CAR_Public/140728.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 148

                             Headlines


ACA INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA, Suit Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Accused by FTC of Allowing Purchases by Kids
AMBOW EDUCATION: To Settle Calif. Securities Class Action
ARONOWITZ & MECKLENBURG: Settles Class Action for $2.5 Million
AVX CORPORATION: Accrued $1-Mil in Myrtle Beach Claim at March 31

B & H PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
BANCORP INC: Sued Over False and Misleading Financial Reports
BENEFICIAL FLORIDA: Sued Over Violation of TLA, RESPA & FDUPA
BIG HEART PET: Faces New Harmon Class Certification Motion
BIG HEART PET: Filed Answer to Judge's Recommendation to Dismiss

BIG HEART PET: Cannot Estimate Liability in "Mazur" Complaint
BIG HEART PET: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Suit Claims
BLUE CROSS: Misrepresents Exclusive Provider Org. Plan, Suit Says
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: K.W's Bid to Keep Names Confidential Denied

CANADA: Sexual-Harassment Complaints Against RCMP Reach 336
CARMAX INC: Petition for Certiorari Granted in "Fowler" Suit
COLUMBIA GAS: Scheduling Order Entered in "Wilson" Case
COMMERCIAL METALS: Settled Sherman Act Suit for $4 Million
DAIRY FARMERS: Court Denies Initial Approval of "Allen" Suit Deal

ELECTRONICS KING: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EXTREME ACADEMY: "Columbie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FEDEX CORP: Suits Over Fatal Bus Crash in California Consolidated
FERRELLGAS LP: Sued Over Alleged Price-Fixing of Propane Tanks
FIAT CHRYSLER: To Recall 792,300 Jeeps Over Ignition Key Problems

GAF MATERIALS: Obtains Partial Summary Judgment in "Brooks" Suit
GAMESTOP CORP: Judge Trims Claims in Marketing-Fraud Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 717,950 Vehicles Over Seat Issues
GRACO: CPSC Issues Formal Recall of Buckyballs
INVESTORS TITLE: Defendant in E.D. Mich. Transfer Tax Complaint

JEFFERIES GROUP: Defendant in 7 Leucadia Transaction Complaints
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Class Suit by Rosen Law Firm in Discovery
LEHIGH VALLEY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Ford" Class Action
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Judge Refuses to Sanction Counsel in Fax Suit
MF GLOBAL: Vacation Time Claims Granted Class Status

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Conceals Effects of Brain Injuries, Suit Says
NATIONAL UNION METALWORKERS: Small Businesses Mull Class Action
NEW YORK, USA: Sued Over Alleged Bias in Teacher Tenure System
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Settles Stockholder Complaint for $6-Mil.
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Rest Break Laws Not Overridden, 9th Cir. Ruled

PLX TECHNOLOGY: Defendant in 6 Merger-Related Complaints
PPL CORP: Judge Trims Claims in Coal Ash Class Action
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Defendant in 2 Brucejack Project Complaints
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Moved to Dismiss U.S. Brucejack Project Suits
PROGRESSIVE FINANCE: Accused of Violating FDCPA in S.D. New York

RAYMOND JAMES: Court Approved Closed End Funds Accord for $62MM
RAYMOND JAMES: Trial in Lawsuit v. Subsidiary Set for Sept. 2014
RITE AID: Defendant in FLSA Complaint in S.D. New York
RITE AID: Defendant in California Wage & Hour Lawsuit
RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $23.6BB Damages in Robinson Tobacco Suit

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Moved to Dismiss Amended WMS Merger Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Settles Overtime Class Action for $5 Million
SHANGHAI HUSI: McDonald's, Yum Suspend Meat Product Purchases
SHANGHAI HUSI: McDonald's Japan Cuts Ties Over Expired Meat
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: $425K Deal With Fire Service Technicians Okayed

SKYLINE TOURS: Faces "Morinville" Action over Failure to Pay OT
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Must Pay $500 Mil. to Johns-Manville
UNITED STATES: Denies Counsel to Undocumented Kids, Class Claims
UNITED STATES: Salvadoran Kids Can Meet With Class Action Lawyers

VENDOURATA CORP: "Luna" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WAL-MART STORES: Falsely Marketed Cranberry Juice, Action Claims
WHITLEY MEMORIAL: Hospital Nurse Stole Morphine, Patients Claim

* U.S. Regulators Sue Law Firms Over Loan Modification Scam


                            *********


ACA INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Urday v. ACA Industries, Inc., d/b/a American
Maintenance, Inc., Mayco Building Services, Inc., and Alexander
Alex, Individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04350 (E.D.N.Y., July 17,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

ACA Industries, Inc. and Mayco Building Services, Inc. are engaged
in commercial cleaning and maintenance business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park, Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Accused by FTC of Allowing Purchases by Kids
------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon let kids make unauthorized mobile app charges and billed
their parents for "millions of dollars" in disputed fees, the
Federal Trade Commission claimed on July 10, 2014, reports June
Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service.

The federal complaint seeks refunds for thousands of improperly
billed consumers.

Amazon allegedly failed to get proper consent for charges that
children made within software applications, known as "in-app
charges."  Amazon's policy is that all in-app purchases are final
and consumers face "significant hurdles" in obtaining refunds,
according to the complaint.

"Many children incur unauthorized in-app charges without their
parents' knowledge," FTC attorney Jason Adler wrote.  "Even
parents who discover the charges and want to request a refund have
faced significant hurdles to doing so.  Amazon's stated policy is
that all in-app charges are final.  To the extent consumers have
sought an exception to that stated policy, Amazon's process is
unclear and confusing, involving emails and web pages that do not
explain how to seek a refund for in-app charges, or suggest that
consumers cannot obtain a refund for such charges."

Games marketed for children will often allow players to purchase
virtual "treats" by clicking a button, according to the complaint.

"When a user engages in an activity associated with an in-app
charge (e.g., clicking on a button to acquire virtual treats for
use in a game), Amazon displays a popup containing information
about the virtual item and the amount of the charge (the 'Charge
Popup')," the complaint states.  "A child, however, can clear the
Charge Popup simply by pressing a button labeled 'Get Item.'"

Amazon allegedly keeps 30 percent of all in-app charges.

Passwords were not required for in-app charges when they were
first introduced to the Amazon Appstore in 2011, according to the
complaint.  The FTC said Amazon immediately recognized there was a
problem, and an Appstore manager called it a "house on fire."

"Amazon has received thousands of complaints related to
unauthorized in-app charges by children in these and other games,
amounting to millions of dollars of charges," the complaint
states.  "In fact, by December 2011, the month after Amazon
introduced in-app charges, an Appstore manager commented that
'we're clearly causing problems for a large percentage of our
customers,' describing the situation as 'near house on fire.'
Seven months later, in July 2012, the Appstore manager again
described this issue as a 'house on fire' situation.  Not until
June 2014 did Amazon change its in-app charge framework to obtain
account holders' informed consent for in-app charges on its newer
mobile devices."

Consumers have reported that they and their children did not know
the in-app activity would result in real money charges, the FTC
said.

"Many consumers report that they and their children were unaware
that in-app activities would result in real monetary loss," the
complaint states.  "For example, one Appstore reviewer complaining
about over $80 in unauthorized charges in Tap Zoo commented that
her eight-year-old daughter thought she was purchasing the in game
coin packs with virtual currency, not real money.  A consumer
whose child incurred unauthorized in-app charges in Ice Age
Village explained that her daughter 'thought she was paying with
acorns, but it seems to be hitting my credit card.'  As one Amazon
customer service representative acknowledged in responding to a
parent's inquiry about unauthorized in-app charges: 'It's not a
hack, but nearly as bad: it's an in-game purchase.  A user, such
as a child, can easily misinterpret the option to spend actual
money as just part of the game.'"

Amazon updated its in-app policy in 2012 to require a password for
charges over $20, according to the complaint.

"In or around March 2012, Amazon began requiring password entry to
confirm individual in-app charges exceeding $20," the complaint
says.  "In deciding to change its framework for charges above $20,
Amazon's Appstore manager noted that 'it's much easier to get
upset about Amazon letting your child purchase a $99 product
without any password protection than a $20 product[.]'  An
internal document commented that introducing a password prompt for
in-app charges over $20 would ensure that those charges were
incurred 'by the actual accountholder and not someone without
permission.'  Amazon did not implement a password requirement for
in-app charges of $20 and under."

Amazon modified the in-app policy last year, but applied those
changes inconsistently, according to the complaint.

