CAR_Public/140715.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 139

                             Headlines


ACE CASH: Settles Consumer Debt Collection Claims for $10 Million
AFFYMAX INC: Settles Omontys Class Action for $6.5 Million
AMAZON.COM: FTC Files Suit Over Kids' Mobile App Charges
AMERICAN ECONOMY: 1st Cir. Remands CE Design's Case for Dismissal
AMERICAN HOME: Court Awards Atty. Fees for 2013 Work

AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces "Ulti-Mate" Suit Alleging RICO Violations
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Complies With Terms of Stock Suit Accord
AMY MURPHY NEWBY: Circuit Court Ruling in "Asset" Suit Upheld
APOTHAKER & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
AU OPTRONICS: 9th Cir. Upholds Price-Fixing Convictions v. Execs

BANK OF AMERICA: "Hall" Suit Settlement Get Initial Court Okay
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rigs Gold Market for Own Benefit, Suit Says
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued for Fixing Trade of Gold & Derivatives
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: Faces Suit Over M2A Magnum Hip Replacement
BP PLC: British Pension Funds Join Oil Spill Class Action

BUMBLE BEE: "Bennett" Suit Moved to Western District of Arkansas
CAMPBELL SOUP: "McCrary" Suit Remanded to Calif. Super. Court
CARMAX AUTO: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Wage Class Action
CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Faces "Whitby" Suit Alleging FHA Violations
CHINA AGRITECH: Faces Securities Class Action in California

CHINA NATURAL: Court Certifies Class in "Skeway" Action
CHOBANI: Fungus in Recalled Yogurt Poses Health Risk to Consumers
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Automatic Tips
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION: "Hall" Suit Returns to Circuit Court
ENVIVIO INC: Faces Shareholder Litigations in Calif. Over IPO

ETHICON INC: Wants to Block Discovery of Expert's Pay in Mesh MDL
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid for Class Cert. on "Henson" Suit Denied
FINANCIAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FRITO-LAY: Obtains Final Approval of "Elliot" Suit Deal
GENERAL MOTORS: Beasley Allen Files Ignition Switch Defect Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "Kandziora" Suit to E.D. Wisconsin
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PIP Class Action Removed to Florida Court
HALLIBURTON CO: Recent Ruling Partial Victory for Directors
IDAHO: EPA Settles Inmate Asbestos Exposure Suit for $56,000
ISLE OF CAPRI: High Court Won't Review Nixing of Silver Land Suit

ISLE OF CAPRI: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
IXIA: Faces Amended Securities Complaint in California Court
LIME ENERGY: Court Okays $2.5MM Settlement in "Satterfield" Suit
LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Removed "Courtois" Suit to E.D. Arkansas
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal

MANHATTAN CLUB: S.C. Appellate Division Dismisses "Bisk" Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Defends Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
MICHIGAN: Day Care Providers May Get Refund of Union Dues
NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued Over Defect in Maxxforce Engines' Emission
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: No Schedule Yet for Mortgage Suit Trial

NEW YORK, NY: 2nd Circuit Revives Building Cleaners' WTC Claims
NEW YORK: Students File Class Action Over Poor Basic Education
NUCARE SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Discharge in N.D. Illinois
NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY: Accused of Discrimination by 9/11 Victim
OCEAN POWER: Faces Class Actions Over Inflated Share Price

OCEAN POWER: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New Jersey
PENNSYLVANIA: Shenandoah Valley School Board to Join Class Action
PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Varghese" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
PLX TECHNOLOGY: Shareholder Suit Seeks to Enjoin Avago Merger
POWERSECURE INT'L: "Higgins" Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina

POWERSECURE INT'L: Faces Suit Over Securities Act Violations
RADY CHILDREN'S: Accused of Disclosing Confidential Medical Info
REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE: Removed "Mascari" Suit to M.D. Florida
REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Rifle Trigger
RESEARCH IN MOTION: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Shemian" Suit

RESTORATION HARDWARE: To Compensate Claimants in Credit Card Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Smoking Suit Plateau May Aid Lorillard Deal
ROLF HARRIS: May Face Class Action Over Lenient Sentence
SHOE CARNIVAL: Dismissal of FACTA "Violations" Suit Appealed
SYMANTEC CORP: Faces Investigation by DC Gov't Over Contract

TIFFANY'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File FLSA Class Action
TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW: Faces Suit Alleging Sexual Harassment Claims
UNIFIRST CORP: Removed "Mosqueda" Class Suit to C.D. California
UNITED PARCEL: Removed "Simoni" Suit to New Jersey District Court
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Asylum Applications

US BANK: 6th Cir. Upholds Dismisal of Asset Management's Case
WENDY'S INT'L: Removed "Hernandez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks Settlement of Deceptive Trade Class Action
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Exclusion of Sole Expert
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Still Faces "Epstein" Shareholder Suit in S.C.


                            *********


ACE CASH: Settles Consumer Debt Collection Claims for $10 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Ace Cash Express Inc. has agreed
to pay $10 million in a settlement with federal regulators who
accused the payday lender of illegally harassing borrowers to
collect debts and get them to take out additional loans.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced the agreement
with Ace, one of the biggest payday lenders in the U.S.  The
company will pay a $5 million fine and return $5 million to
affected customers.

The CFPB said on July 10 it was its first action against a payday
lender for pressuring consumers into a cycle of debt.

The agency said that ACE used illegal tactics such as harassing
customers and making threats of lawsuits or criminal prosecution
against them.  The government said ACE collectors also threatened
to charge customers extra fees and report them to the consumer
credit reporting agencies -- in violation of company policy.

Ace, based in Irving, Texas, didn't admit wrongdoing in the
settlement.  The company said in a statement it has cut ties with
the outside collection agency which the regulators had expressed
concerns about.

The company also said it hired an outside expert to review its
data, and found that more than 96 percent of its phone calls from
March 2011 through February 2012 complied with proper standards
for collecting debts from customers.  ACE said it has policies
that prevent overdue borrowers from taking out new loans, so that
a customer with a delinquent account isn't allowed to take out
another loan until the earlier one is paid off.


AFFYMAX INC: Settles Omontys Class Action for $6.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Zanki, writing for Law360, reports that biopharmaceutical
company Affymax Inc. has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle a
class action alleging it knowingly misled investors about the
dangers of its drug Omontys, which was recalled in 2013 after
being linked to potentially deadly allergic reactions, according
to documents filed on July 3 in California federal court.

The plaintiffs, led by shareholder Tommy Jay Carter, said the risk
of further protracted litigation prompted the action, according to
settlement proposed on July 3.

"Without a settlement, lead plaintiff and the class face a very
real risk in this case that they could recover far less than the
settlement amount -- or even nothing -- without the settlement,"
the proposal states.

Affymax, which last month announced plans to liquidate subject to
shareholder approval, has steadfastly denied misleading investors
and sought to dismiss the suit in January.

The agreement, reached after mediation presided by retired U.S.
District Judge Layn R. Phillips, would cover shareholders who
bought stock between Aug. 8, 2012, and Feb. 22, 2013. If all
participate, the settlement would amount to $1.95 per share, minus
fees, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs filed suit in March 2013, alleging the failure of
Affymax executives to disclose that their anti-anemia drug Omontys
was linked to anaphylaxis and death caused a $500 million
devaluation of its shares.

The suit claimed the company's false and misleading statements
caused Affymax stock to trade artificially high until Feb. 23,
2013, when Affymax voluntarily recalled the drug after revealing
that some patients on it experienced anaphylaxis, a severe and
potentially life-threatening allergic reaction.  The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration supported the recall.

Shares fell about 85 percent, totaling more than $500 million in
market capitalization, on the day of the announcement.

The suit alleged the company had withheld damaging information
about the drug so as not to jeopardize its relationship with
Fresenius Medical Care, the company's largest customer at the time
and largest dialysis provider in the United States.

But on Feb. 13, 2013, FMC said it would pause its pilot program
with Affymax to investigate the drug's safety and efficacy after
learning of Omontys patients suffering serious allergic reactions.
The drug was used to treat anemia in adult patients on dialysis
with chronic kidney failure.

A California federal judge in January trimmed the class action,
ruling the plaintiffs hadn't shown most of the company's
statements on the drug were misleading.  The suit also listed four
Affymax executives as defendants, including CEO John Orwin, Chief
Financial Officer Herbert Cross, Chief Medical Officer Anne-Marie
Duliege and Chief Operating Officer Jeffrey Knapp.

The Cupertino, California-based company's fortunes have further
tumbled since the recall as it mulled bankruptcy and laid off 75
percent of its workforce last year.  Plus, Affymax last month said
it would dissolve the company pending shareholder approval. Its
shares traded over the counter on July 3 at 10 cents.

The settlement amount of $6.5 million represents the median amount
for all settlements approved in 2013, according to court
documents.  About one-quarter of the settlement money, or $1.625
million, would be set aside for attorneys' fees.

A hearing has on the settlement is scheduled Aug. 27 before U.S.
District Judge William H. Orrick.

The plaintiffs are represented by Leigh Handelman Smollar, Patrick
V. Dahlstrom and others of Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom
Gross LLP.

Affymax is represented by Jeffrey M. Kaban -- jkaban@cooley.com --
John C. Dwyer and Ritesh Kumar Srivastava of Cooley LLP.

The case is Bartelt et al. v. Affymax Inc. et al., case number 13-
cv-01025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


AMAZON.COM: FTC Files Suit Over Kids' Mobile App Charges
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Amazon.com wrongly billed parents for unauthorized app purchases
made by children, the Federal Trade Commission alleged in a suit
filed on July 10 in U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington.

The suit "highlights a central tenet of consumer protection:
Companies need to get consumers' consent before placing charges on
their bills, " said Jessica Rich, director of the Bureau of
Consumer Protection, in a conference call with reporters.

According to the FTC, Amazon made "many millions" by allowing
children -- playing games on Kindle or mobile devices using the
Android system -- to make in-app purchases of virtual items such
as acorns or stars for use in the games.

"With just a click or two, kids could place charges on their
parents' accounts without approval.  Moms and dads were shocked to
find out that every click added a charge of between 99 cents and
$99 to their credit cards," according to FTC senior attorney
Lesley Fair writing in the FTC's Business Center blog.

The suit is similar to one that the FTC brought against Apple Inc.
in January.  Apple agreed then to pay at least $32.5 million in
consumer refunds to settle allegations of billing parents for
unauthorized charges incurred by their children in kids' mobile
apps.

Both Apple and Amazon were hit with the same charge: unfair
billing practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Recently, the FTC also sued T-Mobile USA Inc. for unfair billing
practices, alleging that the company added bogus charges to
consumers' phone bills.

"We are very concerned about the issue of unauthorized charges,"
Ms. Rich said.

The FTC wants Amazon to issue refunds to consumers for
unauthorized charges, disgorge ill-gotten profits, permanently
refrain from billing parents and other account holders for in-app
charges without consent and pay the FTC's legal costs.  According
to the FTC, Amazon pockets 30 percent of all in-app charges.

Amazon associate general counsel Andrew DeVore in a July 1 letter
to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez wrote that the company's policies
were "responsible, customer focused and lawful, including
prominent notice of in-app purchasing, effective parental
controls, real-time notice of every in-app purchase and world-
class customer service."

Mr. DeVore continued, "Pursuing litigation against a company whose
practices were lawful from the outset and that already meet or
exceed the requirements of the Apple consent order makes no
sense."

The FTC in its complaint cites comments by Amazon's in-app charge
project manager, who reportedly said that "[W]e believe that
parents are excluded from the buying process for these apps."

The FTC also said Amazon in March 2012 began requiring password
entry to confirm in-app charges exceeding $20.  According to the
FTC, Amazon's Appstore manager noted "it's much easier to get
upset about Amazon letting your child purchase a $99 product
without any password protection than a $20 product."

FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright voted against bringing the case
against Amazon, and he also opposed the action against Apple.
In the Apple case, Mr. Wright wrote that "although Apple's
allegedly unfair act or practice has harmed some consumers, I do
not believe the commission has demonstrated the injury is
substantial."

Senator Deb Fischer, R-Neb., on July 9 wrote to the FTC, noting
that the app marketplace is new and to "pursue enforcement against
these companies for specific policies in place at the market's
nascent stage would constitutes a de facto tax on innovation that
threatens future growth and opportunity."


AMERICAN ECONOMY: 1st Cir. Remands CE Design's Case for Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CE DESIGN LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and ERNIDA, LLC, Defendant, NO.
13-1080, is an appeal from a dismissal of an action for
declaratory judgment.

The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued an
opinion on June 19, 2014, vacating the district court's order
dismissing the case for lack of standing and remanded the case
with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

Costs are awarded to the appellee.

A copy of the First Circuit's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/eop6ghfrom Leagle.com.

David M. Oppenheim -- DOppenheim@andersonwanca.com -- with whom
Brian J. Wanca -- buslit@andersonwanca.com -- Jeffrey A. Berman --
JBerman@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson + Wanca, Alan L. Cantor --
acantor@swartzlaw.com -- and Swartz & Swartz, P.C. were on brief,
for the appellant.

Myles W. McDonough -- mmcdonough@sloanewalsh.com -- with whom
Christopher M. Reilly -- creilly@sloanewalsh.com -- Ryan B.
MacDonald -- rmacdonald@sloanewalsh.com -- and SLOANE AND WALSH,
LLP were on brief, for the appellee.


AMERICAN HOME: Court Awards Atty. Fees for 2013 Work
----------------------------------------------------
Before the court in IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/
FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION is a
joint petition of the 2013 Joint Class Fee Applicants and the 2013
MDL Fee Applicant (collectively the 2013 Joint Fee Applicant") for
an award of attorneys' fees and expense reimbursements relating to
work performed from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. The
2013 Joint Class Fee Applicants are Cummings, Cummings, and
Dudenhefer and Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman. The 2013 MDL Fee
Applicant is Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman. Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman performed work on behalf of the Plaintiffs'
Liaison Counsel (PLC) in 2013. This court has previously awarded
fees in Pretrial Order ("PTO") Nos. 7763A, 8516, 8646, 8869, and
9102.

"[W]e will award attorneys' fees and expenses for work performed
in 2013," wrote District Judge Harvey Bartle, III, in a memorandum
dated June 17, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/FF6NKOfrom Leagle.com.

"[W]e will enter an order directing that the Settlement Fund
reimburse the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account in the amount of
$24,730.86, which represents 50% of the expenses paid from the MDL
1203 Fee and Cost Account during 2013," he added. "We will also
order that 50% of the out-of-pocket costs advanced by the 2013
Joint Fee Applicants be reimbursed to them from the MDL 1203 Fee
and Cost Account and the remaining 50% be reimbursed from the
Settlement Fund."

The ruling relates to SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORP., MDL NO. 1203, NO. 99-20593, (E.D. Penn.)

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A.
CHIRLS, FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC, ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN
FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, JOHN FITZPATRICK, HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC, JULES S.
HENSHELL, SEMANOFF ORMSKY GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK,
HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED, ROBERT A. LIMBACHER, Goodell, DeVries,
Leech & Dann LLP, ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN
SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED
& RAND NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP.

GREGORY P. MILLER, Special Master, represented by GREGORY P.
MILLER, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.


AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces "Ulti-Mate" Suit Alleging RICO Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ulti-Mate Connectors, Inc., Bruce L. Billington, Thierry Pombart
and Stephen R. Brockman, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. American General Life Insurance Company, Sea
Nine Associates Inc., Innovative Private Strategies and Insurance
Services, Inc., I.P.S. Private Advisors, Lalat Pattanaik, Laban
Pattanaik, Kenneth A Elliott, individually and d.b.a. Kae, Kae
Consulting and Vista Barranca, Peter Mordin and Does 1-50, Case
No. 8:14-cv-01051 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2014), is brought under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyler R. Meade, Esq.
          MEADE AND SCHRAG LLP
          1816 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 843-3670
          Facsimile: (510) 843-3679
          E-mail: tyler@meadeschrag.com


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Complies With Terms of Stock Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation made a cash payment of
$477,165.20 for and issued shares in relation to the settlement of
a securities suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, according to the company's June 23,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As described in American Superconductor Corporation's Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 20, 2013, the Company entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on November 19, 2013, to
settle the private securities class action litigation pending
against it in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, which resolves the claims asserted against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters in the previously disclosed putative
securities class action consolidated complaint, Lenartz v.
American Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-
10582-WGY.  The terms of the Stipulation provide, among other
things, a settlement payment by the Company of $10 million, $8.2
million of which already has been funded by the Company's insurers
and $1.8 million of which is to be paid through the issuance of
944,882 shares of its common stock.

By Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered on
May 5, 2014, the Court approved the terms of the Stipulation and
dismissed this private securities class action litigation. In
addition, the Court found that (i) the terms and conditions of the
proposed issuance of the Settlement Shares are fair to those who
receive these securities, and (ii) the terms and conditions of,
and the procedures for, the proposed issuance of the Settlement
Shares are fair. The effective date of the Stipulation was June 5,
2014 (the "Effective Date").

Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (i) on June 11, 2014,
the Company made a cash payment of $477,165.20 for the decrease in
value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the
Stipulation) as of the Effective Date, and (ii) on June 18, 2014,
the Company issued the Settlement Shares. The issuance of the
Settlement Shares was exempt from registration pursuant to Section
3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
aforementioned payments by the Company represented the final
amounts to be paid to the plaintiffs under the Stipulation.


AMY MURPHY NEWBY: Circuit Court Ruling in "Asset" Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
In ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, APPELLANT, v. AMY MURPHY NEWBY,
APPELLEE, Supreme Court of Arkansas, NO. CV-13-319. 2014 Ark. 280,
Asset Acceptance, LLC (Asset), appealed an order of the Pulaski
County Circuit Court denying its motion to compel arbitration of a
suit filed by Asset against appellee Amy Murphy Newby and a
counterclaim filed by Newby individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons (Newby). For reversal, Asset
contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that Asset had
waived its right to arbitration by filing its complaint in circuit
court. Asset also asserts that it presented enough specific
evidence to show that its claim against Newby, as well as her
counterclaim, were subject to an arbitration agreement. Newby has
filed a cross-appeal of the circuit court's decision denying
sanctions against Asset pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil
Procedure 11.

In an opinion delivered June 19, 2014, Associate Justice Courtney
Hudson Goodson affirmed on direct appeal and dismissed the cross-
appeal.  A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/6lyWIF
from Leagle.com.

Dover Dixon Horne PLLC, by: Michael G. Smith -- msmith@ddh-ar.com
-- for appellant.

Emerson Poynter LLP, by: Scott E. Poynter --
scott@emersonpoynter.com -- and Corey D. McGaha --
cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com -- The Cruz Law Firm, by: Kathy A. Cruz
-- kcruz@thecruzlawfirm.com -- Arnold, Batson, Turner & Turner,
by: Todd M. Turner -- todd@turnerforcouncil.org -- and Joel
Hargis, for appellee.


APOTHAKER & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Mohrmann v. Apothaker & Associates, P.C., Apothaker Scian,
P.C., David Apothaker and Kimberly Scian, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-04295-JBS-JS (D.N.J., July 9, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated to her at time and one half of her
regular rate of pay for her overtime hours.

Ms. Mohrmann performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants in
Burlington County, New Jersey.

The Defendants were organized as a professional corporation
engaged in the practice of law.  Apothaker & Associates, P.C., and
Apothaker Scian, P.C., are New Jersey corporations practicing law,
specifically debt collection practice, throughout New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Gentes, Esq.
          Adam S. Malamut, Esq.
          Robert C. Wolf, Esq.
          LIEBLING MALAMUT LLC
          1939 Route 90 East, Suite 220
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 424-1808
          E-mail: keith@lmlawnj.com
                  adam@lmlawnj.com
                  robert@lmlawnj.com


AU OPTRONICS: 9th Cir. Upholds Price-Fixing Convictions v. Execs
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that a U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel upheld price-fixing
convictions against Taiwanese electronics manufacturing company AU
Optronics of America and two of its executives on July 10 after
signaling last year that it might upend the case.

The panel upheld the verdicts against Hsuan Bin Chen, the
company's president and COO, and Hui Hsiung, its executive vice
president, for meeting and conspiring with five other Asian
manufacturers to fix the prices on LCD panels imported and sold in
the U.S. and Asia. Messrs. Chen and Hsiung were each sentenced to
three years in prison.  The panel also affirmed a $500 million
fine against AU Optronics.

San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein partner
Eric Fastiff called the opinion a "brilliant" victory for the U.S.
Department of Justice.

"It reaffirmed the standard by which foreign price fixers will be
held accountable in the United States," Mr. Fastiff said.  "In
particular, the analysis of the Foreign Trade Antitrust
Improvements Act reaffirms that foreign companies that seek to fix
prices to the detriment of U.S. consumers will continue to be held
accountable in U.S. courts."

The affirmation comes several months after Judges Sidney Thomas,
M. Margaret McKeown and Virginia Kendall ordered Chen and Hsiung
released on bail because of "substantial questions" raised
following oral arguments.  During arguments, Judges McKeown and
Thomas suggested they were uncertain as to whether price-fixing
cases that occurred overseas are still a per se violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

The company's appellate lawyers pressed on that doubt, and argued
that the low volume of LCD panels that reached U.S. consumers did
not have "intended and substantial effect" on U.S. commerce
demanded under the 1982 FTAIA. Without that, the defense argued
that the price-fixing could not fall under the Sherman Act.  But
the judges disagreed, concluding in an opinion written by
Judge McKeown that a "substantial volume of goods" sold in the
U.S. allowed for application of the act.

"We need not reach the alternate theory under the FTAIA relating
to the domestic effects on the transactions," Judge McKeown wrote.
"The magic words 'domestic effects' were not necessary to make
clear that the overseas sale of panels for incorporation into
products destined for sale in the United States was a key focus of
the indictment," the ruling states.

DOJ Antitrust Appeals Chief Kristen Limarzi argued on behalf of
the government, while San Diego-based Cooley partner Mike
Attanasio -- mattanasio@cooley.com -- argued for AU Optronics'
Chen.  Mr. Attanasio could not be reached for comment.

Hogan Lovells' Neal Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com --
argued for Mr. Hsiung.  Dennis Riordan, the Riordan & Horgan
partner representing AU Optronics, declined comment.

The conspiracy began in October 2001 and ran until January 2006,
when the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the Houston-based
offices of AU Optronics.  Following an eight-week jury trial
before U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, AU Optronics, Chen and
Hsiung were all found guilty of conspiring to fix prices.

Siding with the DOJ on two issues of first impression, the panel
upheld the $500 million penalty imposed against AU Optronics.  The
company's lawyers said Judge Illston erred by basing the fine on
the monetary gains the jury found were shared by all conspirators
and by failing to follow principles of joint and several
liability, which would have reduced the fine by any amount already
paid by the other companies involved.

Judge McKeown brushed aside the arguments. "The unambiguous
language of the statute permitted the district court to impose the
$500 million fine based on the gross gains to all coconspirators,"
she stated.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Hall" Suit Settlement Get Initial Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Federico A. Moreno granted a renewed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement in CHERYL HALL,
et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., individually and as
successor by merger to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-22700-FAM, (S.D. Fla.).  A copy of
the June 18, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/YsuE9Fv
from Leagle.com.

The Settlement Class consists of: All borrowers who had mortgage
loans, home equity loans, or home equity lines of credit serviced
by Bank of America, N.A. or BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP,
(formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.) who
were charged a premium for lender-placed hazard insurance1
coverage issued by Balboa Insurance Company, Meritplan Insurance
Company, Newport Insurance Company, QBE Insurance Corporation, QBE
Specialty Insurance Company, Praetorian Insurance Company, or one
of their affiliates within the Class Period. Class Members will
have the right to opt out of the Settlement Agreement consistent
with the terms of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

Plaintiffs Marla Lugo, John and Jacquelyn Totura, Renata Circeo,
and John Loudon were designated as representatives of the
Settlement Class for the sole purpose of seeking a settlement of
the Hall Litigation.

The law firms of Kozyak, Tropin, & Throckmorton, P.A., Podhurst
Orseck, P.A., and Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP were designated as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

A hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement will be held
at 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at the Wilkie D.
Ferguson U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 13-3, 400 North Miami Avenue,
Miami, Florida before the Honorable Federico A. Moreno, to
determine, among other things, hether the Settlement of the Hall
Litigation should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Cheryl Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff
Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Jason
Kyle Whittemore, Wagner, Vaughan & McLaughlin, P.A., Oren Giskan,
Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J.
Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A., Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent
Walker, Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin
& Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance
August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Peter Prieto, Podhurst
Orseck, P.A., Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton & Kevin
Michael McLaughlin, Wagner Vaughan & McLaughlin PA.

John Totura, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner Law
Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson &
Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan,
Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod,
Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker,
Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance
August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson,
The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert
J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Tal J Lifshitz,
Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law
Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

John Vidrine, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner Law
Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson &
Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan,
Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod,
Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker,
Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance
August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson,
The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert
J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sean Michael Shaw,
Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton,
William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Catherine Soileau, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner
Law Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson &
Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan,
Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod,
Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker,
Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance
August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson,
The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert
J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sean Michael Shaw,
Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton,
William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Jacquelyn Totura, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner
Law Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson &
Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan,
Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod,
Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker,
Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance
August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson,
The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert
J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sean Michael Shaw,
Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton,
William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Marla Lugo, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Mann, Wagoner Law
Firm, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson &
Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Oren Giskan, Giskan,
Solotaroff Anderson & LLP, Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod,
Pomerantz LLP, Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm, T. Brent Walker,
Walker Law, PLC, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Lance
August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson,
The Merlin Law Group, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Robert
J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sean Michael Shaw,
Merlin Law Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton,
William F. Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Renata Circeo, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst,
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Conrad & Scherer, LLP,
Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Angela Mann, Wagoner
Law Firm, Brian Joseph Stack, Stack Fernandez Anderson & Harris,
P.A., Cadio Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Catherine E. Anderson,
Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke
Clasby & Bushman LLP & Ivan John Kopas, Conrad & Scherer, LLP.

Renata Circeo, c/o Law Offices of Michael Riley 601 S. Federal
Highway Suite 202 Boca Raton, FL 33432 5616727580, Plaintiff,
represented by Jeffrey N. Golant.

Renata Circeo, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis,
Barnes Law Group LLC, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A.,
Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum
Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Matthew S. Sarelson, Conrad &
Scherer, LLP, Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Michael Leland
Addicott, Addicott & Addicott, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck,
P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Robert J
Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Roy E. Barnes, Barnes
Law Group, LLC, Sarah Clasby Engel, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP,
Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group, Stephen Frederick Rosenthal,
Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton & Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin
Throckmorton.

John Loudon, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst,
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Conrad & Scherer, LLP,
Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Angela Mann, Wagoner
Law Firm, Brian Joseph Stack, Stack Fernandez Anderson & Harris,
P.A., Cadio Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Catherine E. Anderson,
Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Harley Shepard Tropin,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke
Clasby & Bushman LLP, Ivan John Kopas, Conrad & Scherer, LLP,
Jeffrey N. Golant, John Raymond Bevis, Barnes Law Group LLC, John
Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Lance August Harke, Harke
Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law
Group, Matthew S. Sarelson, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Matthew
Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Michael Leland Addicott, Addicott &
Addicott, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan,
Robert J. Axelrod, Pomerantz LLP, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A., Roy E. Barnes, Barnes Law Group, LLC, Sarah
Clasby Engel, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Sean Michael Shaw,
Merlin Law Group, Stephen Frederick Rosenthal, Podhurst Orseck
Josefsberg et al, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton & Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton.

Bank of America, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Defendant, represented by Brian M.
LaMacchia, Goodwin Procter, LLP, David S. Kantrowitz, Goodwin
Procter, LLP, David Scott Mandel, Mandel & Mandel LLP, David L.
Permut, Goodwin Procter, LLP, John C. Englander, Goodwin Procter &
Hoar, Joshua M. Daniels, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Katherine A.
Aldrich, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Katherine J. Shinners, Goodwin
Procter, LLP, Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Michael
F. Perry, Goddwin Procter, LLP, Camellia Noriega, Mandel, Mandel
LLP & Nina Stillman Mandel, Mandel & Mandel LLP.

Balboa Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Amanda M.
Raines, Buckley Sandler, LLP, Katherine L. Halliday,
BuckleySandler, LLP, Robyn C. Quattrone, Buckley Sandler, LLP,
Stephen M. LeBlanc, BuckleySandler, LLP, William Newton Shepherd,
Holland & Knight LLP & Brian W. Toth, Holland & Knight.

Banc of America Insurance Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by David S. Kantrowitz, Goodwin Procter, LLP, David Scott Mandel,
Mandel & Mandel LLP, Katherine A. Aldrich, Goodwin Procter, LLP,
Katherine J. Shinners, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Michael F. Perry,
Goddwin Procter, LLP, Camellia Noriega, Mandel, Mandel LLP & Nina
Stillman Mandel, Mandel & Mandel LLP.

BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Defendant, represented by David S.
Kantrowitz, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Katherine A. Aldrich, Goodwin
Procter, LLP, Katherine J. Shinners, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Michael
F. Perry, Goddwin Procter, LLP, Nina Stillman Mandel, Mandel &
Mandel LLP & Camellia Noriega, Mandel, Mandel LLP.

QBE Insurance Corp., Defendant, represented by Brian W. Toth,
Holland & Knight.

QBE First Insurance Agency, Defendant, represented by Brian W.
Toth, Holland & Knight.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rigs Gold Market for Own Benefit, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank PLC, Deutsche Bank AG,
HSBC Holdings PLC, and Societe Generale, and London Gold Market
Fixing Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-05135 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2014),
concerns naked price fixing by five of the largest bullion banks
in the world, who have for years jointly worked together on a
daily basis, to allegedly rig the gold market for their collective
benefit.

The Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian corporation headquartered in
Toronto, Canada, with branches and offices in New York City.
Scotia Mocatta executes client trades in the physical gold market
and in gold derivatives.  BNS operates a system called
ScotiaiTRADE for commodities trading.  BNS clients can trade gold
derivatives and purchase gold certificates and gold bars on the
iTRADE system.  BNS conducts proprietary trading in the gold
market.  ScotiaMocatta maintains a COMEX licensed gold vault in
New York.  During the Class Period, BNS was a member and owner of
the London Gold Market Fixing Ltd., and entered directly into gold
spot and futures transactions with members of the Class.

Barclays Bank plc is a United Kingdom corporation headquartered in
London, England.  Barclays executes client trades in the physical
gold market and in gold derivatives, and also operates a system
called BARX for commodities trading. Barclays' clients can make
orders at the London Gold Fixing price or trade gold derivatives
on the BARX system.  Deutsche Bank AG is a German corporation
headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.  Deutsche Bank executes
client trades in the physical gold market and in gold derivatives.

HSBC Bank plc is a United Kingdom company headquartered in London,
England.  HSBC executes client trades in the physical gold market
and in gold derivatives.  Societe Generale SA is a French
corporation headquartered in Paris, France.  Societe Generale
executes client trades in the physical gold market and in gold
derivatives.

London Gold Market Fixing Limited is a United Kingdom private
company headquartered in London, England.  LGMF is owned and
controlled by Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, BNS and Societe
Generale and these five banks are also the only members of LGMF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger J. Bernstein, Esq.
          535 Fifth Avenue, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 748-4800
          Facsimile: (646) 964-6633
          E-mail: rbernstein@rjblaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq.
          Shiho Yamamoto, Esq.
          PRITZKER LAW
          633 Battery Street, Suite 110
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          Email: ecp@pritzker-law.com
                 bc@pritzker-law.com
                 sy@pritzker-law.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued for Fixing Trade of Gold & Derivatives
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward R. Derksen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank PLC, Deutsche Bank
AG, HSBC Holdings PLC, and Societe Generale, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05153 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2014), is a federal class action brought
on behalf of all persons and entities (other than Defendants or
their subsidiaries or affiliates) who, between January 1, 2004,
and the present, held or transacted in physical gold or gold
derivatives that settled or were marked-to-market at the London
Fix, or held or transacted in COMEX gold futures or options
contracts.

The Defendants combined, conspired, or agreed with one another to
restrain trade through the collusive manipulation of prices of
gold and gold derivative contracts, including COMEX gold futures
contracts and options on futures contracts, according to the
complaint.

Bank of Nova Scotia, doing business as Scotiabank, is a Canadian
public company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Barclays Bank plc is a British public limited company with
headquarters in London, England.  Deutsche Bank AG is a German
financial services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.
HSBC Holdings plc is a British public limited company
headquartered in London.  Societe Generale is a public banking and
financial services company headquartered in Paris, France.

