, 2012, the Company announced that the Bank entered
into a tentative settlement with a former employee who filed a
class action lawsuit against the Bank in the Superior Court of
California, Kern County on behalf of herself and a putative class
of current and former Bank employees serving as assistant branch
managers seeking undisclosed damages, alleging that the Bank
improperly classified its assistant branch managers as exempt
employees under California laws. The lawsuit alleges claims for:
failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide
accurate wage statements; failure to provide suitable seating;
declaratory relief; accounting; and unfair business practices in
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17200.

On September 26, 2012, after efforts to mediate the claim, the
Bank and the former employee agreed to settle the case in an
amount ranging from $2,039,500 to $2,500,000, depending primarily
on the number of class participants who file claims, and pending
final approval by the court, including determination of the method
to allocate settlement payments among current and former employees
who are members of the defined settlement class, and the portion
of the total settlement allocable to attorney's fees and costs to
plaintiff's counsel. On September 26, 2012, the Bank recorded a
$2,090,000 expense and accrued liability in anticipation of
approval of this settlement by the court and estimated related
payroll taxes. On May 7, 2013, the court preliminarily approved
the settlement. On August 27, 2013, the court approved a final
settlement agreement for $2,429,000, and the Bank recorded an
additional $339,000 expense and accrued liability related to this
matter. During September 2013, the Bank paid the settlement
amount.

TriCo Bancshares (TriCo) is a bank holding company that operates
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Tri Counties Bank (the Bank).


TRICO BANCSHARES: Defendant in North Valley Merger Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against
TriCo Bancshares on January 24, 2014, alleging among other things,
breach of fiduciary duties approving the proposed North Valley
Bancorp merger for inadequate consideration, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014.

On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against TriCo, North Valley Bancorp and certain other
defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the merger
agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed
in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the
members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by
approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration;
approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally
shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders; entering into
the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection
devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be
paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges
claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting
consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of the merger
agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief. At this
stage, TriCo is unable to predict the outcome of the proceedings
or their impact on TriCo or North Valley Bancorp.

TriCo Bancshares (TriCo) is a bank holding company that operates
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Tri Counties Bank (the Bank).


TRUSTED TRADITIONS: "Kabasa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Kabasha, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Trusted Traditions, Inc., and John Maragoudakis a/k/a John Markis,
individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61525 (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and straight wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Trusted Traditions, Inc., is a premier provider of high quality,
distinctive currency and coins.

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


WENDY'S OLD: Has Access Barriers at Various Properties, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New
York, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00893-TFM (W.D. Pa., July 8, 2014)
alleges that the Company violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act and its implementing regulations, in connection with
accessibility barriers at various properties it owned and managed.

The Plaintiff has a mobility disability and is limited in the
major life activity of walking, which has caused him to be
dependent upon a wheelchair for mobility.

Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York, Inc., is a business
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
          Carlos R. Diaz, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Pre-Packaged Salads in 3 Northeastern States
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Whole Foods is recalling two
pre-packaged salads sold in three northeastern states due to a
mislabeling of allergens.

The mini four-ounce containers of pre-packaged Caesar salad and
Mesclun goat cheese salad were sold on July 8 in stores in New
York, New Jersey (excluding Princeton, Cherry Hill and Marlton),
and Connecticut (excluding Glastonbury, West Hartford and Bishop's
Corner).

The company says allergen warnings were mistakenly switched on the
two items.  The Caesar salad package now contains a warning about
tree nuts, when it should contain a warning about fish and egg
allergens, while the Mesclun salad contains a warning about fish
and egg allergens.

Customers who have bought either product can bring their receipt
to a Whole Foods store for a refund.


* Consumers Have Until Aug. 1 to Claim Money in DRAM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Illinois officials say consumers
have until Aug. 1 to claim money they may have overpaid for
computerized equipment containing DRAM, a type of electronic
memory chip.

The claims may be made under a $310 million settlement reached
with Illinois and other states in a federal antitrust lawsuit.

People who bought computers and other electronic devices from 1998
to 2002 could be eligible.  Buyers could have paid more than a
fair price for products including DRAM -- short for dynamic random
access memory.

The states that sued alleged that DRAM manufacturers conspired to
artificially raise the price of the chips from 1998 to 2002.

Those who purchased directly from a DRAM manufacturer are not
eligible.

The settlement also requires DRAM manufacturers to implement
antitrust compliance programs.


* Cornerstone Research Names Michael E. Burton President & CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Research, a provider of economic and financial
consulting and analysis in commercial litigation and regulatory
proceedings, on July 10 announced the appointment of Michael E.
Burton as President and CEO. Dr. Burton, formerly a Senior Vice
President, succeeds Cynthia L. Zollinger, who has held Cornerstone
Research's highest leadership position since January 2007.
Ms. Zollinger remains an officer of the firm and will assume the
post of Chair, succeeding James K. Malernee Jr.

This transition in Cornerstone Research's leadership position
reflects the firm's commitment to proactive succession planning.
"Mike was selected as our next President and CEO after careful
consideration, based on his exceptional leadership abilities and
his commitment to our vision and values," said Ms. Zollinger.

Dr. Burton joined Cornerstone Research in 2000 to help build the
firm's Washington, DC office, which has grown rapidly under his
leadership.  He has nearly 30 years of experience in economic and
financial consulting and analysis of liability and damages issues
arising in business litigation.  Dr. Burton has led Cornerstone
Research's work in numerous high-profile matters involving
antitrust, breach of contract, business valuation, intellectual
property rights, international arbitration, market manipulation,
and securities.

"Cindy has been outstanding together with our senior staff in
steering Cornerstone Research to the market-leading position that
it occupies today," Dr. Burton said.  "I am excited to build upon
this work. We're committed to maintaining the high levels of
expertise and excellent service that our clients have come to
expect from Cornerstone Research."

Ms. Zollinger expressed her appreciation for her years as the
firm's leader: "It has been a privilege and a pleasure to work
with the clients, experts, and staff of Cornerstone Research in
the position of CEO and President, and I look forward to
continuing my active role with the firm for years to come."

                     About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
high-quality economic and financial consulting and expert
testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory
proceedings.  The firm works with an extensive network of leading
authorities from academia and industry to identify the best-
qualified expert for each assignment.  Staff consultants bring
specialized knowledge and experience as well as a commitment to
produce outstanding results.  Currently marking its 25th
anniversary, Cornerstone Research has over 450 staff and offices
in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, New York, San
Francisco, and Washington.


                             *********

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  * * *