"Not until early 2013 did Amazon adjust its in-app charge
framework to require password entry in connection with any other
in-app charges," the complaint states.  "Even then, Amazon's
modifications took effect at different times for different device
models and, in some instances, have operated in different ways for
different apps and different account holders.  The password
prompts also function differently from the password prompt
described in paragraph 20, in that completing the prompt 'caches'
(that is, stores) the password for a billing window ranging from
fifteen minutes to an hour.  The net result was that, unbeknownst
to many consumers, Amazon sometimes would present account holders
with a password prompt to confirm an in-app charge and sometimes
would not."

Amazon did not change its policy to obtain informed consent for
the in-app purchases until June 2014, shortly before the FTC won
approval for its lawsuit, the agency said.

"Companies need to get consumers' consent before placing charges
on their bills," FTC consumer protection director Jessica Rich
said in a conference call with reporters on July 10, 2014.

Rich said the FTC pursued litigation despite updates Amazon made
to its in-app policy last month because "many, many consumers did
not get refunds."

Amazon called the FTC's action "deeply disappointing."

"The main claim in the draft complaint is that we failed to get
customers' informed consent to in-app charges made by children and
did not address that problem quickly or effectively enough in
response to customer complaints," the retailer's general counsel
Andrew DeVore said in a statement.  "We have continuously improved
our experience since launch, but even at launch, when customers
told us their kids had made purchases they didn't want we refunded
those purchases.  And as we have made clear from the outset of
your inqui1y, our experience at launch was 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."

The FTC wants a permanent injunction preventing future improper
billing, disgorgement of profits and consumer refunds.

FTC is represented by:

          Jason M. Adler, Esq.
          Duane C. Pozza, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., CC-10232
          Washington, DC 20580
          Telephone: (202) 326-3231
          Facsimile: (202) 326-3239
          E-mail: jadler@ftc.gov
                  dpozza@ftc.gov

               - and -

          Laura M. Solis, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          915 2nd Avenue, Suite 2896
          Seattle, WA 98174
          Telephone: (206) 220-4544
          Facsimile: (206) 220-6366
          E-mail: lsolis@ftc.gov

The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-01038, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington.


AMBOW EDUCATION: To Settle Calif. Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ambow Education Holding Ltd., has agreed with plaintiffs in a
putative securities class action to settle for a total payment of
US$1,500 by the Company's insurer to the plaintiff class,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on July 8, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.

On June 11, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. The complaint also named
as defendants current officer of Ambow, Jin Huang, and former
officer Paul Chow. On June 22, 2012, a second putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the Central District of
California against Ambow, Chow and Huang. On November 19, 2012,
the Judge issued an order consolidating the two cases and
appointing Tianqing Zhang as lead plaintiff.

On February 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against Ambow and eight individual defendants, sought
recovery on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Ambow's American Depositary Shares on the New
York Exchange from the date of its initial public offering on
August 5, 2010 through July 5, 2012 for allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning Ambow's operations and financial
results in the Company's public filings with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
Complaint. On March 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendants.
On March 24, 2014, Judge entered a scheduling order pursuant to
which defendants' motions to dismiss the third amended complaint
are due by May 19, 2014. On or around May 12, 2014, counsel for
the parties agreed upon the principal terms of a settlement. The
settlement provides for a total payment of US$1,500 by the
Company's insurer to the plaintiff class, in exchange for complete
dismissal and release of all claims that were or could have been
asserted in the action against the Company and named defendants.

Ambow Education Holding Ltd. is a provider of educational and
career enhancement services in China. The Company's business
addresses two demands in China's education market: students to be
admitted into secondary and post-secondary schools and for
graduates of those schools to obtain jobs. Ambow offers
individualized services and products through its combined online
and offline delivery model powered by its technologies and
infrastructure. As of December 31, 2010, Ambow had a total of 131
centers and schools, consisted of 107 tutoring centers, five K-12
schools, 17 career enhancement centers and two colleges, which are
located in 16 provinces and autonomous regions within China. The
Company provides services and products to students in 30 out of
the 31 provinces and autonomous regions within China.  It offers a
range of educational and career enhancement services and products
to students and graduates in China.


ARONOWITZ & MECKLENBURG: Settles Class Action for $2.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Migoya, writing for The Denver Post, reports that tens of
thousands of Coloradans whose homes were foreclosed on since 2009
by law firm Aronowitz & Mecklenburg will share in a massive
class-action lawsuit settlement over allegations the lawyers
regularly inflated fees that homeowners were forced to pay to save
their house.

The settlement, on paper since April but only now getting court
approval, comes just days after the Denver law firm agreed to a
separate $10 million deal with state investigators to settle an
investigation into the same alleged misconduct.

The law firm -- owned by Robert Aronowitz, his daughter, Stacey
Aronowitz, and her husband, Joel Mecklenburg -- is to dissolve in
the next six months, according to terms of their settlement with
the Colorado attorney general's office.

But not before the firm pays back roughly $2.5 million to more
than 32,000 families -- money the lawyers allegedly overcharged
for the posting of legal notices in the cases.

The law firm denies it did anything wrong, but agreed to the
settlement to avoid costly litigation, according to a copy of the
164-page document filed in Denver district court.

A number of legal steps must happen before more than 32,000
families -- the approximate number of foreclosures the lawyers
have filed since Aug. 1, 2009 -- are likely to see a check,
including a judge approving the final deal, a process that could
take weeks.

"We're really happy with it, and people will be getting back what
they deserve," attorney Jordan Factor of Allen & Vellone told The
Denver Post.  "Certainly they'll get as much as we felt we could
prove if we had taken this to trial."

                  Identical lawsuits ongoing

Attorneys for Aronowitz called the settlement "a relief."

"They are happy to be the only firm in the state who put the
investigation and litigation behind them," attorney Richard
Benenson said.  "It was in our best interests to resolve it all
and move on."

Nearly identical civil lawsuits seeking class-action status and
alleging the same conduct against The Castle Law Group and against
attorney Michael Medved's firm are ongoing.

An attorney general fraud lawsuit nearly identical to the one
filed on July 15 against Aronowitz was filed that day against the
Castle firm.

Those affected in the Aronowitz settlement should see a check
ranging from $20 to $225 in the next couple of months, depending
on which of three classes they belong to.  Postcards have been
mailed advising homeowners of the settlement.

Some people might get more than one payment, such as those who
cured more than one foreclosure, even on the same house.

The law firm is accused of charging $125 each to post on homes
facing foreclosure a pair of notices that detail a homeowner's
rights to seek financial help and about a court hearing called a
Rule 120.

The attorney general investigation alleged the overcharges were
intentional, and that the actual cost was closer to $25, but
because Aronowitz lawyers hired a company they owned -- Xceleron
-- to do the postings, they controlled the costs.

The lawsuit's plaintiffs -- Rodrick Kemp, Linda Donna, Richard
Lemesany, and Martin and Michaelie Wingo -- each are to receive an
additional $10,000, though the Wingos will share that amount.
Another $875,000 will be paid to cover legal fees.

Donna lives in Denver and cured her foreclosure in May 2012.  The
bill Aronowitz submitted that she paid included $125 charges for
each of the two legal postings, according to a copy of the
document filed with the Denver public trustee's office.

The class-action lawsuit was filed last year by attorneys at Allen
& Vellone in Denver when news of an attorney general investigation
into alleged fraud by the state's largest foreclosure law firms
went public.

That happened when Aronowitz and his biggest competitor, The
Castle Law Group led by attorney Larry Castle, sued Attorney
General John Suthers over investigative subpoenas that sought
documents the lawyers claimed were protected by attorney-client
privilege.

The three classes and the payouts include:

* Homeowners who paid a county public trustee what they owed on a
mortgage, including the lawyers' fees, and stopped the foreclosure
process, known as a cure. They will get $225 per foreclosure;

* Those who stopped a foreclosure through a loan modification.
They will receive $100 only if they opt-in on the settlement, up
to a maximum $1.1 million to be paid out for all;

* Homeowners who lost their house to foreclosure auction for a
price that was less than what they owed. They will receive $20 per
foreclosure.

Investors not included

Investors who purchased properties at county foreclosure auctions
are not covered by the settlement because they were not
plaintiffs, although they also were required to pay the lawyers'
bills, which included the posting costs.

Also not covered by the settlement are other fees the attorney
general alleges were overcharged, including up to $100 for a one-
page document, called a "statement of qualified holder," that
purportedly takes seconds to fill out.

Expenses charged for the filing of nonexistent Rule 120 lawsuits,
revealed by The Post last year, also are not part of the
settlement.

By accepting the payments, homeowners cannot sue for any other
charges they might have overpaid in the foreclosure.