The Defendants, through their broker-dealer affiliates, actively
traded COMEX gold futures and options contracts during the Class
Period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Fred T. Isquith Jr., Esq.
          Amanda N. Miller, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
                  fisquith@lshllp.com

               - and -

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Daniel Hume, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
                  dhume@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Gassman, Esq.
          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          William P. Butterfield, Esq.
          Timothy S. Kearns, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW; Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: sgassman@hausfeldllp.com
                  mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com
                  tkearns@hausfeldllp.com


BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS: Faces Suit Over M2A Magnum Hip Replacement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Lucas v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet, Inc., and Biomet
Manufacturing LLC, f/k/a Biomet Manufacturing Corp., Case No.
3:14-cv-01722 (N.D. Ind., July 10, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants failed to disclose material facts regarding the defects
and failures of its device, Biomet M2A Magnum.

The Biomet device was developed by Biomet in order to reconstruct
human hip joints due to conditions like osteoarthritis, rheumatoid
arthritis, avascular necrosis, functional deformity or femoral
fracture.

Mr. Lucas tells the Court that he underwent a total replacement of
his left hip on November 15, 2007, and a Biomet M2A Magnum System
("Biomet M2A Magnum, Taperloc and Mallory device") was implanted.
As a result of the implantation of the Biomet M2A Magnum, the
Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered permanent injuries and
damages, including medical expenses, physical pain and mental
anguish, physical impairment, and disfigurement.

Biomet Orthopedics, LLC is a limited liability corporation, and
its sole member is Biomet, Inc.  Biomet, Inc. is an Indiana
corporation headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.  Biomet
Manufacturing, LLC, formerly known as Biomet Manufacturing Corp.,
is a limited liability corporation.  Biomet designed,
manufactured, marketed, promoted, and sold the device that is the
subject of the lawsuit.  Biomet marketed, promoted, and sold the
device in Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shezad Malik, MD JD, Esq.
          DR. SHEZAD MALIK LAW OFFICE PC
          4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 320
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (888) 210-9693
          E-mail: DrMalik@ShezadMalik.com


BP PLC: British Pension Funds Join Oil Spill Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Campbell, writing for The Telegraph, reports that British
pension funds have joined a group of claimants suing BP in a Texas
court over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, after a series of recent
rulings mean the case can be tried there under English law.

The funds have reportedly joined a class-action lawsuit against BP
over the collapse of its share price following the Deepwater
Horizon disaster.

US law firm Pomerantz Law is representing 32 major shareholders
from across the globe.  They are demanding compensation for their
losses on shares bought before the 2010 incident, in which 11
people were killed.

Litigants include the City of Westminster Council, Lincolnshire
County Council and Cumbria County Council, according to court
filings.  The Pension Trust of rival firm Shell is also a
plaintiff.

Previously, only investors who bought their BP shares on US
markets were allowed to sue.

However, following multiple rulings, cases can now be prosecuted
in Texan courts under English law. While the British pension funds
could have sued in the UK, courts in the US offer greater
compensation.

The case, which is being fought by Pomerantz on a no-win-no-fee
basis, could also be expanded to include European shareholders.
BP originally estimated it would have to pay out around $7.8
billion to compensate victims of the disaster, but this has so far
been pushed up to $9.2 billion (GBP4.5 billion).  Analysts expect
the total to rise even further.


BUMBLE BEE: "Bennett" Suit Moved to Western District of Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bennett v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC,
Case No. 14-930-6, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Washington County to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas (Fayetteville).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-05218-JLH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          Facsimile: (479) 845-2198
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          CAULEY BOWMAN CARNEY WILLIAMS PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 25438
          Little Rock, AR 72221
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: mbozeman@cauleybowman.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy Lee Stewart, Esq.
          ROSE LAW FIRM
          120 East Fourth Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 377-0334
          Facsimile: (501) 375-1309
          E-mail: astewart@roselawfirm.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: "McCrary" Suit Remanded to Calif. Super. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., signed an order on
June 18, 2014, approving a stipulation remanding to state court
the case captioned DANNY McCRARY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01332-GEB-KJN, (E.D. Cal.).

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/KgL8Hvfrom Leagle.com.

The stipulation provides that the Plaintiff and Defendant, by and
through their attorneys of record, agree that at this time there
is less than $75,000 in controversy between Plaintiff individually
and Defendant, and less than $5,000,000 in controversy between the
proposed class and Defendant and, as a result, traditional
diversity jurisdiction and Class Aaction Fairness Act jurisdiction
by the District Court at this time are not appropriate.  The
parties, hence, further stipulate that the action will immediately
be remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Joaquin.

KENNETH S. GAINES ESQ. -- -- ken@gaineslawfirm.com -- DANIEL F.
GAINES, ESQ. -- daniel@gaineslawfirm.com -- ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ.
-- alex@gaineslawfirm.com -- GAINES & GAINES, APLC, Woodland
Hills, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff DANNY McCRARY.

RONALD W. BROWN, ESQ. -- rbrown@cookbrown.com -- BARBARA A.
COTTER, ESQ. -- bcotter@cookbrown.com -- CARRIE E. BUSHMAN, ESQ.
-- cbushman@cookbrown.com -- MEG E. WILSON, ESQ. --
mwilson@cookbrown.com -- COOK BROWN, LLP, Attorneys for Defendant
CAMBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY, L.L.C.


CARMAX AUTO: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, Jeff Sistrunk and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360,
report that CarMax Auto Superstores California LLC on July 2
dodged a putative class action seeking allegedly unpaid wages for
its mechanics, detailers and other employees, with a California
federal judge saying the company could enforce arbitration
agreements the workers had signed in their employment
applications.

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted CarMax's motion
to dismiss and compel arbitration of a suit alleging the nation's
largest used-car retailer didn't compensate its nonexempt piece-
rate employees for work between repair orders and for attendance
in mandatory meetings.

The judge said the company can enforce the agreements, even though
he agreed with the lead plaintiffs that the contract is to some
degree unconscionable because the workers had no choice whether to
sign them since they were a non-negotiable condition of
employment.

"The court finds that the agreements are valid and binding on
plaintiffs.  The court finds further that while the agreements
involve a small amount of procedural unconscionability because
they are adhesive contracts, they are not substantively
unconscionable," the order said.

The suit was filed in March in state court by lead plaintiffs
Trinidad Herrera, Taroob Simani and Luis Berregan, who used to
work for the retailer as nonexempt piece-rate employees.  The
plaintiffs alleged that while the workers were paid a piece rate,
there were times when they had to be at work but weren't working
on piece-rate projects, so they couldn't earn piece-rate pay.

The lead plaintiffs claim they should have been paid at least
twice the minimum wage for these nonproduction hours, according to
court documents.

They asked the judge to certify a class of all current and former
painters, detailers, mechanics and other piece-rate employees who
worked for the company in California for four years before the
initiation of the suit.

The suit was removed to federal court in April by CarMax, and
earlier this month, the judge denied the putative class's bid to
remand the suit, agreeing with CarMax's contention that the amount
in issue nears $8 million, much more than required for removal
from state court.

But on July 2, the judge said CarMax showed that each of the lead
plaintiffs signed dispute resolution agreements in their
employment applications, which provide that such claims must be
arbitrated.  The agreement asked each of the applicants to
familiarize themselves with the dispute resolution stipulation
before signing.

Two of the plaintiffs alleged the agreements were invalid because
they signed the arbitration agreements with the now-defunct
Circuit City, which was CarMax's former parent company, instead of
with the retailer, according to the order.  CarMax argued that
during the corporate restructuring, it transferred the agreements
to the company.

"The court agrees with CarMax that, notwithstanding corporate
restructuring, it has the legal right to enforce the Agreements,"
the judge said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Neal J. Fialkow of the Law
Office of Neal J. Fialkow and Aaron C. Gundzik --
agundzik@gghslaw.com -- and Rebecca G. Gundzik --
rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- of Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden LLP.

CarMax is represented by Jack S. Sholkoff --
jack.sholkoff@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Patricia M. Jeng --
patricia.jeng@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart PC.

The case is Trinidad Herrera et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California LLC et al., case number 5:14-cv-00776, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.


CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Faces "Whitby" Suit Alleging FHA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landon Whitby, Carolina Whitby, Ioulia Kouprina, William Jhandi,
Teresa Jhandi, Brett Jenson, Miranda Jenson, Jeannette McGhee,
Adrian Whittenburg, Consuelo Guerrero, Victoria Nayak, Tammy Cole
Oleksandra Martynshyn, individuals, and Others similarly situated
v. Chelsea Investment Corporation, a California Corporation; CIC
PHR, LP, a California Limited Partnership; PHR Inclusionary, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; Pacific Southwest
Community Development Corporation, a California Corporation; MMA
PHR CIC, L.P., a limited partnership; SLP, Inc., a California
Corporation; CIC Management Inc., a California Corporation; Conam
Management Corporation, a California Corporation; The Schmid
Family Trust, a California Trust; James J. Schmid, an individual;
Lynn Harrington Schmid, an individual; Rosie Terriquez, an
individual; Kye Smith, an individual; Joe Sosa, an individual; and
Does 1-500, Case No. 3:14-cv-01633-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal.,
July 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melody A. Kramer, Esq.
          KRAMER LAW OFFICE
          9710 Scranton Road, Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (855) 835-5520
          E-mail: mak@kramerlawip.com


CHINA AGRITECH: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 5 disclosed that
a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of China
Agritech, Inc. between November 12, 2009 through March 11, 2011,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors, alleging securities fraud pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The litigation is styled Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., C.A. No.
14-cv-05083.  A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at whafh.com.

The Complaint alleges that China Agritech issued materially false
and misleading financial statements and created separate financial
records for the Securities and Exchange Commission and investors
which drastically differed from those filed with Chinese
authorities, grossly overstating its revenues and income in
reports issued to shareholders.  The truth regarding China
Agritech's financial statements slowly entered the market despite
Defendants' attempts to deny the truth.  Particularly, on February
3, 2011, analyst firm LM Research issued a report alleging, among
other things, that the Company's statement of revenue and earnings
for the fiscal year 2009 were materially false and misleading and
referred to the Company as a "scam" with empty, idle factory
plants, no necessary licenses and "no value."  The Report claimed
that China Agritech's U.S. financial statements were materially
different than the financial statements filed with Chinese
authorities by a number of the Company's subsidiaries and that the
revenue reported in the Company's SEC filings for 2009 was ten
times larger than what the Chinese regulatory reports had shown.
The Report also noted a number of potential incidents of fraud and
related party transactions within the Company.  When these
disclosures of fraud concerning China Agritech were revealed to
the market, the price of China Agritech stock dropped
dramatically, damaging investors.  China Agritech vigorously
denied such allegations publicly, yet the stock did not recover,
and analysts continued to downgrade CAGC.

After the close of trading on March 11, 2011, NASDAQ announced
that it was halting trading due to pending release of news.  On
March 14, 2011, the Company issued a release announcing the
resignation of its independent outside auditor, Ernst & Young Hua
Ming.  The Company announced that it formed a Special Committee to
investigate accounting irregularities and delayed the filing of it
10-K report to the SEC.

On October 17, 2012 the SEC issued an enforcement order revoking
the registration of CAGC's stock.  Thus, CAGC's stock is no longer
publicly traded, effectively rendering it worthless.

If you purchased CAGC common stock during the Class Period, you
may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
September 3, 2014.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve
as your counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in
Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.  The reputation and
expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation
has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed
it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz by telephone at
(800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our
website at www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "China Agritech
litigation."

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. or
Email: Nespole@whafh.com
Gregory Stone
gstone@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774


CHINA NATURAL: Court Certifies Class in "Skeway" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard G. Andrews granted a motion for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel in the case captioned ROBERT SKEWAY and RAIMUNDO JO-FUNG,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CHINA NATURAL GAS, INC., QINAN JI, and DAVID SHE,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-728-RGA, (D. Del.).

Plaintiffs Robert Skeway and Raimundo Jo-Fung brought this action
against China Natural Gas, Inc. (CHNG), Qinan Ji (Ji), and David
She (She) asserting a claim for damages for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On December 23, 2013, the
Plaintiffs moved for their appointment as class representatives,
the appointment of class counsel, and class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 "on behalf of those persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the public traded
common stock of China Natural Gas, Inc. between March 10, 2010 and
September 21, 2011, inclusive."

A copy of the District Court's June 18, 2014 memorandum opinion is
available at http://is.gd/RmkKjffrom Leagle.com.

Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Rigrodsky & Long.
P.A., Wilmington, DE. Brian D. Long, Esq. -- bdl@rl-legal.com --
Rigrodsky & Long. P.A., Wilmington, DE. Gina M. Serra, Esq. --
gms@rl-legal.com -- Rigrodsky & Long. P.A., Wilmington, DE,
Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., New York, NY. Phillip Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com
-- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York, NY, Lead Counsel for
Plaintiffs.


CHOBANI: Fungus in Recalled Yogurt Poses Health Risk to Consumers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Preidt, writing for CBS News, reports that a fungus that
triggered a yogurt recall last year poses a health risk to all
consumers, according to a new study.

In September 2013, there were reports of illness among people who
ate Chobani brand Greek yogurt, and the company issued a recall.
The yogurt was found to be contaminated with a fungus called Mucor
circinelloides.

"When people think about food-borne pathogens [germs], normally
they list bacteria, viruses, and maybe parasites.  Fungal
pathogens are not considered as food-borne pathogens," Soo Chan
Lee, of Duke University, said in a news release from the American
Society for Microbiology.

"However, this incidence indicates that we need to pay more
attention to fungi.  Fungal pathogens can threaten our health
systems as food-borne pathogens," Mr. Lee added.

At the time, it was believed that the fungus was only a health
threat to people with weakened immune systems.  However, there
were many complaints about gastrointestinal illness from otherwise
healthy people, prompting researchers to take a closer look at the
fungus in the yogurt.

The investigators found that the strain of M. circinelloides that
caused the outbreak of illness was one commonly associated with
infections in people.  The researchers tested the strain on mice
and found that it could cause deadly infections in the rodents.

The findings were recently published in the online journal mBio.

Chobani disputed the study's claims, and said company tests found
no presence of "pathogens," or germs.

"Chobani conducted an aggressive, statistically significant series
of tests of the products voluntarily recalled in September 2013
with third-party experts confirming the absence of food-borne
pathogens.  Chobani stands by these findings, which are consistent
with regulatory agency findings and the FDA's [U.S. Food and Drug
Administration] Class II classification of the recall on October
30, 2013," Dr. Alejandro Mazzotta, Chobani vice president of
Global Quality, Food Safety, and Regulatory Affairs, said in a
news release.

"In regards to this specific study, we were just made aware of it
and want to take more time to review its methodology and
assertions," Dr. Mazzotta added.  "To our knowledge, there is no
evidence, including the assertions presented in this publication,
that the strain in the recalled products causes illness in
consumers when ingested.  Food quality and safety has always been
and always will be paramount to Chobani."

Since the 2013 recall, Chobani has "implemented additional state-
of-the-art equipment for microbiological testing, and the company
routinely conducts more than 500 microbiological tests daily from
crafting and finished product samples, in excess of the regulatory
requirements," he said.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Automatic Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Darden
Restaurants Inc., the parent of Olive Garden and Red Lobster, won
the dismissal of a New York lawsuit accusing it of illegally
adding an automatic 18% tip to diners' bills and failing to list
beverage prices on its menus.

In a decision made public on July 10, U.S. District Judge
Katherine Polk Failla in Manhattan rejected claims by plaintiff
Ted Dimond, who sought to represent diners in a class-action, that
Darden's practices violated state consumer protection laws.

Mr. Dimond claimed it was deceptive for Darden to refer to the
mandatory tip it imposed in some restaurants as a "gratuity,"
which he called a "voluntary act."  But the judge said Darden
"conspicuously" showed the tip on its menus before diners placed
their orders, and that diners were free to leave if they
disapproved.  She also said New Yorkers often leave tips of 18
percent to 20 percent, undercutting the argument they might feel
"tricked" into having to fork over tips at the low end of that
range.

While New York City has its own laws on menu surcharges, private
diners cannot use them as a basis to sue, Ms. Failla said.

The judge also said failing to list beer and soft drink prices by
itself caused no harm, and was not misleading because reasonable
customers could get those prices by asking.

Ms. Failla's 34-page decision is dated July 9.

Jeffrey Smith, a lawyer for Mr. Dimond, said he was disappointed
with the decision, and that his client would review his options.

The case is Dimond v. Darden Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-05244.


ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION: "Hall" Suit Returns to Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Hall, the personal representative of the estate of Adolphus
Hall, Sr., and Anaya McKinnon, the personal representative of the
estate of Wanzy Lee Bowman, appealed from the Jefferson Circuit
Court's order dismissing their complaint filed against
Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a law firm (ELG).

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 19, 2013, in the
Jefferson Circuit Court against ELG, requesting a declaratory
judgment and alleging one count of unjust enrichment and one count
of breach of contract.  The plaintiffs asserted those claims on
behalf of the estates they represented and on behalf of "others
similarly situated as a class action pursuant to Rule 23," Ala. R.
Civ. P.

ELG filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal, arguing that
the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs' appeal because "[o]nly the Alabama State Bar has
jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties."

In an opinion dated June 20, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/SgCVepfrom Leagle.com, Justice Bryan of The Supreme
Court of Alabama ruled that the claims brought by the plaintiffs
fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court.
Accordingly, the circuit court's judgment dismissing the
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice is reversed, and the cause is
remanded for further proceedings.

"In light of our conclusion in this case, we deny ELG's motion to
dismiss," Justice Bryan added.

The case is Mary Hall, personal representative of the Estate of
Adolphus Hall, Sr., and Anaya McKinnon, personal representative of
the Estate of Wanzy Lee Bowman, v. Environmental Litigation Group,
P.C., NO. 1130301.


ENVIVIO INC: Faces Shareholder Litigations in Calif. Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Envivio, Inc. faces several securities suit in relation to its
initial public offering, according to the company's June 12, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2014.

On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc.,
et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of its
directors, its chief executive officer, its chief financial
officer, and certain underwriters of its IPO.  The lawsuit
purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares
issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the registration
statement for the IPO contained materially false or misleading
statements.  The complaint purports to assert claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages
and other relief.  On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint
captioned Toth v. Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the
same court.  On November 2, 2012 defendants removed the cases to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California where they were assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB
and 12-cv- 05636-CW.  A similar complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
December 20, 2012 entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-
06464.  The Wiley and Toth actions were subsequently remanded to
the San Mateo Superior Court, where they are now pending, and the
Thomas case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  On
February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933-
PJH. The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between April 25, 2012 and
September 7, 2012.  It names as defendants the Company and the
Company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.


ETHICON INC: Wants to Block Discovery of Expert's Pay in Mesh MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Ethicon Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary facing
18,000 cases involving its pelvic mesh in federal multidistrict
litigation, wants to block discovery of the compensation it paid
to a non-retained expert who works as a medical-affairs director
at the company.

The compensation to Dr. Piet Hinoul should not be discoverable
just because he is employed by Ethicon, the manufacturer said in a
recent court filing.  His pay would only be discoverable if he
were paid specifically for his expert testimony, to let the
plaintiffs expose any personal interest he might have in arriving
at his opinion, Ethicon said.

Dr. Hinoul's status as a full-time employee is enough to
demonstrate his possible bias without exposing his specific
compensation arrangement, the company argued.

"The fact of Dr. Hinoul's employment and other related
responsibilities, such as sitting on the board for Ethicon Women's
Health and Urology, is sufficient for plaintiffs to argue any
supposed bias," Ethicon said.

Furthermore, Dr. Hinoul has a legitimate privacy interest in his
compensation, his employer argued.

"Dr. Hinoul's compensation information is not discoverable because
his employment, alone, is sufficient to allow plaintiffs to argue
any purported bias," Ethicon said.  "Additionally, Dr. Hinoul's
personal privacy interest in maintaining the confidentiality of
his compensation information precludes its discovery here."

The plaintiffs argue that Dr. Hinoul's compensation is relevant
because he is testifying in litigation that could result in
"substantial monetary liability" against Ethicon; affect his
ownership interest in the company; and affect his continued
employment with the firm.

The defendants are seeking a protective order for Dr. Hinoul.
The MDL, pending in West Virginia, involves the claims of women
who allege injuries from pelvic mesh that was implanted in their
bodies to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic prolapse.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid for Class Cert. on "Henson" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II denied a motion for class
certification in the case captioned MELISSA HENSON and KEITH
TURNER on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 2:14-CV-01240-ODW(RZX), (C.D. Cal.).

A copy of the June 18, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/GR87NBfrom Leagle.com.

According to Judge Wright, throughout Plaintiff Keith Turner's
relatively green litigation, the Court has had to blaze a trail
through the often-perplexing Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA), interpreting several unsettled issues.  Motion practice
has since trimmed this litigation down to one svelte issue:
whether Defendant Fidelity National Financial Inc. violated 12
U.S.C. Section 2607(a) by receiving kickbacks in exchange for
referring overnight-delivery business to Federal Express, UPS, or
California Overnight (now OnTrac).  Now -- nearly eight months
after he served Fidelity -- Mr. Turner moves to certify a class of
all "persons nationwide who -- in connection with a transaction
involving a federally related mortgage loan in which the real
estate settlement was handled by a [Fidelity] subsidiary" were
charged an overnight-delivery fee during the time when Fidelity
had an agreement with FedEx, UPS, or OnTrac. But while Fidelity's
potential Section 2607(a) liability satisfies Rule 23(a)'s
commonality element, class-member-specific questions will
inevitably overwhelm any classwide inquiries.

"The Court therefore denied Turner's Motion for Class
Certification and Alternative Motion to Continue Hearing and
Decision," he said. "[T]he Court finds that Turner has failed to
established Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority elements
and that the untimeliness of the Motion provides an independent
and alternative basis for denying it," he added.

Melissia Henson, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce R MacLeod --
bmacleod@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC,
Elizabeth Susan Lachman -- elachman@mckoolsmithhennigan.com --
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Gerald James Strenio --
james@kicklawfirm.com -- Kick Law Firm, J Michael Hennigan --
hennigan@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan PC,
Taras Peter Kihiczak -- taras@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law
Offices & Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@kicklawfirm.com -- Kick
Law Firm.

Keith Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce R MacLeod, McKool
Smith Hennigan PC, Elizabeth Susan Lachman, McKool Smith Hennigan
PC, Gerald James Strenio, Kick Law Firm, J Michael Hennigan,
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Taras Peter Kihiczak, The Kick Law
Offices & Thomas Alistair Segal, Kick Law Firm.

Fidelity National Financial Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael
J Gleason -- mgleason@hahnlaw.com --  Hahn Loeser and Parks LLP.


FINANCIAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cruddas, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Financial Credit Services, Inc., d/b/a ARA,
Inc., d/ba Asset Recovery Associates, Case No. 6:14-cv-01101-RBD-
GJK (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq.
          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          664 E. Hallendale Beach Blvd.
          Hallandale, FL 33009
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: pccrotty@gmail.com
                  scott@scottdowens.com


FRITO-LAY: Obtains Final Approval of "Elliot" Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David O. Carter entered final judgment and order of
dismissal with prejudice in the case captioned SIDNEY ELLIOTT,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES, LP, FRITO LAY, INC., FRITO-
LAY SALES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. SA
CV11-1730 DOC (ANX), (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Carter has granted final approval of the class settlement in
the case. The Court appointed Sidney Elliott as class
representative, certified the designated class and subclasses, and
appointed Spiro Law Corp. and Gigliotti & Gigliotti as class
counsel.

The Court also granted the motion for attorneys' fees and costs,
and awarded class counsel $480,000 of the settlement fund,
reimbursement of costs totaling $20,000, and payment of the Claims
Administrator in the amount of $36,500. The Court approved a
payment of $5,000 to the LWDA, with 25% returning to the class
members. The Court approved an incentive award of $10,000 for the
lead plaintiff in the case.

The Court likewise dismissed the Action on the merits and with
prejudice against the Named Plaintiff and all Class Members in
favor of Frito-Lay and without costs or attorneys' fees to any of
the Parties as against any other settling party, except as
provided for in the Stipulation.

A copy of the order granting final approval of the class action
settlement and motion for attorneys' fees and costs is available
at http://is.gd/uXCeAqfrom Leagle.com.

A copy of the June 12, 2014 final judgment and order of dismissal
is available at http://is.gd/uXCeAqfrom Leagle.com.

Sidney Elliott, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Linh Hua --
linh@spiromoore.com -- Moore & Leviant LLP, Ira R Spiro --
Ira@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro Law Corp, Jennifer L Connor --
Jennifer@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro Law Corp & Joseph J Gigliotti
-- Gigliottilaw@msn.com -- Gigliotti and Gigliotti.

Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP, Defendant, represented by Samantha D
Hardy -- shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton, Ashley Teiko Hirano -- ahirano@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton & Guy Nels Halgren --
ghalgren@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton.

Frito Lay Inc, Defendant, represented by Samantha D Hardy,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Ashley Teiko Hirano, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton & Guy Nels Halgren, Sheppard Mullin Richter
and Hampton.

Frito Lay Sales Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha D Hardy,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Ashley Teiko Hirano, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton & Guy Nels Halgren, Sheppard Mullin Richter
and Hampton.

Does, 1 through 10, Defendant, represented by Samantha D Hardy,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.


GENERAL MOTORS: Beasley Allen Files Ignition Switch Defect Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a plaintiffs firm that has sued General Motors Co. over
accidents related to an ignition switch defect is continuing to
file lawsuits even as its clients prepare to make claims against a
victim compensation fund.

Montgomery, Ala.'s Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles,
which claims to be investigating more than 250 crashes that could
be linked to ignition switch problems, filed suit on July 9 on
behalf of Daniel Hollaert, 23, who died on Dec. 17, 2013, when his
2006 Chevy Cobalt crashed into a school bus in Orleans County,
N.Y.

The suit, filed in Monroe County, N.Y., Supreme Court, a trial
venue, blames the crash on the defect, which GM has acknowledged
can shut down engines, disabling airbags, power steering and other
functions.  The suit came the same day that a lawyer for Mr.
Hollaert's family, Beasley Allen founding shareholder Jere
Beasley, met with Kenneth Feinberg, who is administering a fund to
compensate people who died or were injured as a result of GM's
defect.  Mr. Beasley said that making claims against the fund
doesn't bar his clients from filing lawsuits against GM.

"We're going to file suit in every case, and then submit claims to
the fund, and then do an evaluation," he said.  "I still believe
they will be punished by a jury at some point."

GM, which has recalled 2.6 million cars and trucks over the
defect, including the 2006 Cobalt, announced the compensation
program on June 30.  The fund, which will begin accepting claims
on Aug. 1, would provide at least $1 million to each deceased
victim and millions more for people injured.

Beasley Allen, which unsuccessfully pushed for the victim
compensation fund to pay punitive damages, pursues punitive claims
in the July 9 lawsuit.

GM spokesman Kevin Kelly declined to comment.

Beasley is one of the harshest critics of the fund, which limits
compensation to the cars and trucks that were recalled in three
batches beginning in February. GM has issued additional recalls of
more than 12 million vehicles since then for ignition problems.

On July 9, Beasley and Beasley Allen shareholder J. Cole Portis --
cole.portis@beasleyallen.com -- along with Lance Cooper, founder
of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Ga., met with Feinberg in Atlanta.

Mr. Beasley said the details of the conversation were
confidential.  "I can't say much more about the meeting itself
except to say we're willing to put cases into the plan to see if
in fact it will work."


GENERAL MOTORS: Removed "Kandziora" Suit to E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants General Motors LLC and Heiser Chevrolet, Inc., removed
the lawsuit captioned Erin E. Kandziora v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 14-cv-004836, from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee
County, state of Wisconsin, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division.

The Action involves claims related to the design, manufacture,
sale, and subsequent recall of the Plaintiff's 2010 Chevrolet
Cobalt, which the Plaintiff alleges may contain a "defective
Ignition & Start Switch," a part manufactured by General Motors
Corporation before it filed for bankruptcy on June 1, 2009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent P. Megna, Esq.
          Susan M. Grzeskowiak, Esq.
          AIKEN & SCOPTUR, S.C.
          2600 N. Mayfair Road, Suite 1030
          Milwaukee, WI 53226-1308
          Telephone: (414) 225-0260
          Facsimile: (414) 225-9666

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer L. Bullard, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
          Roshan N. Rajkumar, Esq.
          150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 339-8682
          Facsimile: (612) 672-3200
          E-mail: Jennifer.Bullard@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  Roshan.Rajkumar@bowmanandbrooke.com


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PIP Class Action Removed to Florida Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that the Government
Employees Insurance Co. on July 2 removed to Florida federal court
a putative class action accusing it of illegally charging retired
individuals for personal injury protection wage loss coverage
included in its automobile insurance policies.

Named plaintiffs Jose and Ramona Aviles contend in the May
complaint that they and other putative class members paid for
illusory wage loss coverage and are entitled to compensatory
damages or restitution of those premium amounts.  The case was
transferred to the Southern District of Florida from Miami-Dade
County's Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit,
according to the notice of removal.

"According to plaintiffs, Geico has not complied with obligations
imposed by Florida law in charging 'retired' individuals for
personal injury protection wage loss coverage included in its
automobile insurance policies," the notice said.

According to the notice, each of the putative class members are
Florida citizens while Geico is based in Maryland, there are more
than 100 members in the putative class and the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, thereby fulfilling all the
requirements to grant the court subject matter jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act.

Geico also says that the notice of removal is timely, since it has
been filed within 30 days of the company's receipt of the initial
complaint on June 5.

A verification statement is attached to the notice by Geico
pricing and product manager Diana Hoagland, who has been employed
with the company since 2003.  Ms. Hoagland says she has been able
to confirm that the company issued automobile policies to more
than 100 individuals residing in Florida who are 65 years or older
that included personal injury protection wage loss coverage during
the five-year period preceding the filing of the action.

According to the manager, there were more than 35,000 Geico
automobile insurance policies in force issued to Florida senior
citizens that included personal injury protection wage loss
coverage as of May 31.  She also said she has confirmed that the
company earned more than $5 million from the personal injury
protection wage loss coverage premiums charged to Florida senior
citizens, noting that Geico earned more than $10 million from the
premiums during the 12-month period ending on May 31.

The complaint brings counts of declaratory judgment, breach of
contract and assumpsit, which is a claim to recover damages from a
breach of contract.

The plaintiffs are represented by John Yanchunis and Tamra Givens
of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group and Bruce Steckler and
Mazin Sbaiti of The Steckler Law Firm.

Geico is represented by Frank A. Zacherl -- fzacherl@shutts.com
-- and Arturo Martinez -- arturomartinez@shutts.com -- of Shutts &
Bowen LLP.

The case is Aviles et al v. Government Employees Insurance Co.,
case number 1:14-cv-22464, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.


HALLIBURTON CO: Recent Ruling Partial Victory for Directors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling making it easier to get
securities litigation dismissed at an earlier stage is only a
partial victory for directors and officers and is likely to
increase legal costs in the initial defense of such lawsuits.

In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., the nation's
highest court decided in a 9-0 vote that corporate defendants must
be given the opportunity to show their actions did not affect the
stock price of a publicly traded company before a class is
certified, rather than have to wait until later at the merits
stage of the litigation.

While the decision last month sided with Halliburton in
overturning an April 2013 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, it failed to overturn a 26-year-old Supreme Court
decision in Basic Inc. et al. v. Max L. Levinson et al. that
spurred an increase in securities class actions.

Halliburton "had the potential to completely reshape the
securities class action landscape," but it "only went halfway to
where it could have gone," said Allison Barrett, senior vice
president and FINEX Financial Services industry leader at Willis
North America Inc. in New York.

As a result, legal experts recommend that companies make sure
their directors and officers liability insurance covers expert
fees and event studies, which assess how an event has or has not
affected a company's stock price.

"There's going to be a bit of a wait-and-see attitude by both the
plaintiff and defense bar to see how courts are going to take this
decision and interpret it and apply it," said Edward M. Larkin, a
partner at law firm Edwards Wildman Palmer L.L.P. in New York.

In Halliburton, plaintiffs alleged that the Dallas-based oil field
services company understated its asbestos liabilities.  The case
centered on the Supreme Court's 1988 ruling in Basic, in which the
court endorsed the fraud-on-the-market presumption theory.  Under
that theory, plaintiffs do not have to demonstrate that each
member of a class action relied on a company's alleged
misrepresentation of information.

It is based on the presumption that in an efficient marketplace, a
company's share price reacts to all publicly available information
about the company. Experts have said Basic made it much easier for
plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits.