Aronowitz's $10 million settlement with the attorney general will
be used largely to cover legal fees in the case and future
consumer education. Only a few homeowners with current foreclosure
cases are to be reimbursed.

Like Aronowitz, Suthers' office filed a lawsuit against the Castle
firm alleging the same conduct of intentionally overcharging
foreclosure fees.

The state's lawsuits came after a two-year investigation following
a number of Denver Post stories about the state's foreclosure
process, public trustees and the law firms.

About the Aronowitz settlement:

* Who's impacted? Any home-owner with a Colorado foreclosure
filed Aug. 1, 2009, through April 24, 2014, by Aronowitz &
Mecklenburg.

* What's alleged? The law firm wrongly charged $125 for each of
two legal notice postings on a foreclosure property when the
actual market rate was $25, which the law firm denies.

* Who can collect? Homeowners who cured their foreclosure,
stopped the process with a loan modification, or lost their home
in a foreclosure sale that was for less than what they owed.

* Who is not included? Homeowners who lost their house to auction
for a price at or above what they owed; auction buyers who
purchased a foreclosed property; banks and financial institutions.

* What's next? About 32,000 homeowners should receive a postcard
advising them of their eligibility. Only those with a loan
modification must opt in for payment. All others are automatic.

* When will I see a check? By the end of September.

* How do I get more information? Call 844-272-9603 or go to
KempForeclosureSettlement.com.

* Is this different than the attorney general settlement for $10
million? Yes. They are separate lawsuits.

* Am I due any money from the AG settlement? Only if you have a
current open foreclosure with other factors present. Contact the
AG for additional information at 800-222-4444 or go to
coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/complaint.

* What if my foreclosure was handled by The Castle Law Group?
Those cases remain in litigation, and no settlements have been
reached.


AVX CORPORATION: Accrued $1-Mil in Myrtle Beach Claim at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation reported that as of March 31, 2014, it has accrued
$1.0 million with respect to a pending class action filed against
the Company claiming that property values have been negatively
impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants from the
Company's  Myrtle Beach property, according to the Company's
Amended Form 10-K filed on July 1, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in
South Carolina State Court by individuals as a class action
pending with respect to property adjacent to our Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina factory claiming property values have been
negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants
from our property. We intend to defend vigorously the claims
asserted in this lawsuit. At this stage of the litigation, there
has not been a determination as to the nature of the liability or
the amount, if any, of damages. Based on our estimate of potential
outcomes, we have accrued $1.0 million with respect to this case
as of March 31, 2014."

AVX Corporation is a manufacturer and supplier of a broad line of
passive electronic components, interconnect devices, and related
products.


B & H PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Insih Rudatin v. B & H Pizza, Inc., a Florida corporation,
and Israel Aminov, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22681 (S.D.
Fla., July 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

B & H Pizza, Inc. is a restaurant within the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


BANCORP INC: Sued Over False and Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley M. Fletcher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Bancorp Inc., Betsy Z. Cohen, and Paul
Frenkiel, Case No. 1:14-cv-00952 (D. Del., July 17, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies.

The Bancorp, Inc. operates as the financial holding company for
The Bancorp Bank, which provides various commercial, retail and
related banking products and services to small and mid-size
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4957
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      Email: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
             cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

          - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ, LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             fmcconville@pomlaw.com

          - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, Ill 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


BENEFICIAL FLORIDA: Sued Over Violation of TLA, RESPA & FDUPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
James G. Kincaid, and all other members of the class with common
questions of law or facts v. Beneficial Florida, Inc., a foreign
corporation, Household Finance Corporation, III, a foreign
corporation, HSBC Finance Corporation, a foreign corporation, HSBC
Mortgage Services, Inc., a Florida corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-
61647 (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2014), is brought pursuant to the Truth
in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Defendants are financial companies located in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Adrian Rajtar, Esq.
      RAJTAR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      2423 Hollywood Boulevard
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 241-0154
      Facsimile: (954) 639-9575
      E-mail: michael@rajtarandassociates.com

           - and -

      Donald Edward Fucik, Esq.
      DONALD E. FUCIK, LLC
      Suite A-150, 950 S. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 476-5500
      Facsimile: (954) 476-5502
      E-mail: def@deflegal.com


BIG HEART PET: Faces New Harmon Class Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the Harmon Chicken Jerky Treats complaint
withdrew on May 12, 2014, the original Motion for Class
Certification and filed a new Motion for Class Certification
include an additional named plaintiff, according to Big Heart Pet
Brands' Form 10-K filed on July 3, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2014.

On January 31, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri (Harmon v. Del Monte) alleging that Milo's Kitchen
chicken jerky treats ("Chicken Jerky Treats") and Milo's Kitchen
Chicken Grillers Recipe home-style dog treats contain "poisonous
antibiotics and other potentially lethal substances." Plaintiff
seeks certification as a class action, as well as restitution and
damages not to exceed $75,000 per class member and the aggregated
claim for damages of the class not to exceed $5.0 million under
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The complaint also
alleges the Company continued to sell its Chicken Jerky Treats in
Jackson County, Missouri after it announced its recall of the
product on January 9, 2013.

The Company successfully removed this case to federal court on
March 12, 2013. On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Class Action Petition against the Company. The Company filed its
Motion to Transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania on
April 19, 2013, and its Motion to Stay Pending the Motion to
Transfer on April 25, 2013. The Motion to Stay was granted the
same day it was filed.

On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Transfer. The Company filed its Reply in Support of its
Motion to Transfer on May 23, 2013. The Court denied the Company's
Motion to Transfer on July 22, 2013. The Company filed its Answer
on August 13, 2013 and discovery has commenced.

On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint and
filed a Fourth Amended Complaint to include an additional named
plaintiff on April 22, 2014. On May 12, 2014, Plaintiffs withdrew
the original Motion for Class Certification and filed a new Motion
for Class Certification on behalf of both plaintiffs. The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of
exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is a U. S.
standalone producer, distributor and marketer of premium quality,
branded pet food and pet snacks, generating approximately $2.2
billion in net sales from continuing operations in fiscal 2014.
The Company's pet food and pet snacks brands include well-known
household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n Bits,
9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe,
Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.


BIG HEART PET: Filed Answer to Judge's Recommendation to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands on April 8, 2014, filed its Answer to a
District Judge who adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to
Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment in separate putative class
action complaints alleging product liability claims relating to
Chicken Jerky Treats, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
on July 3, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2014.

On September 6, 2012, October 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012, three
separate putative class action complaints were filed against the
Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Langone v. Del Monte, Ruff v. Del Monte, and Funke v.
Del Monte, respectively) alleging product liability claims
relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically, the complaints
allege that Plaintiffs' dogs became ill as a result of consumption
of Chicken Jerky Treats. The complaints also allege that the
Company breached its warranties and California's consumer
protection laws. Each of the complaints seeks certification as a
class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate and
consolidate the Langone, Ruff and Funke matters. The Company
agreed that the cases are related but argued in its response that
they should not be consolidated. The Court ordered the cases are
related in an Order on January 24, 2013.

In the Langone case, the Company filed a Motion to
Transfer/Dismiss on February 1, 2013. Plaintiff in the Langone
matter voluntarily dismissed his Complaint without prejudice on
February 21, 2013 and re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on May 21, 2013. The Company
filed its Motion to Dismiss in the Langone case with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August
2, 2013. The individual claims in the Langone case were settled
for a de minimus amount, and a stipulation to dismiss with
prejudice was filed on November 25, 2013. On April 9, 2013, the
Court transferred Ruff and Funke to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania but denied without prejudice
Defendant's motions to consolidate and dismiss. On April 23, 2013,
the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in Ruff and Funke with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and
its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss in both cases on
June 3, 2013. On February 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as
to Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other
respects. The Company filed its objections to the Report and
Recommendations on March 5, 2014. The District Judge adopted the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on March 25, 2014.

The Company filed its Answer on April 8, 2014. The Company cannot
at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of
the potential liability.

On August 16, 2013, the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases were
consolidated.

Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is a U. S.
standalone producer, distributor and marketer of premium quality,
branded pet food and pet snacks, generating approximately $2.2
billion in net sales from continuing operations in fiscal 2014.
The Company's pet food and pet snacks brands include well-known
household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n Bits,
9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe,
Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.


BIG HEART PET: Cannot Estimate Liability in "Mazur" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands cannot reasonably estimate a range of
exposure of the potential liability in a putative class action
complaint filed against the Company alleging that Plaintiff's dog
became ill and had to be euthanized as a result of consumption of
Chicken Jerky Treats, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
on July 3, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2014.

On July 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Mazur v. Del Monte) alleging product
liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Plaintiff's dog became ill and had to
be euthanized as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats.
The complaint also alleges that the Company breached its
warranties and Pennsylvania's consumer protection laws. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in
excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion to
Consolidate the previously filed two similar class actions against
Nestle Purina Petcare Company, owner of the Waggin' Train brand of
chicken jerky treats, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation ("MDL"). Plaintiff's Motion also sought to include the
case against the Company in the proposed MDL consolidation as a
"related case." On September 28, 2012, the Court denied the MDL
Motion. The case will now proceed in the jurisdiction in which it
was originally filed. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to
Commence Limited Discovery on the subject of the voluntary recall
of Chicken Jerky Treats on January 25, 2013. The Company filed its
response opposing the Motion on February 8, 2013. The Court denied
Plaintiff's Motion on March 12, 2013; thus, discovery is stayed
until the Court rules on the Company's Motion to Dismiss, which
was filed on September 24, 2012.

On May 24, 2013, the Judge in the matter issued a Report and
Recommendation stating that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to
Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other
respects. The Company filed its Objections to the Report and
Recommendation on June 7, 2013. The Court issued an Order adopting
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2013.
The Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration on July
8, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on August 2, 2013. The
Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of
exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

On August 16, 2013, the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases were
consolidated.

Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is a U. S.
standalone producer, distributor and marketer of premium quality,
branded pet food and pet snacks, generating approximately $2.2
billion in net sales from continuing operations in fiscal 2014.
The Company's pet food and pet snacks brands include well-known
household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n Bits,
9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe,
Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.


BIG HEART PET: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court on February 20, 2014, denied Big Heart Pet Brands's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in connection with a putative
class action complaint filed against the Company alleging, among
other things, that Plaintiff's pet became ill after consuming
Chicken Jerky Treats, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed
on July 3, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2014.

On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court (Webster v. Del
Monte) alleging false advertising under California's consumer
protection laws, negligence, breach of warranty and strict
liability. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in false advertising by representing that the Chicken
Jerky Treats are healthy, wholesome, and safe for consumption by
dogs, and alleges that Plaintiff's pet became ill after consuming
Chicken Jerky Treats. The allegations apply to all other putative
class members similarly situated. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and unspecified damages,
disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief. The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

On September 6, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Removal to
remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to
amend its complaint to remove the federal class action claims and
remand the case back to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The
Company subsequently stipulated to Plaintiff's motion, and the
case has been remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The
Company filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on July 3,
2013. The Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 21, 2013. The
Company filed its Reply on August 27, 2013. The Court denied the
Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on February 20,
2014. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range
of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is a U. S.
standalone producer, distributor and marketer of premium quality,
branded pet food and pet snacks, generating approximately $2.2
billion in net sales from continuing operations in fiscal 2014.
The Company's pet food and pet snacks brands include well-known
household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n Bits,
9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe,
Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.


BLUE BUFFALO: Falsely Marketed Pet Food Products, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Teperson, on behalf of himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd, a Delaware Corporation
and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:14-cv-01682 (S.D. Cal., July 17, 2014),
arises out of the materially false, misleading, and deceptive
marketing and sale of pet food products.

The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. is in the business of
manufacturing, marketing, advertising, and selling pet food, pet
treats, and other pet related products to individuals throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, California 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

         - and -

      James R. Patterson, Esq.
      PATTERSON LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6990
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
      Edwin Kilpella, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD
      PNC Park, 115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: Bsweet@Carlsonlynch.com
              Ekilpella@Carlsonlynch.com


BLUE CROSS: Misrepresents Exclusive Provider Org. Plan, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Felser, Patricia Griffin, Felicia Moghadam, Steven Moore,
Josh Worth & Deborah Nitasaka, individually and on behalf of and
others similarly situated v. Blue Cross of California, dba Anthem
Blue Cross; and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. BC550739
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2014) challenges Blue
Cross's alleged deceptive "bait and switch" misrepresentations,
inadequate physician and hospital networks, and grossly mishandled
administration of individual health service plans.

The Plaintiffs contend that in violation of California law, Blue
Cross, among other things, misrepresented (i) to consumers that
their physicians and hospitals were participating in Blue Cross
health service plans, and (ii) Exclusive Provider Organization
health service plans, with no out-of-network coverage and
benefits, as Preferred Provider Organization health service plans,
which provide out-of-network coverage and benefits.

Blue Cross of California is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located in Woodland Hills, California.
The Company provides health service plans in California.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Bidart, Esq.
          Travis M. Corby, Esq.
          SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP
          600 South Indian Hill Boulevard
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 621-4935
          Facsimile: (909) 447-2043
          E-mail: mbidart@shernoff.com
                  tcorby@shernoff.com

               - and -

          Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
          Laura Antonini, Esq.
          CONSUMER WATCHDOG
          2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 392-0522
          Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
          E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
                  laura@consumerwatchdog.org


BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: K.W's Bid to Keep Names Confidential Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs, a group of six students at Bucknell University in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania filed a complaint against defendants,
Julie A. Holtzapple, James R. Middleton, Michael C. Giffiths, Degg
H. Stark, Susan L. Lantz, Jason D. Friedberg, Lewis A. Marrara,
II, Amy A. Badal, Wayne A. Bromfield, Michael A. Smyer, John C.
Bravman, Bucknell University (the Bucknell Defendants), Ernest R.
Ritter, III, Jeffrey A. Tice, Justin N. Rosboschil, Ryan E. King,
Union County, Pennsylvania, and Montour County, Pennsylvania (the
County Defendants) on December 19, 2013 in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On March
11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. According to the
amended complaint, in February 2013, Plaintiffs were residing in a
Bucknell University owned fraternity house when various defendants
entered, or approved the entry of, the fraternity house to conduct
a search for contraband. The search resulted in the discovery of
marijuana, marijuana smoking devices, and some small weapons. The
Plaintiffs were never charged or prosecuted criminally; they
merely received minor sanctions from Bucknell University,
including a fine and community service. Bucknell University kept
the discipline and the students' identities confidential.
Plaintiffs request the ability to use fictitious names while
proceeding with the instant lawsuit because the nature of the
disciplinary proceedings at Bucknell was for possession of
contraband, and Plaintiffs are concerned that, if disclosed to the
general public, this information will damage their standing with
fellow students and professors and potentially interfere with
future opportunities for higher education and employment.

According to District Judge Matthew W. Brann, the Plaintiffs have
only advanced arguments of embarrassment in front of peers and
professors along with the possibility of denial of future
employment benefits. "That a plaintiff may suffer embarrassment or
economic harm is not enough," he pointed out. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs Motion to Use Fictitious Names is denied.

The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a second amended
complaint by July 23, 2014. The filing of a second amended
complaint will moot all pending motions to dismiss; such motions
may be refiled by Defendants after the amended complaint is filed,
if warranted, Judge Brann wrote in his July 10, 2014 memorandum
opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ezE9mJfrom
Leagle.com.

The case is K.W., et. al., Plaintiffs, v. JULIE A. HOLTZAPPLE, et.
al., Defendants, NO. 4:13-CV-3051, (M.D. Penn.).

K.W., Plaintiff, represented by Devon M. Jacob, Jacob Litigation.
F.E., Individually, and as Class Representatives, Plaintiff,
represented by Devon M. Jacob, Jacob Litigation.

B.J., Individually, and as Class Representatives, Plaintiff,
represented by Devon M. Jacob, Jacob Litigation.

T.M., Individually, and as Class Representatives, Plaintiff,
represented by Devon M. Jacob, Jacob Litigation.

M.G., Individually, and as Class Representatives, Plaintiff,
represented by Devon M. Jacob, Jacob Litigation.

I.B., Individually, and as Class Representatives, Plaintiff,
represented by Devon M. Jacob, Jacob Litigation.

Julie A. Holtzapple, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

James R. Middleton, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Michael C. Griffiths, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Degg H. Stark, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster, Bucknell
University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Susan L. Lantz, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Jason D. Friedberg, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Lewis A. Marrara, II, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Amy A. Badal, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster, Bucknell
University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Wayne A. Bromfield, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Michael A. Smyer, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

John C. Bravman, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Ernest R. Ritter, III, Defendant, represented by David L. Schwalm,
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP.

Jeffrey A. Tice, Defendant, represented by David L. Schwalm,
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP.

Justin N. Rosboschil, Defendant, represented by David L. Schwalm,
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP.

Ryan E. King, Defendant, represented by David L. Schwalm, Thomas,
Thomas & Hafer, LLP.