                      Basic still stands

While companies had hoped the Supreme Court would overturn Basic,
which it left intact, the high court did give defendants a partial
victory.

"Defendants must be afforded an opportunity before class
certification to defeat the presumption through evidence that an
alleged misrepresentation did not actually affect the market price
of the stock," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Permitting defendants to challenge the effect of alleged
fraudulent misstatements at the class certification stage will
enable defendants to "shorten the litigation considerably,"
although "discovery will get more complicated" to produce evidence
that misstatements had no effect on stock prices, Mr. Larkin said.

"Once plaintiffs get past certification, more often than not the
case is settled, so I think what you're going to see is (plaintiff
attorneys) working harder at the class certification stage in
order to get the class certified," he said.  That will be more
difficult "because now defendants can offer evidence to rebut the
presumption."

While two-thirds to three-quarters of securities suits never get
to the class certification stage, Halliburton means at least some
class certifications "that might have been granted" previously now
will be denied, said Kevin LaCroix., an attorney and executive
vice president at RT ProExec, a division of R-T Specialty L.L.C.
in Beachwood, Ohio.

Heidi A. Lawson, a member of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky &
Popeo P.C. in Boston, recommended that buyers examine their D&O
policies to be sure they cover expert fees and event studies,
since some provide only narrow coverage of "legal costs incurred."

"They really should double-check their definitions and make sure
that they do have coverage for expert fees and the kind of fees
that would be involved to do an event study, and it's broad enough
to cover these kinds of defense costs," Ms. Lawson said.

In anticipation of Halliburton, American International Group Inc.
last month introduced a D&O policy endorsement that will provide
funds immediately to clients named as defendants in securities
litigation to prepare event studies.

As for the ruling's effect on the D&O liability market,
Mark Weintraub, insurance and claims counsel at Lockton Cos.
L.L.C. in Atlanta, said it's unlikely to be significant.  While
defense costs could go up marginally, spending a few hundred
thousand dollars to defeat class certification could avoid an even
larger settlement, he said.


IDAHO: EPA Settles Inmate Asbestos Exposure Suit for $56,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Environmental Protection Agency says Idaho inmates were exposed to
asbestos when they were sent to work at an Idaho Transportation
Department maintenance shop without proper training or equipment.

The federal agency announced on July 8 the Idaho Transportation
Department has paid nearly $56,000 to settle the allegations.  The
state agency didn't admit or deny the allegations.

The EPA says the transportation department hired inmates from the
St. Anthony Work Camp last year to remove old flooring from a
building in Rigby.  But the EPA says the department didn't test
for asbestos first, and instead relied on a 25-year-old test of a
single sample from the maintenance shop that showed no asbestos.
Tests done after an inmate complained showed the flooring
contained asbestos.

Asbestos can cause cancer and other health problems.


ISLE OF CAPRI: High Court Won't Review Nixing of Silver Land Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi Supreme Court issued a decision that effectively
dismissed a lawsuit filed by Silver Land, Inc. against Isle of
Capri Casinos, Inc. over the sale of casino operations in
Vicksburg, Mississippi, according to of Capri's June 23, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2014.

The company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Riverboat Corporation
of Mississippi-Vicksburg, were defendants in a lawsuit filed in
the Circuit Court of Adams County, Mississippi by Silver Land,
Inc., alleging breach of contract in connection with the company's
2006 sale of casino operations in Vicksburg, Mississippi.  The
court originally ruled in favor of Silver Land and awarded damages
of $2.0 million, which the company accrued. The company appealed
the decision and in June 2013 the court of appeals reversed the
trial court and ruled in the company's favor.  Silver Land filed a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari in November 2013 requesting review
by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

On February 20, 2014, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied Silver
Land's request, which effectively disposed of this matter in its
entirety. As a result, during fiscal 2014, the company reversed a
litigation accrual of $2.2 million, of which $2.0 million was
recorded as a reduction to operating expenses and $0.2 million was
recorded as a reduction to interest expense.


ISLE OF CAPRI: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. reached a settlement in a suit
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, according to the company's June 23, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended April 27, 2014.

The company was named as a defendant in a complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida.  The complaint alleged
the company sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and sought to
certify a class action.  The complaint sought statutory damages
for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunction relief.  In fiscal 2014 the
company reached a settlement of this matter and the resulting
payments were within the company's reserves for this lawsuit.


IXIA: Faces Amended Securities Complaint in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The "Oklahoma Group" filed an amended complaint in a shareholder
lawsuit originally filed by Felix Santore in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the company's June 23, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul
Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against
the company and certain of the company's current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class
action brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
during the period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and
employment history of the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer.  The complaint also alleges that the defendants
made false and misleading statements, and failed to make certain
disclosures, regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects, including regarding the financial statements and
internal financial controls that were the subject of the April
2013 restatement of certain of the company's prior period
financial statements and regarding the academic credentials and
employment history of the company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer.  The complaint alleges that the Company lacked
adequate internal financial controls and issued materially false
and misleading financial statements for fiscal years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March
31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June
30, 2012 and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purports to
assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, seeks, on
behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and
other relief.

On January 14, 2014, four sets of plaintiffs filed motions for
appointment of counsel and appointment of lead plaintiff. Those
sets of plaintiffs were: (i) Shawn McGrory, (ii) Rob Giampietro
and Sunandra Krishna, (iii) Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System,
and (iv) District No. 9, I.A. of M.&A.W. Pension Trust.  On March
24, 2014, the court issued a minute order appointing the Oklahoma
Group as lead Plaintiff and appointing the Oklahoma Group's
selection of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as lead counsel.

On April 11, 2014, the Company, along with the other named
defendants and the Oklahoma Group, stipulated that the Oklahoma
Group could have 30 days to file an amended complaint and that the
defendants would have 30 days to move, answer or otherwise respond
to the amended complaint after its filing. On May 5, 2014, the
Court issued an order approving the stipulation. That order
required that the Oklahoma Group's first amended complaint be
filed on or before June 11, 2014, and that the Company's and the
other defendants' responsive motion or pleading be filed within 30
days thereafter.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed an amended complaint,
asserting claims against the same defendants under the same legal
theories as were set forth in the initial complaint. The amended
complaint also contains allegations that certain of the individual
defendants increased their trading in the Company's stock during
February, March and May of 2011 and during February and March of
2013, and that the defendants sought to inflate the Company's
reported deferred revenues during the relevant period. The amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities from February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2014.


LIME ENERGY: Court Okays $2.5MM Settlement in "Satterfield" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara Ellis on June 4, 2014, entered an order granting final
approval of a class action settlement and notice to the settlement
class in the matter Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co. et al., Case
No. 12-cv-05704, according to the company's June 13, 2014, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As part of the settlement, Defendants agreed to pay $2.5 million
into a settlement fund, the entire amount of which they anticipate
will be covered by insurance.  Further details of the settlement
may be obtained from the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the
Court, which is available online through the Court's Public Access
to Court Electronic Records system ("PACER"), accessible at
http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/


LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Removed "Courtois" Suit to E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Courtois, et al. v. Lindsey Management Company
Inc., et al., Case No. 60CV-2014, was removed from the Pulaski
County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (Little Rock).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00400-SWW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs
overtime compensation for the hours in excess of 40 hours in a
single week that they were made to work.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Delena C. Hurst, Esq.
          Joshua Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 110
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: delena@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Laird, Esq.
          Jeremy W. Hawpe, Esq.
          Kimberly Rives Miers, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Suite 1500, Lock Box 116
          Dallas, TX 75201-2931
          Telephone: (214) 880-8180
          E-mail: alaird@littler.com
                  jhawpe@littler.com
                  kmiers@littler.com

               - and -

          Eva C. Madison, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          217 East Dickson Street, Suite 204
          Fayetteville, AR 72701
          Telephone: (479) 582-6102
          Facsimile: (479) 582-6111
          E-mail: emadison@littler.com


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff in a consolidated securities suit against Lululemon
Athletica Inc. filed a notice of appeal against a dismissal of the
suit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
according to the company's June 12, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 4, 2014.

On July 2, 2013, plaintiff Houssam Alkhoury filed a putative
shareholder class action entitled Alkhoury v. lululemon athletica
inc., et al., No. 13-CV-4596 (S.D.N.Y.) against lululemon, a
certain director and a certain officer of the Company
(collectively, "Defendants").  On October 1, 2013, the Court
appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund as Lead
Plaintiff and on November 1, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a proposed class
of purchasers of lululemon stock between September 7, 2012 through
June 11, 2013 (the "Complaint").  In its Complaint, Lead Plaintiff
asserted causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Defendants based on
certain public disclosures made by the Company relating to
lululemon's product quality and the March 2013 sheer Luon issue.
On January 15, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of lululemon stock between September
7, 2012 through January 10, 2014. In its Amended Complaint, Lead
Plaintiff added new claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain of lululemon's
public disclosures related to the Company's ongoing quality
control improvements and the impact of those improvements on the
Company's financial results.  On April 18, 2014, the Court
dismissed all of Lead Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a
claim.  On May 16, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
Company believes there is no merit to the appeal.


MANHATTAN CLUB: S.C. Appellate Division Dismisses "Bisk" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a putative class action lawsuit alleging deceptive practices by
defendants that prevented plaintiffs from being able to use their
timeshare units for their stated purpose, a vacation accommodation
experience, the IAS court denied defendants' motion to dismiss,
and credited plaintiffs' allegation that defendants rented up to
96% of the available units to the general public, thus preventing
plaintiff owners from reserving accommodations.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, on June 19, 2014, held that this was error, as
plaintiffs made this contention not in their complaint or in an
affidavit opposing the motion to dismiss, but in their memorandum
of law opposing the motion to dismiss. Moreover, the allegation is
based on an apparent misreading of the documents submitted by
defendants in support of their motion to dismiss.

The Appellate Division further found that plaintiffs' other claims
are similarly deficient, as they are conclusory and speculative at
best.  Moreover, the key deceptive practice alleged, that
defendants would rent a portion of the unused accommodations to
the general public, was plainly disclosed to plaintiffs in the
offering documents, it concluded.

Accordingly, the disimissal of the motion to dismiss is
unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint
dismissed, held the Appellate Division.

The case is LEONARD BISK, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. THE
MANHATTAN CLUB TIMESHARE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Defendants-
Appellants, 12826, 652662/13. 2014 NY Slip Op 04574.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/ZjutBJfrom
Leagle.com.

Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Joel S. Weiss --
jweiss@katskykorins.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Blau Leonard Law Group, LLC, Huntington (Steven Bennett Blau --
sbblaw@msn.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


MICHAELS STORES: Defends Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Michaels Stores
Inc. on July 2 renewed its call to dismiss an Illinois class
action stemming from a data breach the retailer disclosed earlier
this year, doubling down on its claim that customers suing the
craft store have failed to show that the incident has caused them
financial harm.

In a brief responding to challenges raised by the plaintiffs,
Michaels defended its bid to have the complaint dismissed.
Michaels said the complaint is void of claims alleging customers
purportedly affected by the breach have had to incur out-of-pocket
expenses, a defect the company argues should prevent the lawsuit
from proceeding.

"Nowhere in plaintiffs' response can they point to any facts
alleging that any named plaintiff has incurred specific
withdrawals, bank fees, or similar out-of-pocket losses, let alone
that any charges remain unreimbursed," Michaels said.

The company responded specifically to allegations raised by named
plaintiff Mary Jane Whalen, a Michaels customer who claims that
fraudsters have attempted to use her credit card information since
she used the card at a New York store in December.

According to Ms. Whalen, individuals have attempted to use a
payment card with her name on it for a membership at a gym in
Ecuador and concert tickets.  All of the plaintiffs say they are
now at a heightened risk for identify theft and say they face
potential harm in the future as a result of the breach.

Michaels said in its response on July 2 that although Ms. Whalen
said her card has been compromised, she "does not (and apparently
cannot) allege that the transaction went through or that she was
forced to pay anything for that transaction."

The distinction is crucial, Michaels argues, to establish that
Whalen has standing to pursue her legal claims under U.S. Supreme
Court precedent.

Several individuals began filing class action complaints days
after Michaels announced in January that it had suffered a
cyberattack.  The lawsuits, which claim the customers' credit and
debit card information was put at risk as a result of the
incident, seek damages arising from the data breach.

The company said it became aware of the breach early this year
after learning of fraudulent activity occurring on some of their
customers' payment cards.  Michaels says it has been working with
law enforcement and security firms to investigate the attack.  In
April, Michaels said the breach was carried out through the use of
malware that the security firms the company hired say they have
never encountered.

The named plaintiffs claim they visited Michaels stores in
Illinois and New York and made purchases on their credit or debit
cards between November 2013 and January 2014.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph J. Siprut of Siprut PC,
by Mark T. Lavery of Hyslip & Taylor, and by Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- and Kyle Alan Shamberg --
kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.

Michaels is represented by Scott Lassar -- slassar@sidley.com --
Theodore R. Scarborough and Edward Robert McNicholas --
emcnicholas@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Christina Moyer et al. v. Michaels Stores Inc., case
numbers 14-CV-00561; 14-CV-00648; 14-CV-1229 and 14-CV-1827, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


MICHIGAN: Day Care Providers May Get Refund of Union Dues
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Behnan, writing for Lansing State Journal, reports
that nearly 40,000 private Michigan day care providers could see
part of the $4 million in union dues collected in controversial
union arrangement with the state refunded.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered a lower court to reconsider denial
of a class-action case seeking reimbursement of the union dues
collected under the program before it was discontinued.

Under the agreement begun in 2006 and shut down in 2011, dues were
deducted from state subsidy checks to day care providers who
charged reduced fees to low-income families.  The deal withheld
funds that were paid to the United Auto Workers union and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The stated purpose was to provide union representation and
professional training to providers.

The high court's decision means a class-action lawsuit of nearly
40,000 Michigan day care providers would be created if the U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reverses its 2011
denial of the proposed plaintiff grouping.

The class action would result from Schlaud v. Snyder, a federal
lawsuit by five western Michigan day care providers.  Settlements
were paid to those providers but rejection of the class-action
meant other providers were not refunded.

"Their chances of getting their damages have increased greatly,"
said Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs for the
Midland-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy.  The Mackinac
Center filed a state lawsuit challenging the legality of the union
program.

"It's not remote at this point but certainty it isn't imminent,
either," Mr. Wright said.

The center's 2009 lawsuit was filed on behalf of caregivers in the
state Court of Appeals, claiming the state illegally took money
that basically forced providers into a government employees union.

The center's lawsuit was dismissed in December 2009.

The state Supreme Court did not take up the center's appeal.

In the Schlaud case, a federal judge in Grand Rapids in 2011
determined that there were too many conflicts to justify a class-
action.  For example, there might have been providers who didn't
object to paying union dues, the judge said.

The Cincinnati federal appellate court upheld the U.S. District
Court ruling.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued Over Defect in Maxxforce Engines' Emission
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Gray Trucking, Inc., Carmichael Leasing Co., Inc. d/b/a
Carmichael NationaLease, and GTL ENTERPRISES INC., on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons and entities v.
Navistar International Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05249 (N.D.
Ill., July 9, 2014), arises from Navistar's alleged failure to
disclose to, and active concealment from, the Plaintiffs and all
Class members that the emissions system designed into the
Maxxforce Engines is defective and leads to repeated failures.

Navistar International Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 N. LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          250 Hudson St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: jselbin@LCHB.com
                  jglapion@LCHB.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: mchalos@LCHB.com

               - and -

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com

               - and -

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          E-mail: csf@caddellchapman.com


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: No Schedule Yet for Mortgage Suit Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Clark, writing for Montgomery News, reports that a federal
district judge in Philadelphia ruled June 30 that Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and MERSCORP Holdings Inc.,
together referred to as MERS, violated a Pennsylvania statute by
not recording mortgage assignments with the Montgomery County
Recorder of Deeds, according to a press release distributed July 3
at the county commissioners meeting.

Nancy Becker, the county's recorder of deeds, who is the lead
plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, said the ruling gives the
county the momentum to go forward with the lawsuit in trial, which
is not scheduled yet.

"The next steps are to send an official court notice to the other
recorders in the commonwealth explaining the lawsuit and then a
trial," Ms. Becker said.

Ms. Becker said the recorder of deeds' office has been able to
work on the lawsuit without spending any taxpayer money.  The
accountants, attorneys, consultants and researchers involved in
the case are working on a contingency, she said.