Bucknell University, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Foerster,
Bucknell University & Neil J. Hamburg, Hamburg & Golden, P.C.

Union County, Pennsylvania, Defendant, represented by David L.
Schwalm, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP.

Montour County, Pennsylvania, Defendant, represented by David L.
Schwalm, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP.


CANADA: Sexual-Harassment Complaints Against RCMP Reach 336
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Woo, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a senior
Royal Canadian Mounted Police communications adviser alleging
sexual harassment and assault by a superior officer is the latest
to join more than 300 women with similar claims across Canada in
seeking legal action against the force.

The lawyer bringing the class action said in the two years since
the lawsuit was filed, hundreds of women, one-third of them still
with the force, have come forward.

"When we hit 100 I was surprised," said lawyer David Klein of
Klein Lyons, the firm handling the class action.  "As we hit 200,
I was less surprised, and then 300 even less, because we were
beginning to have a sense of the magnitude of the internal problem
at the RCMP with women in the force."

The suit, which now has 336 complainants, alleges widespread
systemic discrimination by the RCMP against female members. Janet
Merlo, a former RCMP officer based in Nanaimo who filed the
lawsuit on behalf of the others, said she suffered bullying and
harassment throughout her career of nearly 20 years.

A certification hearing has been pushed back to next June to allow
lawyers more time to gather information.

Corporal Catherine Galliford, a former RCMP spokeswoman whose
claims of sexual harassment in 2011 have been credited with
opening the door for others, said she is encouraged to see women
coming forward, but saddened they did not before.

Corporal Galliford, who said she still has post-traumatic stress
disorder from years of harassment, has been on sick leave since
2006.  Her case is scheduled to go to trial in February.

An internal RCMP report released in 2012 suggested gender-based
harassment happened frequently to the female officers who
participated in a study of their experiences of being bullied by
colleagues and superiors.

In response to the report, Deputy Commissioner Craig Callens
announced the creation of a 100-member team to investigate
harassment complaints.

Anitra Singh alleged in a notice of civil claim filed in B.C.
Supreme Court that Inspector Tim Shields sexually harassed and
assaulted her from 2009 to 2011.  Ms. Singh, a civilian RCMP
member, was a senior communications adviser from February, 2008,
until taking sick leave in September, 2012, and reported to
Inspector Shields, who was then in charge of the B.C. RCMP's E
Division.

Among the allegations, Ms. Singh claims Inspector Shields made
lewd comments to her both verbally and through text messages,
exposed himself to her and confined her in a bathroom, forcing her
to touch him in an inappropriate manner, according to court
documents.

Ms. Singh accuses Inspector Shields of abusing his position of
trust and authority, and his rank.  As a result of his actions,
Ms. Singh says she has post-traumatic stress disorder, depression,
anxiety and other ailments, according to the court documents.

Last August, another woman filed a civil suit against Inspector
Shields alleging similar misconduct.  Atoya Montague, who held
several communications positions as a civilian employee with the
RCMP from 2002 until 2011, also claimed Inspector Shields exposed
himself to her, made lewd comments and sent sexually explicit text
messages.

None of the claims have been proven in court.

RCMP spokesman Sgt. Rob Vermeulen noted the force's formal
response to the allegations will be filed in a statement of
defense.

"These unproven allegations now form part of a recently filed
civil suit, and as such, we are not able to comment further," he
said.


CARMAX INC: Petition for Certiorari Granted in "Fowler" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Court on February 24, 2014, granted CarMax, Inc.'s petition
for certiorari in connection with a putative class action lawsuit
alleging, among other things, failure to pay overtime, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 8, 2014, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 31, 2014.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The
allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of
sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who
worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the
present.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with
respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the
court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with
the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also
granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to
CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant
putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling
regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20, 2011,
the California Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling in favor of
CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the
California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the
plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer a  part of the lawsuit.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act. On June 16, 2009, the court entered
a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme
Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal
issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the
plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual
basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011. The
plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling to the California Court of
Appeal. On March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed
the trial court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel
arbitration. On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme
Court. On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court
granted CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California
Court of Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California
Court of Appeal for further consideration. The Fowler lawsuit
seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and
statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the
recovery of attorneys' fees. The Company is unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could
result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters.

CarMax, Inc. (CarMax) is a holding company and its operations are
conducted through its subsidiaries. The Company operates in two
segments: CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance (CAF).
The Company's CarMax Sales Operations segment consists of all
aspects of its auto merchandising and service operations,
excluding financing provided by CAF. Its CAF segment consists
solely of its own finance operation that provides vehicle
financing through CarMax superstores. The Company is the retailer
of used cars, based on the 526,929 used vehicles it retailed
during the fiscal year ended February 28, 2014 (fiscal 2014). As
of February 28, 2014, it operated 131 used car superstores in 64
metropolitan markets. In addition, it is a wholesale vehicle
auction operator, based on the 342,576 wholesale vehicles it sold
through its on-site auctions in fiscal 2014.


COLUMBIA GAS: Scheduling Order Entered in "Wilson" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel signed a status and scheduling
conference order in the case captioned Paul Gary Wilson, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION 2:12-CV-1203, (S.D. Ohio).  A copy of the July 9, 2014
order is available at http://is.gd/Mr63Hlfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for the parties participated in a status and scheduling
conference with the Magistrate Judge on July 8, 2014.  Counsels'
aim had been to exchange information and see whether a settlement
could be negotiated. A June 12, 2014 private mediation did not
result in any progress toward settlement. Counsel have now begun
discussing a case management order.

Magistrate Judge Abel urged the parties' counsel to make a further
exchange of information supporting their clients' respective
settlement positions.  "If this exchange suggests a framework for
working toward a negotiated resolution, counsel should contact me
(614.719.3370) to discuss a mediation with me or another judge,"
he added.

Paul Gary Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Gail Chern Ford, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Judy Ann Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Gail Chern Ford, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Charles DeVere Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys Sater
Seymour & Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease, LLP.

Carleen Fay Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys Sater
Seymour & Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease, LLP.

Shawn Paul Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys Sater
Seymour & Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease, LLP.

Katherine Nicole Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Geopetro LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Gail Chern Ford, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

William E Hellyer, Plaintiff, represented by Philip D Sever, Sever
Storey Law Firm.

Sarah J Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Philip D Sever, Sever
Storey Law Firm.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Defendant, represented by Leonard
J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire Woods LLP,
Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon, McGuire Woods
LLP.

NORMA JEAN JOHNSON, Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

THOMAS H JOHNSON, Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease.

JOYCE E JOHNSON, Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease.

BREMEN ROAD PRESERVE, LLC, Defendant, represented by D. Joe
Griffith, Dagger Johnston Miller Ogilvie & Hampson & Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Bremen Road Farms, LLC, Defendant, represented by D. Joe Griffith,
Dagger Johnston Miller Ogilvie & Hampson & Gail Chern Ford, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease.

Richard Jones, Defendant, represented by Timothy Joseph Cunning,
Scullin & Cunning LLC.

Joyce Jones, Defendant, represented by Timothy Joseph Cunning,
Scullin & Cunning LLC.

BERT A MACQUEEN, Counter Defendant, represented by Thomas Wilson
Hess, Dinsmore & Shoal.

KERRY L MACQUEEN, Counter Defendant, represented by Thomas Wilson
Hess, Dinsmore & Shoal.

COLONIAL MANOR PROPERTIES, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Thomas Wilson Hess, Dinsmore & Shoal.

Robert E Amend, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Anglers Paradise Lake Club, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.
Wayne R Armstrong, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Sally J Armstrong, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Marjorie L Ankrum, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Donnie H Ankrum, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Holmes Limestone Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

DOUGLAS E BALTHASER, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

ROBIN L BALTHASER, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

JANET A BINKLEY, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

MARY M BINKLEY, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

EARL W BLACKSTON, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

WESLEY C BRENDSEL, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

ELIZABETH A ABRAMSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Cynthia Castelli, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

JAMES K CLARKSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

TERESA D CLARKSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

RONALD L YOUNG, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

FRANCES K COX, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

MATTHEW A WEEKLEY, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

AMY J WEEKLEY, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

GERALD B DAVIS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

ELIZABETH C DAVIS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Sarah E Sitterley, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

GARY L DENNIS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Connie J Dennis, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

NANCY A SANBORN, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

LARRY J. RAY, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

JOY M RAY, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee Leppla,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

BRAD RANSHAW, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Walter DeRhodes, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

RANDY J PAUL, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

DONNA M PAUL, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

TOM W PATTERSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

RANDY L EDWARDS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

SCOTT A PARRISH, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

JENNIFER L PARRISH, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda
Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

William L Ensign, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Diana L Ensign, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner &
Gail Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Keith Jewett, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Robert L King, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

LOWBROW PROPERTIES LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

DALE CARROLL MAIN, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

MCGONAGLE FARM PARTNERSHIP, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

WILLIAM A MIFSUD, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

JULIE K MIFSUD, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Linda Miller, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

BARBARA MONK, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

DOUGLAS B MOOS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

KATHY A MOOS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

NATURE CONSERVANCY INC., Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

RUTH A WALKER, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

ROBERT A WALKER, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Frank D. Goodwill, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Diane Goodwill, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Jr. Me, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

James F. Denny, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Martha L. Denny, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Carolyn T. Brown, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Trustee of the Carolyn T. Brown Revocable Trust, Counter
Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil.

Gregory A. Henley, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Sue A. Henley, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Vincent Cicconetti, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Larry R. Lorentz, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Nancy J. Lorentz, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

William E Morris, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Kathleen M. Morris, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Matthew & Brett LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Robert F. Watkins, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Trustee of the Watkins Family Trust, Counter Defendant,
represented by Brian K Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph
F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil.

Florence L. Watkins, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

John M. Kopp, Trustee of the Kopp Principal Protection Trust,
Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy, Murray Murphy
Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil.

ELSEA, INC., Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

MARK W RITTENHOUSE, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

MARK C HELLER, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

DAVID J NORMANT, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.


A.C. & Y Terminal Properties, Counter Defendant, represented by R
Leland Evans, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote & Andrew G Kimball,
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.

SEMINOLE ISLAND, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

SHELLY MATERIALS, INC., Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Ohio Edison Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Carleen Fay Wilson, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Charles DeVere Wilson, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Judy Ann Wilson, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Paul Gary Wilson, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, John Kistler Keller, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease & Miranda Renee Leppla, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease, LLP.

William E Hellyer, Counter Claimant, represented by Philip D
Sever, Sever Storey Law Firm.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Sarah J Murphy, Counter Claimant, represented by Philip D Sever,
Sever Storey Law Firm.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Trustee of the Watkins Family Trust, Counter Claimant, represented
by Brian K Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil.

Florence L. Watkins, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Robert F. Watkins, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Matthew & Brett LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Vincent Cicconetti, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

John M. Kopp, Trustee of the Kopp Principal Protection Trust,
Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy, Murray Murphy
Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

James F. Denny, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Martha L. Denny, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Jr. Me, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Kathleen M. Morris, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

William E Morris, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Carolyn T. Brown, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Trustee of the Carolyn T. Brown Revocable Trust, Counter Claimant,
represented by Brian K Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph
F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Diane Goodwill, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Frank D. Goodwill, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Gregory A. Henley, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Sue A. Henley, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Larry R. Lorentz, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Nancy J. Lorentz, Counter Claimant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

A.C. & Y Terminal Properties, Counter Claimant, represented by R
Leland Evans, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote & Andrew G Kimball,
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP.

Kimberly Atlasy, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Ramsey Atlasy, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Laurie Baatz, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Richard Baatz, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Alfred Cipro, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Tina Cipro, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Kathrine Cogar, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

William Cogar, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Arliss Eierdam, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Paul Eierdam, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Bradley Klingbeil, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel
Lindner.

Brooke Klingbeil, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel
Lindner.

Joseph Kostohryz, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel
Lindner.

Lisa Kostohryz, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Susan Lee, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Robert Newman, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

John Racco, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Laurie Racco, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Richard Reuss, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Ellen Rogers, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

George Rogers, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Gregory Roten, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Stacy Roten, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Jesse Saksa, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Melissa Saksa, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

John Schaller, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Kelly Schaller, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Karen Shrimpton, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Richard Sunderman, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel
Lindner.

Kevin Swantek, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

Wendy Swantek, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner.

A.C. & Y Terminal Properties, Counter Defendant, represented by R
Leland Evans, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote & Andrew G Kimball,
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.

ELIZABETH A ABRAMSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Robert E Amend, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Anglers Paradise Lake Club, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Donnie H Ankrum, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Marjorie L Ankrum, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Sally J Armstrong, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Wayne R Armstrong, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

DOUGLAS E BALTHASER, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

ROBIN L BALTHASER, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

JANET A BINKLEY, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

MARY M BINKLEY, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

EARL W BLACKSTON, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

WESLEY C BRENDSEL, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Carolyn T. Brown, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

JAMES K CLARKSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

TERESA D CLARKSON, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

COLONIAL MANOR PROPERTIES, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by
Thomas Wilson Hess, Dinsmore & Shoal.

FRANCES K COX, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Cynthia Castelli, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Vincent Cicconetti, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

GERALD B DAVIS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

ELIZABETH C DAVIS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

GARY L DENNIS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Walter DeRhodes, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Connie J Dennis, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

James F. Denny, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Martha L. Denny, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

RANDY L EDWARDS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

ELSEA, INC., Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Diana L Ensign, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Lindner &
Gail Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

William L Ensign, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Diane Goodwill, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Frank D. Goodwill, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

MARK C HELLER, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Gregory A. Henley, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Sue A. Henley, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Holmes Limestone Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Keith Jewett, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Jr. Me, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy,
Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul &
Basil.

Robert L King, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

John M. Kopp, Trustee of the Kopp Principal Protection Trust,
Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K Murphy, Murray Murphy
Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil.

LOWBROW PROPERTIES LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Larry R. Lorentz, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Nancy J. Lorentz, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

BERT A MACQUEEN, Counter Defendant, represented by Thomas Wilson
Hess, Dinsmore & Shoal.

KERRY L MACQUEEN, Counter Defendant, represented by Thomas Wilson
Hess, Dinsmore & Shoal.

DALE CARROLL MAIN, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

MCGONAGLE FARM PARTNERSHIP, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

JULIE K MIFSUD, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

WILLIAM A MIFSUD, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

BARBARA MONK, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

DOUGLAS B MOOS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

KATHY A MOOS, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Matthew & Brett LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

Linda Miller, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern Ford,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Kathleen M. Morris, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

William E Morris, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian K
Murphy, Murray Murphy Moul & Basil & Joseph F Murray, Murray
Murphy Moul & Basil.

NATURE CONSERVANCY INC., Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

LARRY J. RAY, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

MARK W RITTENHOUSE, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

NANCY A SANBORN, Counter Defendant, represented by Miranda Renee
Leppla, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Leonard J Marsico, McGuire Woods LLP, Jodie N Herrmann, McGuire
Woods LLP, Paul K Stockman, McGuire Woods LLP & Yvette Harmon,
McGuire Woods LLP.

Anglers Paradise Lake Club, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail
Chern Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Donnie H Ankrum, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Marjorie L Ankrum, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Sally J Armstrong, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Wayne R Armstrong, Counter Defendant, represented by Gail Chern
Ford, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Settled Sherman Act Suit for $4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company, in April 2014, paid roughly $4 million
to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in consideration for the full
and final release of all claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
in a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of the
Sherman Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 1,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2014.

As disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2013, the Company on September 18,
2008, was served with a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, brought by Standard
Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania, against nine steel
manufacturing companies, including CMC. The lawsuit, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleged that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold
in the United States by artificially restricting the supply of
such steel products. The lawsuit, which purported to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of steel products
directly from the defendants between January 1, 2005 and September
2008 (collectively, the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs"), sought
treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and
pre- and post-judgment interest.

On March 14, 2014, the Company entered into a final settlement
agreement with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. As part of that
final settlement, in April 2014, the Company paid about $4 million
to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in consideration for the full
and final release of all claims of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs. The Company continues to maintain that the claims lack
merit and that it has full and complete defenses to all of the
claims asserted against it. However, the Company agreed to enter
into the settlement agreement to avoid further expense,
inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted
litigation. The settlement received preliminary court approval and
is now only subject to final court approval.

Commercial Metals Company together with its subsidiaries
manufacture, recycle and market steel and metal products, related
materials and services through a network, including steel mini
mills, steel fabrication and processing plants, construction-
related product warehouses, a copper tube mini mill, metal
recycling facilities and marketing and distribution in the United
States and in international markets. The Company Americas Division
operates utilizing three segments: Americas Recycling, Americas
Mills and Americas Fabrication. The Company's International
Division operates utilizing two segments: International Mill and
International Marketing and Distribution, which includes all
marketing and distribution operations located outside the United
States, as well as two United States-based trading and
distribution divisions. In October 2013, Commercial Metals Company
completed the sale of Howell Metal Company, to Mueller Copper Tube
Products, Inc., a subsidiary of Mueller Industries, Inc.