Bill Beckmann, president and CEO of MERSCORP, based in Reston,
Va., issued a statement July 2 after hearing of the ruling.  The
statement was emailed to The Times Herald, Montgomery Media's
sister publication, after a request for comment July 3.

"MERSCORP Holdings Inc. disagrees with the District Court's
interpretation of the Pennsylvania Recording Statute as well as
how it applies to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.,"
the statement said.  "We believe strongly that it is the wrong
interpretation of Pennsylvania law and are currently pursuing all
options available to us in the legal process.  Similar legal
actions have been brought in multiple states and MERS has
consistently prevailed in these cases."

Ms. Becker said, however, the county has Pennsylvania law on its
side, and recording of deeds is a nationwide problem.

"Not every state has so defined that these things have to be
recorded," she said.

MERSCORP Holdings Inc. runs the national mortgage electronic
registry system that banks have filed with rather than with the
recorder of deeds' offices in the commonwealth.  Ms. Becker said
not only has the county not been able to collect the registration
fee because of this, but residents of Montgomery County are not
aware when their mortgages are sold to another bank.

Historically, she said, after a mortgage was filed, it stayed with
the bank that issued it.  Beginning in the late 1990s, the
mortgages have been sold repeatedly to other financial
institutions, she said.

After a mortgage is sold, the new owner of the mortgage may begin
the process of foreclosing on a home if they are not being paid,
even though the resident of the home may have never been notified
that the mortgage was sold and may be making payments to the bank
where they took out the mortgage.

"It's the integrity of the public record that we really want to
protect," Ms. Becker said.  "To make sure that at any given time,
that a person can look at a property and find out not only who
owns it but who is holding the paper on it.  If they have paid
their mortgage or have attempted to pay their mortgage they should
not be foreclosed on.  It's about preserving our residents' right
to maintain their homes."

If the bank that issues the mortgage does not file it with the
recorder of deeds' office, there is no way of knowing a mortgage
has been sold.  Rather than filing with the county, many banks
have been filing with MERSCORP Holdings Inc., Ms. Becker said.

Ms. Becker estimated that her office is missing out in about $15
million in unpaid fees.  Mortgages are often sold up to six times
on average, she said, and banks are supposed to be file the sale
with the recorder of deeds' office every time a mortgage is sold
to a new institution.

"We are going to do everything we possibly can to get every one of
those dollars back into Montgomery County," Ms. Becker said.

Ms. Becker said she met with one of the principals of MERS who
tried to find his own home in the system, and it took him five
minutes to find his own mortgage.

"It was not an easy process for folks, where in the county office,
it is a very easy process," she said.

After a notice is put out to the recorders of deeds in other
counties in Pennsylvania, the suit will go to trial in Federal
District Court in Philadelphia.  A trial has not yet been
scheduled.


NEW YORK, NY: 2nd Circuit Revives Building Cleaners' WTC Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that more
than 200 workers who say they suffered respiratory and other
injuries after cleaning up buildings around the World Trade Center
in the aftermath of 9/11 will get a second chance in their
litigation against building owners and tenants following a
decision by a federal appeals court on July 10.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said 211
plaintiffs who lost on summary judgment before Southern District
Judge Alvin Hellerstein can now continue to litigate claims that
their safety was jeopardized by hazardous conditions in the
buildings.

The workers' claims are separate from those made by first
responders to the Sept. 11. 2001 attacks in New York and cleanup
workers who removed debris from Ground Zero -- some 10,000 people
who accepted a settlement with New York City and its contractors
covered by insurance funded by Congress.

The 211 workers had checked a box marked "none" on questionnaires
asking them to identify "diagnosed" conditions, injuries and
diseases tied to their work in the surrounding buildings.  They
were among a group of plaintiffs who claimed that building owners
and tenant businesses "failed to provide for [their] safe,
protection and well-being" by not monitoring working conditions
nor providing equipment to protect them from airborne
contaminants.

The defendants moved for summary judgment in 2012 based on the
checking of the "none" box.  But plaintiffs's lawyers said their
clients checked the box to help assemble a database used to
structure the cases and move them forward, and that checking the
box was not dispositive of injury or illness.

The attorneys submitted over 400 exhibits, including affidavits
claiming injuries and symptoms tied to cleanup work.  Among those
claims were medical monitoring and fear of cancer.

More than half of the plaintiffs amended their responses to the
diagnosis interrogatory and included an affidavit from a doctor
who said "WTC exposed populations . . . have experienced increased
risks [of] 'WTC cough,' new or worsening upper and lower
respiratory symptoms, [and] asthma."

Judge Hellerstein would not consider affidavits that contradicted
the prior sworn answers of the plaintiffs and granted summary
judgment.  The judge also held that claims for medical monitoring
and fear of cancer could not proceed on a standalone basis under
New York law.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, where Judges Gerard
Lynch, Denny Chin and Christopher Droney heard oral argument on
October 9, 2013 in In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site
Litigation, 12-3403-cv.

Writing for the circuit on July 10, Judge Chin said the district
court erred in "granting summary judgment based solely on
plaintiffs' response of 'none' to the interrogatory."

"While we appreciate that the sheer number of cases before the
district court made its task of managing this mass tort litigation
extraordinarily difficult, the district court was obliged to
individually consider each plaintiff's answer of 'none' in the
context of any other evidence of injury," Judge Chin said.

Judge Chin said the use of the word "diagnosed" created an
ambiguity.

"It was possible that a plaintiff manifested symptoms of a
condition, illness or disease that had not yet been diagnosed when
he answered the interrogatory," he said.  "Indeed, claims arising
from exposure to toxic or harmful substances often present nuanced
and fact-specific questions as to whether and when a legally
cognizable injury exists."

Under N.Y.C.P.L.R. Sec. 214-c(2), a cause of action for a toxic
tort accrues either when a plaintiff discovers an injury or should
have discovered it through reasonable diligence, whichever is
earlier.

"New York Courts have not established a bright-line rule for when
symptoms or manifestations of a physical condition are sufficient
to trigger CPLR Sec. 214-c," Judge Chin said.  "Courts have
instead tailored their inquiries as to when a legally cognizable
injury exists in toxic tort cases to the particular facts before
them, focusing on factors such as the extent of the plaintiff's
exposure to a toxic substance, her medical history, the onset of
symptoms and the manifestation of a particular disease."

For one category of plaintiffs who failed to submit "any
evidence," Judge Chin said summary judgment was proper, but it was
not for a second category of "those who offered core discovery
responses" before summary judgment that provided evidence of
injuries or illnesses from air contaminants.

As for a third category, those who offered late affidavits or
amended interrogatory responses, Judge Chin said Judge Hellerstein
was correct that plaintiffs generally "may not create material
issues of facts by submitting affidavits that dispute their own
prior testimony."

But Judge Chin said it was unclear that the late affidavits or
amended answers "necessarily contradicted plaintiffs' answers to
the diagnosis interrogatory," and some "may have had reasonable
explanations" for doing so.

So for the last two categories, Judge Hellerstein was instructed
to make an individual assessment before deciding whether summary
judgment should be granted.

The circuit went on to agree with Judge Hellerstein's decision
dismissing 31 plaintiffs for failure to prosecute and his decision
that independent causes of action for fear of cancer and medical
monitoring could not stand.

Plaintiffs lawyer Marc Bern -- MJBern@NapoliBern.com -- of Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik said on July 10 he "always felt that Judge
Hellerstein's ruling with respect to these 211 people was
inappropriate and didn't follow the law and was really unfair.
We're very gratified that the Second Circuit looked at this in the
light it should have been looked at to begin with."

Denise Rubin of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik argued for the
plaintiffs.  Lee Ann Stevenson -- lstevenson@zuckerman.com -- from
Kirkland & Ellis, now with Zuckerman Spaeder, argued for the
defendants, with Richard Leff -- rleff@mklaw.us.com -- of McGivney
& Kluger on the brief.


NEW YORK: Students File Class Action Over Poor Basic Education
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Fugallo, writing for SILive.com, reports that 11 students
have filed a class-action lawsuit in Staten Island state Supreme
Court demanding the downfall in tenure laws for New York teachers.
The lawsuit, dubbed Davids vs. State of New York, et al., aims to
compel the State of New York, the New York State Board of Regents,
the New York State Education Department, the City of New York and
the New York City Department of Education, "to protect our
children's rights and to fulfill their Constitutional mandate to
offer all children the opportunity to receive a sound basic
education."

The plaintiffs in the suit are children of members of the New York
City Parents Union.  The suit was spurred on by a recent anti-
tenure ruling in California, where a Los Angeles judge denied
California's tenure and seniority laws, stating that they were
unjust to poor and minority students when it came to a sound basic
education.

Staten Islander Sam Pirozzolo, who is both a parent plaintiff and
vice president of the NYC Parents Union, said he wants to see
poor, disinterested teachers be held accountable.

"I have been told of teachers who were happy their school was
being closed and that they were being placed in the Absent Teacher
Reserve, where they get paid, but no longer have to prepare lesson
plans, tests, check homework.  They don't have to teach," he said.
"These are the teachers that parents want removed from the
system."

The Parents Unions cites data the following data: with 75,000
active teachers in NYC working each year between 1997 and 2007, up
to 12 teachers could have been removed on any one of those years,
said Mr. Pirozzolo.  It can take up to 830 days and over $330,000
to replace a poorly performing teacher, according to data cited by
the NYC Parents Union.

The group claims that they are not out for teachers nor the
schools in general, but are simply looking to strike tenure from
New York state and rid the schools of poorly performing teachers.

According to the New York Post, the United Federation of Teachers
responded to the suit by saying that tenure is not "lifetime
employment" but rather "'due process' to help ensure that teachers
are not disciplined or fired for purely political reasons . . . or
their supervisors' animosity."


NUCARE SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Discharge in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Kuebler and Jeannette Jordan v. NuCare Services Corp., an
Illinois Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05265 (N.D. Ill., July 10,
2014), alleges wrongful discharge pursuant to the United States
Constitution and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

NuCare Services Corp. is an Illinois corporation.  NuCare is a
company in the business of, among other things, providing for
rehab for patients in need of it on behalf of various nursing
homes that other sister companies own or which have an interest.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward M. Fox, Esq.
          ED FOX & ASSOCIATES
          300 West Adams, Suite 330
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 345-8877
          E-mail: efox@efox-law.com


NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY: Accused of Discrimination by 9/11 Victim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dudley v. New York City Housing Authority, Bob Marano,
Irene Shapiro, Jonathan Wasserman, Peter Quercia, (in their
individual and official capacities), Case No. 1:14-cv-05116
(S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2014), alleges that the Defendants violating
the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Executive Law, the Human Rights Law, the New York City
Administrative Code and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to a hostile work
environment, and adverse employment actions, as well as an
atmosphere of adverse employment actions based on his
disabilities, requests for accommodations, and in retaliation for
his opposition to discriminatory practices.  He contends that he
suffers from various disabilities, including rotator cuff/shoulder
injuries, injuries to his right knee (meniscus tear), as well as
respiratory issues, stemming from his falling victim to the events
of 9/11.

The New York City Housing Authority is a public employer, doing
business in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are officers
and employees of NYCHA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Ricotta, Esq.
          WHITE RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C.
          86-12 37th Avenue, Second Floor
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (347) 464-8694
          Facsimile: (800) 483-4508
          E-mail: tricotta@wrmattorney.com


OCEAN POWER: Faces Class Actions Over Inflated Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean McComish, writing for The Standard, reports that the world's
largest wave energy project in Portland is at the centre of a
class action lawsuit in the United States over claims the
company's share price has been artificially inflated.

Two investor class actions in the United States allege company
statements about the Portland project have artificially inflated
share prices in Ocean Power Technologies (OPT).

The company comments have allegedly come out of OPT's deal with
Victorian Wave Partners and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency
(ARENA) which has awarded the companies $66.4 million over three
years to complete the south-west project.

The board of OPT has appointed a special committee to investigate
the agreement between Victorian Wave Partners and ARENA.  In a
shareholder alert -- American law firm Levi and Korsinsky
announced it had filed a class action lawsuit in the District
Court of New Jersey on behalf of OPT investors.  It's claimed
between June 9 and June 16, shares in the company fell from $2.47
per share to $1.70 per share.


OCEAN POWER: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Ocean Power securities between January 14, 2014 and June 9, 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 Ocean Power securities
during the Class Period, you have until August 12, 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.

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of proprietary systems that generate electricity
by harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves primarily in the
United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
may have misstated the nature and/or circumstances of an agreement
between the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and Victorian Wave
Partners Pty Ltd -- a project-specific operating entity wholly-
owned by the Company's subsidiary -- related to a planned wave
power station project off the coast of Australia.  As a result,
defendants' statements concerning the Victorian Wave Partners
project, and positive statements about Ocean Power's business,
operations and prospects, were materially false and misleading or
lacked a reasonable basis

On June 10, 2014, the Company announced in a Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) form 8-K filing that Charles F. Dunleavy
was terminated as the chief executive officer of Ocean Power.  The
Company also disclosed that the board of directors appointed a
Special Committee, composed of outside directors and the interim
chief executive officer, which will retain outside counsel to
assist in an investigation into the agreement between Victorian
Wave Partners and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and
related public statements concerning the project.

On this news, shares of Ocean Power fell $0.84 per share to $1.63,
or more than 34%, in intraday trading on June 10, 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.


PENNSYLVANIA: Shenandoah Valley School Board to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Usalis, writing for The Republican-Herald, reports that
the Shenandoah Valley school board voted to have the district
involved in a school funding class action lawsuit to force the
state to adequately fund low-income schools.

The board's vote at its June 25 meeting was 6-0.

Called the "Equity Lawsuit," the legal move is being promoted by
the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools, whose
self-described mission is to promote equal opportunity for quality
education for all students in every school and community in
Pennsylvania.

After the school board meeting, district Superintendent Stanley G.
Rakowsky said he supports the initiative.

"We're basically suing the state for adequate funding,"
Mr. Rakowsky said.  "We're going to be part of a class action
lawsuit.  There is an attorney, Michael Churchill of the Public
Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, who is proceeding with
litigation intent on compelling the (Pennsylvania) General
Assembly to act consistent with its obligations to the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  It's saying
that law says they have to do it and here are the schools that are
being affected by it."

Mr. Rakowsky added, "You have to do what the law says.  You have
to provide for adequate funding as the constitution provides for.
You can't fudge it. It eliminates administrative discretion, and
you need schools to be part of it."

Mr. Rakowsky provided The Republican-Herald with background
information provided to the school board in a weekly update.
Mr. Rakowsky explained in his update: "The media is replete with
news stories and opinion- and research-based articles concerning
the funding of public education in the Pennsylvania.  At the core
is the fact that the General Assembly has failed its duty to
provide for the maintenance of support of a thorough and efficient
system of public education to serve the needs of the commonwealth.
By the legislature's negligence to uphold its constitutionally-
mandated responsibilities, school districts such as Shenandoah
Valley School District find it progressively more difficult to
continue with educating the district's students on par with other
students throughout the commonwealth.

"To make matters even more untenable, there have been a myriad of
state-imposed standards requiring substantial increase in local
effort to implement (e.g., PSSA, Keystone Exams, etc.), but absent
of GA adequate financial support to implement and sustain these
edicts.  For example, in 2007 the Pennsylvania State Board of
Education directed a Costing Out Study be undertaken.  The purpose
of this COS was to determine what the average cost of educating
students throughout the commonwealth.  Despite the COS findings
that a substantial increase in state funding would be necessary,
the GA continued to stall.  Indeed, instead of being proactive in
implementing the PSB recommendations, 'the GA reduced funding to
local school districts rather than create a viable system to
enable districts to meet those standards.

"However, it's plainly evident the GA has little inclination to
abandon its almost wanton underfunding of public schools.  That's
why, spurred on by proactive public school lobbying organizations
such as PARRS, remedy is being sought is through the courts.
Specifically, the Education Law Center-PA, the Public Interest Law
Center of Philadelphia, and a national law firm (O'Melveny and
Myers) are proceeding with litigation intent on compelling the GA
to act consistent with its obligations to the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."

Mr. Rakowsky continued, "Some time ago I was contacted by PARSS
Executive Director Joe Bard.  Prior to his present position, JB
was Pennsylvania's Commissioner for Basic Education.  In that
conversation, JB stated that SVSD had been identified as one of
the schools adversely affected by the funding disparity and
requested the district consider being a plaintiff in the above
lawsuit.  Specifically noted was the district's low-ranking PARSS
scores as being indicative of the morass confronting SVSD in its
efforts to provide suitable education for our students without
adequate state funding.  That's why the district was asked to be a
plaintiff in the pending suit."