DAIRY FARMERS: Court Denies Initial Approval of "Allen" Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALICE H. ALLEN, LAURANCE E. ALLEN, d/b/a Al-lens Farm, GARRET
SITTS, RALPH SITTS, JONATHAN I IAAR, CLAUDIA HAAR, and RICHARD
SWANTAK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., and DAIRY
MARKETING SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:09-CV-230, (D.
Vt.) is before the court on the expedited motion of the DFA/DMS
and non-DFA/DMS subclasses (collectively, the "Dairy Farmer
Subclasses") for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement
between the Dairy Farmers Subclasses and Defendants Dairy Farmers
of America, Inc. (DFA) and Dairy Marketing Services, LLC (DMS).

The Dairy Farmer Subclasses, through their attorneys (Subclass
Counsel), asked that in conjunction with preliminary approval, the
court approve their proposed notices to class members and set the
matter for a hearing to determine whether the Proposed Settlement
is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e).

The Proposed Settlement was reached on the eve of trial and
contemplates settlement payments totaling $50 million, payable in
two installments of $25 million each, the first in 2014 and the
second prior to April 15, 2015. In addition, the Proposed
Settlement requires DFA and DMS to implement certain changes to
how they do business in the Northeast, including altering certain
activities that the Dairy Farmers Subclasses challenged in this
action. In exchange, class members will provide DFA and DMS a
release.

Dairy Farmers Subclass Counsel seeks an attorney's fee award of
$16.66 million or one third of the Settlement Fund, plus the
payment of reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection
with this case.  No estimate of these costs and expenses has been
provided although these amounts should be calculable.

The Class Representatives for the DFA/DMS subclass are Jonathan
Haar, Claudia Haar, and Richard Swantak. The Class Representatives
for the non-DFA/DMS subclass are Alice H. Allen, Laurence E.
Allen, Garrett Sitts, and Ralph Sitts. Subclass Counsel will
request an incentive fee in the amount of $20,000 for each of the
Class Representatives' farms. The Class Representatives for the
Dairy Farmer Subclasses opposes the Proposed Settlement and said
it will seek to voice their opposition at a Fairness Hearing. No
reason for their opposition has been provided.

In an order dated July 9, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/SOcg3wfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge
Christina Reiss denied, without prejudice, the expedited motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

"[A]s a condition precedent to preliminary approval, Subclass
Counsel must disclose to the court the grounds for the Class
Representatives' opposition to the Proposed Settlement," Judge
Reiss pointed out.  "This information is necessary for the court's
preliminary assessment of whether the Proposed Settlememt is
"fair, reasonable, and adequate.""


ELECTRONICS KING: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elfego "Juan" Cazares, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Electronics King, Inc. d/b/a Electronic King, Julian
Yunes, and Junior Bonnis, Case No. 1:14-cv-05395 (S.D.N.Y., July
17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Electronics King, Inc. is a wholesale electronic equipment and
supply company located at 2479 Grand Concourse, Bronx,
NY 10468.

Julian Yunes is the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of
Electronics King, Inc.

Junior Bonnis is the President of Electronics King, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXTREME ACADEMY: "Columbie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anissa Columbie and Darylmo'ne Shipman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Extreme Academy of Martial
Arts LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and
Carey O. Newman, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61645 (S.D. Fla.,
July 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Extreme Academy of Martial Arts LLC, offers martial arts training
in the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


FEDEX CORP: Suits Over Fatal Bus Crash in California Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than a dozen lawsuits filed on behalf of victims of a
fatal bus crash in Northern California have been consolidated in
Los Angeles, where a judge held the first hearing this month.

On April 10, a FedEx truck pulling two trailers crossed a 60-foot
median on Interstate 5 near Orland, Calif., crashing into a
charter bus headed to Humboldt State University in Arcata, Calif.,
and bursting into flames.  Ten people died, including the drivers
of both vehicles, and there were multiple injuries.

The National Transportation Safety Board has opened an
investigation into the crash.  On July 21, a coroner's office in
Glenn County, Calif., concluded that most of the victims died of
asphyxiation.

More than 15 lawsuits have been filed over the crash, mostly in
Los Angeles, where the majority of the 46 bus passengers lived.
One case has been filed in Glenn County Superior Court.

"I anticipate there will be a number of additional cases, since
all of the kids that were trapped on that bus were put through a
pretty traumatic event," said Katherine Harvey-Lee -- KHarvey-
Lee@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- attorney at Los Angeles-based Baum,
Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman.

The lawsuits in Los Angeles have been consolidated before Los
Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Wiley.  Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel -- filling in temporarily for
Wiley, who has been on temporary assignment to California's 2nd
District Court of Appeal -- oversaw the first hearing on July 15.
She held off ruling on many of the motions and scheduled the next
hearing for Sept. 19.

The complaints allege that FedEx Corp. was negligent and that the
bus operator, Silverado Stages Inc., based in San Luis Obispo,
Calif., failed to provide fire suppression equipment or adequate
emergency instructions.

"Against FedEx, the primary allegations are obvious from the
facts: A truck should not leave its lanes of travel and go over a
median," Ms. Harvey-Lee said.  As for the bus operator, she said:
"It's our understanding from the survivors that there had been no
explanation or instruction given as to emergency evacuation
procedures, and we know that the kids were kicking out windows to
try to get out."

Geoffrey Wells, a partner at Greene Broillet & Wheeler in Santa
Monica, Calif., heard similar reports.  "Once this accident
occurred, it was complete pandemonium there," he said.

His firm has requested that the litigation be coordinated in Los
Angeles.  On July 15, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani
Cantil-Sakauye, who heads the Judicial Council of California,
ordered a coordination judge in Los Angeles to decide by Aug. 25
who would hear the cases.

James Yukevich -- jyukevich@yukelaw.com -- a partner at Los
Angeles-based Yukevich Cavanaugh who represents Memphis-based
FedEx, and Silverado's attorney, Anne McIntyre --
amcintyre@wshblaw.com -- a partner in the Glendale, Calif., office
of Wood Smith Henning & Berman in Los Angeles, did not return
calls for comment.

Soon after the accident, FedEx chief executive officer Frederick
Smith issued a written statement: "It will take some time to fully
understand exactly how this accident occurred and why.  In the
meantime, I want everyone to know that we at FedEx are committed
to providing every resource necessary to assist investigators in
their efforts to understand what happened."


FERRELLGAS LP: Sued Over Alleged Price-Fixing of Propane Tanks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Holly Investments, LLC, d/b/a Deuces Travel Plaza,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P.; Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Amerigas
Propane, Inc.; Amerigas Propane, L.P.; Amerigas Partners, L.P.;
and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02350 (D. Kan., July 17,
2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to reduce the amount
of propane they would put in their tanks and thereby raise the
per-pound price of propane across the country.

Ferrellgas, L.P. and Amerigas Propane, L.P. are the two largest
distributors of propane exchange tanks across the United States.

UGI Corporation is the parent and sole owner of AmeriGas Propane,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
      MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHARTERED
      Old Town Square 300 North Mead, Suite 200
      Wichita, KS 67202
      Telephone: (316) 262-2671
      Facsimile: (316) 262-5991
      E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com

         - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
      Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
              dperelman@finekaplan.com
              gdever@finekaplan.com

        - and -

      David A. Balto, Esq.
      Bradley A. Wasser, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO
      1325 G Street, NW Suite 500
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 789-5424
      E-mail: david.balto@dcantitrustlaw.com
              brad.wasser@dcantitrustlaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: To Recall 792,300 Jeeps Over Ignition Key Problems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph B. White, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV on July 22 said it would recall as
many as 792,300 older Jeep sport-utility vehicles after receiving
complaints that drivers could accidently shut off the vehicle by
jarring the keys.

Fiat Chrysler said its engineers are still working on a fix for
the problem, and asked Jeep owners to wait until they receive a
notice that their vehicle is among those that could have a
problem.  In the meantime, it urged owners to remove all items
from key rings, leaving only the ignition keys.

If a vehicle stalls because the ignition switch slips out of the
run position, power could be cut to the brakes, steering and air
bags, the company warned.

The No. 3 U.S. auto maker's latest recall keeps car companies in
the U.S. on pace to smash the previous record for vehicles
recalled in a single year, which was 30.8 million cars and trucks
recalled in 2004.