Mr. Rakowsky said the costs are minimal in being a lawsuit
participant.

"It's not going to cost us anything other than some in-kind costs,
such as those to put reports together in the school district,"
Mr. Rakowsky said.


PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Varghese" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boby Varghese, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PLX Technology, Inc., Michael J. Salameh, Martin
Colombatto, Stephen Domenik, John H. Hart, David Raun, Ralph
Schmitt, Eric Singer, Patrick Verderico, Avago Technologies
Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc.,
Case No. 9837-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct., June 27, 2014), arises from the
Defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties in
connection with Avago's proposed acquisition of all of the
outstanding stock of PLX, which is the result of an unfair sales
process.

PLX is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices
located in Sunnyvale, California.  PLX is the industry-leading
global provider of semiconductor-based PCI Express connectivity
solutions primarily targeting enterprise data center markets.  The
Company develops innovative software-enriched silicon that enables
product differentiation, reliable interoperability and superior
performance.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

Avago Technologies Ltd. is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices located in Yishun Avenue, Singapore.  Avago
Wireless is a Delaware corporation and operates as a wholly-owned
as a subsidiary of Avago Technologies Ltd.  Pluto is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago Wireless.  Upon
completion of the Proposed Transaction, Pluto will merge with and
into PLX and cease its separate corporate existence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  BDL@rigrodskylong.com
                  gs@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
          Todd Kammerman, Esq.
          Christopher Schuyler, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: kbronson@milberg.com
                  tkammerman@milberg.com
                  cschuyler@milberg.com


PLX TECHNOLOGY: Shareholder Suit Seeks to Enjoin Avago Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Feinstein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PLX Technology, Inc., David Raun, Michael
Salameh, Ralph Schmitt, Martin Colombatto, Stephen Domenik, John
Hart, Eric Singer, Patrick Verderico, Avago Technologies Ltd.,
Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., and Pluto
Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 9839-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct., June 27, 2014)
seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction pursuant to which Avago
will acquire the outstanding shares of PLX in a deal valued at
approximately $309 million.

PLX is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices
located in Sunnyvale, California.  PLX is the industry-leading
global provider of semiconductor-based PCI Express connectivity
solutions primarily targeting enterprise data center markets.  The
Company develops innovative software-enriched silicon that enables
product differentiation, reliable interoperability and superior
performance.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

Avago Technologies Ltd. is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices located in Yishun Avenue, Singapore.  Avago
Wireless is a Delaware corporation and operates as a wholly-owned
as a subsidiary of Avago Technologies Ltd.  Pluto is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago Wireless.  Upon
completion of the Proposed Transaction, Pluto will merge with and
into PLX and cease its separate corporate existence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Banko, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          20 Montchanin Rd., Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  imelamed@faruqilaw.com


POWERSECURE INT'L: "Higgins" Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Higgins v. Powersecure
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00271, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.  The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00388-F to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          H. Forest Horne, Jr., Esq.
          MARTIN & JONES
          410 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 821-0005
          Facsimile: (919) 863-6084
          E-mail: hfh@m-j.com


POWERSECURE INT'L: Faces Suit Over Securities Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
PowerSecure International, Inc. (NYSE: POWR) announced that it
intends to vigorously defend against the claims made in securities
class action lawsuits filed last month against the company and two
of its officers.  PowerSecure has reviewed the complaints and
views the allegations as meritless.

Barry Kaplan of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati will serve as
lead defense counsel for PowerSecure and its officers. Michael
Smith of King & Spalding will also advise PowerSecure in
connection with its defense of the class actions.

PowerSecure International, Inc. is a leading provider of utility
and energy technologies to electric utilities, and their
industrial, institutional and commercial customers. PowerSecure
provides products and services in the areas of Interactive
Distributed Generation (IDG), energy efficiency and utility
infrastructure. The company is a pioneer in developing IDG power
systems with sophisticated smart grid capabilities, including the
ability to 1) forecast electricity demand and electronically
deploy the systems to deliver more efficient, and environmentally
friendly, power at peak power times, 2) provide utilities with
dedicated electric power generation capacity to utilize for demand
response purpose


RADY CHILDREN'S: Accused of Disclosing Confidential Medical Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reni Anguelova at Courthouse News Service reports that Rady
Children's Hospital disclosed confidential medical information
about more than 20,000 patients, a class action claims in San
Diego Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Sami Shamon claims that a Rady employee on June 6
sent an e-mail to four undisclosed people who have nothing to do
with the hospital.  The mails contained an attachment with medical
records on 14,121 patients, according to the lawsuit.

"Furthermore, one or more of these four individuals proceeded to
forward the email with the attached private medical information to
other undisclosed parties who were again neither employed with nor
related to defendant business," the complaint states.

When the hospital investigated, it found that another data breach
had exposed medical records of another 6,307 patients, Shamon
claims.


REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE: Removed "Mascari" Suit to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Mascari v. Regional Acceptance
Corporation, et al., Case No. 14-887-CA, was removed from the 5th
Judicial Circuit Court Hernando County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01667-SDM-EAJ to
the proceeding.

The case is brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Defendants Regional Acceptance Corporation and BB&T Dealer
Financial Services, Inc. are represented by:

          Alissa M. Ellison, Esq.
          Christopher B. Deem, Esq.
          David Stockton Hendrix, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, PA
          401 E Jackson St., Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 273-5068
          Facsimile: (813) 273-5145
          E-mail: alissa.ellison@gray-robinson.com
                  christopher.deem@gray-robinson.com
                  dhendrix@gray-robinson.com

Defendant Ultimate Image Auto, Inc., is represented by:

          Claire A. Duchemin, Esq.
          CLAIRE A. DUCHEMIN, PA
          1615 Village Square Blvd., Suite 7
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 270-9870
          Facsimile: (850) 270-9873
          E-mail: caduchemin@live.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Rifle Trigger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Salter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the gun
manufacturer Remington Arms Co. will replace trigger mechanisms on
Model 700 bolt-action hunting rifles, or provide some compensation
to buyers, as part of a settlement of class-action lawsuits, the
company said on July 10.

Suits filed in Missouri and Washington state claimed the rifle has
a defective trigger mechanism that can cause injury and death.
They claimed that Model 700 rifles sometimes fire unexpectedly,
without a trigger pull.

The settlements announced on July 10 still must be finalized in
court.

Remington Arms agreed to the settlements even though it denied
allegations of any economic loss, the company said in a joint
statement with the plaintiffs.  The company declined to comment
further and did not provide details of how the trigger mechanisms
will be replaced.

Timothy Monsees, the Kansas City, Missouri, attorney for
plaintiffs in both cases, did not immediately respond to a message
seeking comment.

Remington has sold more than 5 million of the rifles since 1948.

Dozens of suits have been filed against Remington over the past
three decades, several by people who claimed injury and death from
guns that misfired.  In a 1994 case in Texas, a jury awarded $17
million to a man who lost his foot.

Remington has blamed users of the guns, rather than a defective
trigger mechanism, and won some of the cases.  The company issued
a statement in 2010, saying its Model 700 had been "free of
defect" since it was first produced.

But in April, Remington issued a nationwide recall of both the
Model 700 and Model Seven rifles.  The recall applies to the
models equipped with the X-Mark Pro trigger that was manufactured
between May 2006 and April 9, 2014.

Some rifles may have excess bonding agent that could cause them to
accidently fire, the company said at the time.


RESEARCH IN MOTION: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Shemian" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed
a district court judgment entered in ROBERT SHEMIAN, Plaintiff-
Appellant, LAURA PREFONTAINE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION
LIMITED, n/k/a BLACKBERRY LIMITED, BRIAN BIDULKA, JAMES L.
BALSILLIE, MIHALIS MICHAEL LAZARIDIS,* Defendants-Appellees, NO.
13-1602-CV.

The Second Circtui concluded that "the Appellant has not pleaded
facts sufficient to give rise to an inference of scienter that is
"at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent
intent," . . . and we therefore affirm the district court's
dismissal of Appellant's complaint."

A copy of the June 19, 2014 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/xLg7S0from Leagle.com.


RESTORATION HARDWARE: To Compensate Claimants in Credit Card Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a lawsuit filed by Mike Hernandez against
Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging violation of California's
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 filed a joint statement as to
the parties' agreed-upon claims process for the class members,
according to Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc.'s June 12, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

In the three month period ended May 3, 2014, material developments
occurred in an ongoing legal proceeding involving the Company. On
October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the
Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971
by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with
credit cards.  On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from
the Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties'
agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to
other matters related to this proceeding, all of which remain
subject to Court approval.  As a result of these developments, the
Company recorded a $9.2 million charge related to this matter
during the three months ended May 3, 2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Smoking Suit Plateau May Aid Lorillard Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ingram, Jessica Dye and Martinne Geller, writing for
Reuters, report that smoking-related lawsuits against U.S. tobacco
giants are leveling off, making it more likely that a merger
between rivals Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc. will go
through, analysts who follow the industry said.

The two cigarette makers, which are in talks for a multi-billion-
dollar deal, face thousands of suits, but the impact has not been
as dramatic as was expected a decade ago, and trials have given
investors an idea of what the companies will pay.  Antismoking
campaigns have also made it more difficult for smokers and
government enforcers to argue that companies were deceitful.

Supporting the Lorillard-Reynolds deal is "a new mood of optimism
within U.S. Big Tobacco on the litigation landscape," UK-based
analysts at the investment firm Jefferies Group said in a note on
June 30, adding that the situation still looked risky.

Lawsuits complicate what a company is worth, increasing chances an
acquiring company will overpay in a deal.  Tobacco companies that
have an idea what they are apt to pay smokers who have sued may be
seen as better investments.

A deal between Reynolds and Lorillard, the No. 2 and No. 3 U.S.
players, would reshape one of the world's biggest and most
profitable tobacco markets.  Lorillard makes Newport, the top U.S.
menthol cigarette, and leading e-cigarette blu.

The brighter legal picture dates to 2006, when the Florida Supreme
Court set aside an eye-popping $145 billion verdict against the
biggest tobacco companies.  The ruling in Engle v. Liggett Group
left smokers to pursue cases one at a time, alleging that
companies concealed the dangers of smoking.

Since 2011, Reynolds has won roughly half the 100 cases that went
to trial as part of what has become known as the Engle litigation
and other smoking-related cases, the company said in a securities
filing in April. Lorillard said it has won about a quarter of its
Engle-related trials.

No new Engle-related cases were permitted in Florida after January
2008, and few class action suits have been brought in other
states.

                   'COMFORTABLE' WITH LIABILITY

Based on Reynolds' securities filings, Jefferies Group estimated
aggregate liabilities from the Engle cases at $25 billion or less
for the whole U.S. tobacco industry, and called it a "small
number" relative to the industry's worth.

"If you're a U.S. tobacco investor, you're probably comfortable
with this, and it's in the stock price to some extent," said
Jefferies equity analyst Martin Deboo.

RBC Capital Markets said in a note in May that the U.S. tobacco
industry was ripe for consolidation based in part on a "stable
litigation environment."

Neither Reynolds nor Lorillard has offered a public estimate of
its future liability.  The companies did not respond to requests
on Friday to elaborate on that and its impact on a merger.

The majority of U.S. lawsuits against tobacco companies are in
Florida, where a jury in 2000 awarded smokers the $145 billion in
punitive damages.  The state's high court later said the smokers
could not sue as a group but could use findings from the Engle
class action about the dangers of smoking.

Through the first quarter of 2014, Reynolds said in a securities
filing that it faced 5,000 Engle suits, down from 7,700 in
December 2009.  The ones that did not go to trial were settled or
dismissed.  Lorillard said it faced 4,000 as of this year.  Some
suits target multiple companies.

                 DECLINE OF THE DECEPTION DEFENSE

When juries find against the tobacco defendants, the awards to
smokers can be substantial.  Lorillard paid $79 million last year
to resolve one suit from the family of a longtime smoker who died
of lung cancer.

Liggett Group, a unit of Vector Group Ltd, said last year it would
pay $110 million to settle 4,900 suits.

The Florida cases may represent the "last big chunk" of smoking
cases, said Sergio Campos, a professor at the University of Miami
School of Law.

But the mix of courtroom wins and losses has eased fears that
litigation could force the companies out of business.  Tobacco
education has improved since litigation started decades ago,
making it difficult for plaintiffs to claim they could not have
known about cigarettes' addictive and disease-causing properties,
he said.

"At some point, you get your hands around (the litigation), you
know it won't metastasize or grow anymore, and it frees you up to
explore this kind of deal," Mr. Campos said.


ROLF HARRIS: May Face Class Action Over Lenient Sentence
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Miller, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers are
investigating whether a class action can be brought by women
claiming they were abused by disgraced entertainer Rolf Harris.

Barrie Woollacott, a Melbourne based lawyer with Slater & Gordon,
said they were exploring the possibilities of the class action
being brought by Australian, New Zealand and British women in the
United Kingdom.  He said this strategy had been ruled out in
Australia but they were hopeful the British legal system was
flexible enough to accommodate such an action.

"There is plenty of precedence where an action is brought by
foreigners to a country where the perpetrator now lives," he said.

In further bad news for 84-year-old Mr. Harris, the jail term of
five years and nine months for the indecent assault of four girls
aged eight to 19 could be increased if Britain's attorney-general
sends the case to the Court of Appeal.

Attorney-General Dominic Grieve has 28 days to decide whether the
sentence, which could mean the Australian entertainer walks free
in less than three years, should be appealed as too lenient.
Sexual abuse support groups in Britain and Australia were quick to
call for a longer sentence.

Mr. Harris displayed no emotion when he heard his fate during a
dramatic sentence hearing in London on July 4 Australian time.  In
a sensational climax to the trial, he received a blistering rebuke
from Justice Nigel Sweeney, who told him he had shown "no
remorse".

"You have done many good and charitable works . . . but the
verdicts of the jury show that in the period of 1969 to 1986 you
were also a sex offender," Justice Sweeney said.  "You took
advantage of the trust placed in you because of your celebrity
status to commit the offences against three of your victims.  [In
another] you committed [the offense] in breach of the trust her
parents placed in you.

"You clearly got a thrill from committing the offenses while
others were present or nearby.  Your reputation now is in tatters
. . . you have been stripped of your honors and you have no one to
blame but yourself."

While the judge sentenced Harris to terms ranging from six months
to 15 months on the 12 counts, many of them were to be served
concurrently.  Justice Sweeney said he would have imposed a higher
sentence but was constrained by the law as it was at the time of
the offences.  He said there were factors to be considered in
mitigating the term, including his wife Alwen's ill health, and
the ability to spend the twilight years of his life with his
family.

Earlier, the court was read victim impact statements from all four
of Mr. Harris' victims in the case.

The main complainant, a childhood friend of his daughter, Bindi,
said that as a young girl she "had aspirations to have a career,
settle down and have a family".

"However, as a direct result of his actions, this has never
materialized . . . Rolf Harris had a hold over me that made me a
quivering wreck."

The four women also made clear the abuse was much harder to deal
with because Harris was so loved by the public.

Australian woman Tonya Lee said Mr. Harris' assaults on her in
1986, when she was 15, were a "turning point" in her life from
which she never recovered.  "What Mr. Harris took from me was my
very essence," the 43-year-old said.

Mr. Harris' youngest victim was seven or eight when he groped her
after she had asked for his autograph in the late 1960s.  "I have
carried what Rolf Harris did to me for most of my life," she said
in her statement.  "It took away most of my childhood."

Prosecutor Sasha Wass, QC, said in light of the unanimous guilty
verdicts, police would not continue to press four child
pornography charges against Mr. Harris, relating to images found
on his computer when his house was raided in 2012.

Mr. Harris' counsel Sonia Woodley, QC, said the court had heard of
the entertainer's "dark side", but "it would be unfair to ignore
the good he has done in his life".

Apart from the main complainant, the assaults he had been found
guilty of were "brief and opportunistic rather than predatory",
she said.

The court had been provided with a medical report that Ms. Woodley
said showed a prison term would shorten his life.  "He is already
on borrowed time," she said.  The sentence would have a bigger
impact on him than it would on a younger, healthier man.  She
asked the court to impose a sentence that "will give him some hope
of a future, so he will be able to spend the remaining twilight
years of his life with his family".

After being sentenced, Mr. Harris was escorted from the dock by
two officers and transported in a van to Wandsworth prison in
south-west London.

Mr. Harris may also face a raft of damages claims in the civil
courts. Justice Sweeney said he would not consider compensation
because assessing the psychological harm done to the victims was a
complex process.  But the judge said Mr. Harris would have to pay
the prosecution's legal costs.

The Survivors Trust -- an umbrella organization in Britain for
rape, sexual violence and childhood sexual abuse support
organizations -- welcomed Mr. Harris' conviction but said his
sentences should not be served concurrently.

"Without concurrent sentences, Harris would be facing 11 years and
nine months -- a sentence that we feel better reflects the
lifelong suffering his victims have felt and are still battling,"
the trust said.


SHOE CARNIVAL: Dismissal of FACTA "Violations" Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a suit alleging violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 by Shoe Carnival, Inc. is
appealing the dismissal of the suit to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals, according to the company's June 12, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On October 31, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois captioned Nicaj v. Shoe Carnival,
Inc. The complaint alleged that the company violated certain
provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of
2003 (FACTA), which amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by
printing the month of the expiration date of the company's
customers' credit cards on transaction receipts. The plaintiff
sought, among other things, the designation of this action as a
class action, an award of monetary damages of between $100 and
$1,000 per violation, counsel fees and costs, and such other
relief as the court deemed appropriate.

On January 16, 2014, the District Court granted the company's
motion and dismissed the plaintiff's action with prejudice and
denied his motion to certify a class as moot, finding that the
company's actions did not violate FACTA and that the company's
conduct, even if it did violate FACTA, was not willful.  On
February 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
District Court's order with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals set a briefing schedule, under which the
plaintiff filed his opening brief on May 7, 2014.  The company
filed the company's response on June 6, 2014.


SYMANTEC CORP: Faces Investigation by DC Gov't Over Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation is under investigation by the District of
Columbia in relation to its compliance with certain provisions of
the U.S. General Services Administration Multiple Award Schedule
Contract No. GS-35F-0240T, according to the company's May 16,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 28, 2014.

The company has been named as a party to class action lawsuits,
and the company may be named in additional litigation.  For
example, during the first quarter of fiscal 2013, the company was
advised by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of
Justice's Civil Division and the Civil Division of the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia that the government
is investigating the company's compliance with certain provisions
of the company's U.S. General Services Administration Multiple
Award Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-0240T effective January 24,
2007, including provisions relating to pricing, country of origin,
accessibility, and the disclosure of commercial sales practices.


TIFFANY'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File FLSA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that 15 exotic
dancers who perform lap dances filed a proposed class action
complaint in San Antonio federal court, alleging their employer
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Tiffany's Cabaret failed
to pay the dancers "whatsoever" for regular and overtime hours,
according to the complaint.

The dancers, represented by Houston's Shellist Lazarz Slobin,
filed the complaint in Marez v. KHG of San Antonio on July 1 and
named as defendants seven individuals and three companies that
together allegedly operate and own Tiffany's.

None of the named individual defendants returned a call to
Tiffany's seeking comment for this report.  None of the defendants
have yet to file answers with the court or identified their
counsel, according to the federal courts' online document filing
system.

But Scott Schulten -- wss@swtlaw.com -- a partner at Schulten Ward
& Turner in Atlanta, said he represents defendant KHG of San
Antonio in Marez -- as well as in a related case filed previously
by the same plaintiffs counsel, based on the same facts and
allegations but with fewer (and not all of the same) plaintiffs.

"We will defend against these allegations vigorously,"
Mr. Schulten said.

According to the July 1 complaint in Marez: "Plaintiffs were
permitted to keep table dance fees generated while performing" for
"club patrons."  But those fees were "tips" as defined by the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and therefore do not satisfy the
defendants' obligations to pay wages.  The cabaret allowed dancers
to keep dance fees ($5 to $10 per table dance) but the employer
did not track time worked with the software it used, known as
"Table Dance Manager."

The dancers allege that "Tiffany's had previously tracked the
hours worked by its dancers, however that time-keeping system
broke down and rather than repair or replace it, Tiffany's chose
not to, in order to save money intentionally disregarding its
obligation to comply with the FLSA."

Ricardo Prieto, an associate with Shellist Lazarz who represents
the plaintiffs in both cases, said his firm has filed a third case
for exotic dancers against a different club.  The employer in that
case has classified the dancers as independent contractors, so
additional issues -- specifically the dancers' status as employees
versus independent contractors -- will be raised before the
plaintiffs get the court to address underlying FSLA concerns,
Mr. Prieto said.


TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW: Faces Suit Alleging Sexual Harassment Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Croci v. Town of Haverstraw, George Wargo, individually,
and Howard Phillips, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05138
(S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2014) asserts employment discrimination claims
on the basis of the Plaintiff's sex, alleging sexual harassment,
gender discrimination and retaliation.

Ms. Croci is a resident of Rockland, New York.  She was employed
as a secretary with the Town's Department of Transportation.

The Town of Haverstraw's main office and place of business is
located in Garnerville, New York.  George Wargo served as the
Superintendent of the Highway Department of the Town.  Howard
Phillips served as the Supervisor for the Town.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ambrose W. Wotorson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AMBROSE WOTORSON
          30 Vesey Street, Suite 1803
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (646) 242-3227
          E-mail: Loaww1650@aol.com


UNIFIRST CORP: Removed "Mosqueda" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Mosqueda v. Unifirst
Corporation, et al., Case No. BC 544734, 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-05324 to the proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven R. Feldstein, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          135 Commonwealth Drive
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-1105
          Telephone: (650) 752-3100
          Facsimile: (650) 853-1038
          E-mail: sfeldstein@goodwinprocter.com


UNITED PARCEL: Removed "Simoni" Suit to New Jersey District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Simoni v. United Parcel Service,
Inc., et al., Case No. MON-L1966-14, was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-04374-PGS-DEA to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff represented himself:

          Stephen John Simoni, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN J. SIMONI
          55 Ocean Avenue
          Monmouth Beach, NJ 07750
          Telephone: (917) 621-5795
          E-mail: stephensimoni@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David John Fioccola, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: dfioccola@mofo.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Asylum Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Marzulli, writing for New York Daily News, reports that more
than 40,000 immigrants who are seeking asylum in the U.S. are
stuck in a federal limbo waiting up to two years to be interviewed
about their applications, a bombshell lawsuit charges.

The class-action suit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court accuses top
officials of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services of unlawfully delaying the processing and
resolution of asylum applications.

Under federal statue, applicants are supposed to be interviewed
within 45 days of filing and a decision reached within 180 days
"absent extraordinary circumstances," according to the suit.

What's causing the backlog appears to be the database used by
USCIS to schedule asylum interviews.  The suit says that a
computer creates a monthly calendar of "slots" for interviews
based on the availability of officers at eight regional offices
throughout the nation.

But not every new applicant ends up getting called for an
interview and they end up dumped in a backlog category.

The computer selects the next batch of interviews from the newest
filings so "the longer a case is pending the less likely it is to
be scheduled for an interview," lawyer Paul O'Dwyer --
dwyerjc@cooley.com -- said in the suit filed last month.

Mr. O'Dwyer is representing 17 plaintiffs who are identified in
the complaint only by their initials and hail from a wide range of
countries, including Peru, Lebanon and Jamaica.

Among them is L.M. She is a transsexual from Nicaragua who filed
for asylum in August 2012 citing threats because of her gender and
sexual orientation and is still waiting to be scheduled for an
interview.

The plaintiffs all reside in the U.S. and none is currently
detained, Mr. O'Dwyer told The Daily News.

While the number of asylum applications over the past two years
has been fairly stable, the backlogged cases have ballooned from
12,450 in January 2012 to 45,193 in March 2014, the suit says,
citing USCIS statistics.

The suit is demanding that Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis oversee
the process of reducing the backlog.  Once granted asylum an
immigrant can remain in the U.S. indefinitely and their family
members may also be eligible for asylum.


US BANK: 6th Cir. Upholds Dismisal of Asset Management's Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In ASSET MANAGEMENT ONE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-4210, Plaintiff-
Appellant appeals the district court's judgment dismissing its
complaint alleging a class-action claim for breach of the implied
duty of good faith in contract against Defendant-Appellee. The
Defendant is a national bank that conducts business in Ohio. The
Defendant made three commercial construction loans to non-party
Stonehenge -- two in 2003 and one in 2006 -- that were
memorialized in three separate Notes.  In 2012, Stonehenge
assigned all of its claims relating to the Notes to Plaintiff.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms
the judgment of the district court saying the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the Complaint with
prejudice. The Sixth Circuit finds that the Plaintiff could prove
no set of facts in support of its allegations that would entitle
it to relief. Therefore, any attempt Plaintiff could make to amend
the Complaint would be futile. The Court cannot say that the
district court relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact,
improperly applied the law, or employed an erroneous legal
standard when it dismissed the complaint with prejudice, the Sixth
Circuit adds.  Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted is affirmed.

A copy of the June 19, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/1oZjDWfrom Leagle.com.

DAVID A.P. BROWER -- brower@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, New
York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

SCOTT MUSOFF -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- (Jay B. Kasner --
jay.kasner@skadden.com -- on the brief), Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.


WENDY'S INT'L: Removed "Hernandez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hernandez v. Wendy's
International, LLC, Case No. 14-012993 (CA), was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-
cv-22566-JLK to the proceeding.

The case seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angelique Groza Lyons, Esq.
          Doris Del Castillo, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3350
          Post Office Box 1840
          Tampa, FL 33601-1840
          Telephone: (813) 223-7166
          Facsimile: (813) 223-2515
          E-mail: alyons@constangy.com
                  ddelcastillo@constangy.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks Settlement of Deceptive Trade Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Arnold and Chad Hunter, writing for Times Record, report that
a joint motion seeking settlement of a class-action lawsuit
against Whirlpool was filed on July 3 in U.S. District Court in
Fort Smith, while another lawsuit against the corporation remains
set for trial next year.

The class-action complaint originally was filed May 20, 2013, in
Sebastian County Circuit Court, but Whirlpool filed notice June
25, 2013, removing the case to federal court in Fort Smith.

The complaint sought unspecified damages for nuisance, trespass,
violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, accuses
Whirlpool of fraudulent concealment and sought punitive damages.

According to Whirlpool, which closed its Fort Smith plant in June
2012, a plume of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a known carcinogen,
leaked into groundwater at the plant site, then later into a
neighborhood to the north.  TCE was used at Whirlpool as a
degreasing solvent between the late 1960s and early 1980s,
according to the company.

Concerns of the contamination emerged after Whirlpool requested a
ban on new wells around the site earlier in 2013.

The lawsuits sought damages for "the reasonable expense of
necessary repairs and restoration of the property which was
damaged, plus the difference in the value of the property before
contamination and the value after restoration," damages for the
loss of enjoyment and use of their properties, and punitive
damages.

Last summer, Sebastian County Assessor Becky Yandell reduced the
value of properties in and around the contaminated area 25 percent
to 75 percent.  The contaminated area includes a total of 55
parcels, Ms. Yandell said.  Three are commercial properties, while
17 are homes in which the owners live.  More than 30 are rental
properties.

The proposed settlement calls for:

    * Property owners inside the area bounded by Ingersoll Avenue,
Brazil Avenue, Jenny Lind Road and Ferguson Street will receive
compensation in an amount equal to devaluation of those properties
estimated by the county assessor's office or determined by an
agree-upon independent property appraiser.

   * Class members outside the bounded area whose property value
was diminished by the contamination will receive $5,000, and
possibly more in the future, if TCE is detected above threshold
levels in groundwater beneath their property.

In return, Whirlpool wants a well-drilling ban and access
agreements on the properties.

"What we're offering is to make the payment based on what the
assessor says was the impact on the property value, even though I
don't agree with that," Whirlpool representative Jeff Noel said on
July 3.  "But it is a public figure that's available.  For us,
we're offering this as a resolution in exchange for a well-
drilling ban to be put onto the property and access agreements to
the property for the ability to do the monitoring wells or
whatever things we would need to do."

U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III will make a preliminary
finding on whether the settlement is fair.  If Judge Holmes
determines it is, class members will be notified of a formal
"fairness hearing," to provide an opportunity for argument and
evidence to be presented in favor of and in opposition to the
proposed settlement.

"I believe this is an extremely fair resolution because not only
are we proposing to make the resolution based upon the value
established by the assessor, but we're also going to cover all the
legal costs so that the property owners get the full value of what
the assessor has established," Mr. Noel said.

A proposed schedule of events -- assuming Judge Holmes issues a
favorable ruling -- is also included in the motion, that details
deadlines for: notification of class members, filing for attorney
fees, opting out of the settlement, completion of appraisals,
scheduling a fairness hearing and final approval.

The joint motion for settlement came a day after the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which added the accusation Whirlpool
violated the Arkansas Solid Waste Management Act.  Until action is
taken by the court, the case remains scheduled for trial June 29,
2015.

The plaintiff's attorney Kenneth Shemin of Rogers couldn't
immediately be reached for comment on July 3.

Two additional lawsuits were filed May 23, 2013, in Sebastian
County Circuit Court by Taylor Law Partners LLP of Fayetteville
and McMath Woods P.A. of Little Rock -- one on behalf of
10 homeowners, and the other, on behalf of landlords who own
36 properties in an area affected by the Whirlpool leak.

Those lawsuits were also transferred to federal court,
consolidated into a single lawsuit Feb. 19 by Judge Holmes and
seeks damages similar to those sought in the class-action
complaint.

A trial in that case remains set for July 6, 2015.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Exclusion of Sole Expert
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that plaintiffs lawyers in consumer-protection class
actions challenging nutritional claims made for a brand of milk
are appealing a federal magistrate judge's exclusion of their sole
expert.

The magistrate rejected expert on the ground that he could not
extrapolate his opinion to all consumers in the United States, but
the plaintiffs maintain that he needed no such extrapolation to
render his opinion admissible.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John O'Sullivan of the Southern District of
Florida excluded nutritional scientist Richard Bazinet's testimony
on the ground that he did not explain how five randomized clinical
trials could support claims that WhiteWave Foods Co.'s Horizon,
milk enriched with an algal-based form of the omega 3 fatty acid
DHA, would not support the brain health of all purchasers.

The plaintiffs appealed to U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard,
presiding over the seven class actions consolidated in the federal
multidistrict litigation.

The label for Horizon milk says that DHA algal oil "supports brain
health" and "supports a healthy brain," according to court papers.
The plaintiffs argue that these statements are deceptive and
unfair.

There is not a single reported case excluding an expert on
extrapolation grounds in the situation present here: The expert
relied upon RCTs performed on humans, using the exact substance at
issue, and studying the same specific anatomy," Lance Harke, Sarah
Clasby Engel and Howard Bushman of Harke Clasby & Bushman in Miami
Shores, Fla, co-lead class counsel and liaison counsel for
plaintiffs, said in court papers.

Co-lead class counsel Frank Piscitelli Jr. of the Piscitelli Law
Firm in Highland Heights, Ohio, and Elaine A. Ryan, Lindsey Gomez-
Gray -- lgomez@bffb.com -- and Patricia Syverson of Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint in Phoenix, joined the motion.

The randomized control trials studied the same algal oil DHA used
in WhiteWave's products, the plaintiffs said.  Mr. Bazinet also
said that the sample sizes in the five randomized trials were
typical of the studies relied upon in the scientific community to
generate their opinions.

Mr. Bazinet's opinion that the amount of DHA in WhiteWave's milk
products is incapable of supporting brain health also rested upon
evidence other than the randomized clinical trials, the plaintiffs
said.

For example, Mr. Bazient said that the human brain can take up
only a small amount of DHA in food consumed, which is "basic
chemistry and biology . . . applicable to all Americans and no
further extrapolation is needed," according to the plaintiffs'
court papers.

Moreover, the plaintiffs have new evidence: a final rule issued by
the Food and Drug Administration that DHA is not an essential
nutrient and that there is no recommended daily allowance for it.
The new FDA ruling supports Mr. Bazinet's opinion and constitutes
new evidence requiring reconsideration, they said.

Mr. Bazinet should be allowed to testify even if he is not allowed
to rely upon the randomized control trials, the plaintiffs said.


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Still Faces "Epstein" Shareholder Suit in S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., continues in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), according
to the company's June 12, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2014.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in
various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of
federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a
Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received a Civil
Investigative Demand from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
on March 12, 2014. The complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.


                             *********

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  * * *