Fiat Chrysler said it ordered the recall "out of an abundance of
caution."  The auto maker said it is aware of one accident, which
resulted in no injuries, and "a relatively small number of
complaints."  Safety regulator National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration had opened a preliminary investigation of the
problem in June, citing 32 complaints that drivers had hit the
ignition key fob or key chain with a knee, turning the engine off.

The vehicles affected include the 2006 and 2007 Jeep Commander and
the 2005 through 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee sport utilities, the
auto maker said.

Fiat Chrysler's action reflects the auto industry's jitters in the
wake of the controversy over General Motors Co. 's delays in
recalling millions of vehicles equipped with potentially faulty
ignition switches that could also slip out of the run position
when jarred, cutting power to air bags, brakes and steering.

GM has linked 13 deaths to air bag failures linked to faulty
ignition switches in the Chevrolet Cobalt, Saturn Ion and other
small cars.  NHTSA has fined GM $35 million for delaying action on
the problem for more than a decade, and the No. 1 U.S. auto maker
faces a criminal probe by the U.S. Justice Department.

Fiat Chrysler has been under pressure from NHTSA regulators to
speed up the pace of repairs it agreed to under a deal struck last
year with regulators to curb the risk of fuel tank fires in 1.56
million Jeeps.  It has promised to get the repairs done by March
2015, months sooner than the company had earlier forecast. Fiat
Chrysler sped up its repair timetable after the NHTSA demanded an
explanation for the delays.


GAF MATERIALS: Obtains Partial Summary Judgment in "Brooks" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Jack Brooks and Ellen
Brooks, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GAF Materials Corporation, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 8:11-CV-00983-JMC, (D.S.C.), the Brooks alleged that GAF
Materials manufactured and sold defective roofing shingles.

The case is now before the court on GAF's motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 as to Plaintiffs' claims
for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranties, fraud, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act
(SCUTPA), S.C. Code Ann. Sections 39-5-10 to 560 (2013).

In an order and opinion dated July 9, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/DZkU4Mfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Michelle Childs granted in part and denied in part GAF Materials'
motion for summary judgment pursuant. The motion is granted as to
the express warranty claim and individual claims of Jack Brooks
and Ellen Brooks for negligent misrepresentation (Count 2) and
violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count
6). The motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' class claims for
negligence (Count 1), breach of express and implied warranties
(Counts 3 and 4, respectively), and unjust enrichment (Count 7).
Jack Brooks and Ellen Brooks withdraw their individual claim for
fraud (Count 5). The case will proceed to trial on those class
claims in accordance with the schedule established by the court.

Jack Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Algernon Gibson Solomons,
III -- gsolomons@speightsrunyan.com -- Speights & Runyan, Daniel
Alvah Speights -- dspeights@speightsrunyan.com -- Speights and
Runyan & Thomas H Pope, III -- thpope@popeandhudgens.com -- Pope
and Hudgens.

Ellen Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Algernon Gibson Solomons,
III, Speights & Runyan, Daniel Alvah Speights, Speights and Runyan
& Thomas H Pope, III, Pope and Hudgens.

GAF Materials Corporation, Defendant, represented by Esterina
Giuliani -- giulianie@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, Sara
Miro -- miros@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, Anna H Fee --
feean@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, David Eidson Dukes --
david.dukes@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, David Tulchin -- tulchind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan
and Cromwell, Frances Groberg Zacher, Gallivan White and Boyd,
Gray Thomas Culbreath -- gculbreath@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan
White and Boyd & Kathleen S McArthur -- mcarthurk@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.


GAMESTOP CORP: Judge Trims Claims in Marketing-Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a Connecticut
federal judge on July 17 trimmed a proposed class action accusing
GameStop Corp. and a sham marketer of defrauding an unsuspecting
minor who bought a video game through GameStop's website, ruling
the claims didn't state the circumstances of the alleged fraud
with particularity.

Granting defendants' motion to dismiss the fraud claims, Senior
U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. said an amended version
of the complaint includes sections captioned "Nature of the Case,"
"Parties" and "Class Action Allegations" that are cast in general
and mostly conclusory terms, and don't sufficiently describe the
facts giving rise to the plaintiff's claims.

The suit accuses GameStop of partnering with Webloyalty.com Inc.
and perpetuating a fraud in which consumers became unintentionally
enrolled as members of a bogus rewards program causing monthly
credit card charges of $12.  Defendants contend that the plaintiff
understood and consented to the enrollment pages' disclosures
about the program.

But Judge Haight determined that the plaintiff, whose complaint
was filed by one of his parents -- neither of which are named --
hadn't met the pleading requirements outlined in the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

"The allegations omit the early and middle chapters of the story
and proceed immediately to the last chapter," the July 17 rulings
said.  "Plaintiff cannot proceed past 'Go' and collect damages for
fraud without first complying with Rule 9(b)'s requirement that he
state with particularity how he got there."

The complaint claims the minor bought a video game on GameStop.com
using a credit card issued by Visa Inc., which is also named as a
defendant.  Plaintiff's attorneys, arguing he was duped into an
illicit scheme, lobbed more than a dozen claims against the
defendants, including negligent misrepresentation, violations of
the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, unfair or deceptive acts or
practices, and civil conspiracy.

Replying to the complaint, the defendants contended that the
underage customer had clicked on a promotional link and chose to
receive information about an offer, leading him to Webloyalty's
offer and enrollment page for a Shopper Discounts and Rewards
Program that stated its monthly charge. He then allegedly chose to
join the program.

While the judge dismissed the fraud claims, he gave the plaintiff
leave to replead his amended complaint by Aug. 15.  He also
reserved a decision on the contested issue of whether all the
claims were grounded in fraud and must therefore be dismissed.

The plaintiff had moved to strike exhibits replicating the
onscreen displays used in conjunction with Webloyalty's membership
benefits program, arguing they were in dispute, but Judge Haight
said the documents were integral to the complaint.  He also
granted both parties leave to conduct limited discovery including
the depositions of plaintiff and Webloyalty marketing executives,
as well as possible additional evidentiary sources, by Sept. 26.

The plaintiff is represented by Joseph H. Weiss --
jweiss@weisslawllp.com -- and David C. Katz --
dkatz@weisslawllp.com -- of WeissLaw LLP and by James E. Miller,
Laurie Rubinow and Karen M. Leser Grenon of Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah LLC.

GameStop and Webloyalty.com are represented by James W.
Prendergast -- james.prendergast@wilmerhale.com -- and John J.
Regan of WilmerHale and by James E. Nealon --
jnealon@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

Visa is represented by Jonathan B. Orleans --
jborleans@pullcom.com -- of Pullman & Comley LLC and by Robert C.
Mason and Matthew A. Eisenstein of Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is L. S., a minor, by P. S., his parent and next friend,
et al. v. Webloyalty.com Inc. et al., case number 3:10-cv-01372,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 717,950 Vehicles Over Seat Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
Anna Prior, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
General Motors on July 23 unveiled six recalls covering 717,950
vehicles in the U.S., citing a variety of safety issues.

The nation's largest auto maker has recalled more than 29 million
vehicles in North America this year and disclosed charges to
earnings totaling $2.5 billion following reviews of customer and
staff complaints. The reviews were prompted by a botched safety
recall involving several small cars.

The latest recalls will cover loose bolts on power-height
adjustable driver or front passenger seats in more than 400,000
model year 2011 and 2012 Chevrolet Camaros, 2010-2012 Chevrolet
Equinoxs and GMC Terrains, among other vehicles, as well as
potentially incomplete welding on certain seat hooks in more than
120,000 recent model Chevrolet Caprices, Silverado LD and HDs,
Cadillac ATS and CTS, among other vehicles.

Other recalls include more than 120,000 model year 2011 through
2013 Buick Regals and 2013 model year Chevrolet Malibus to fix
issues related to turn signal light bulbs, more than 57,000 model
year 2014 Chevrolet Impalas with belt-drive electric power
steering, as well as nearly 2,000 recent model year Chevrolet
Sparks imported from Korea that were assembled with a lower
control arm bolt not fastened to specification.

In late June, the auto maker announced six recalls covering 8.45
million vehicles in North America for a variety of issues, chief
among them was unintended ignition key rotation in older Chevrolet
Malibus and five other models.

The company at that time also increased the second-quarter charge
it would take to $1.2 billion from its original estimate of $700
million.  The company spent $1.3 billion in the first quarter to
cover costs.


GRACO: CPSC Issues Formal Recall of Buckyballs
----------------------------------------------
Rachel Abrams, writing for The New York Times, reports that after
a two-year fight to get Buckyballs off the market, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission put a formal recall of the toy into
effect.

Consumers will have a six-month window to apply for refunds for
the sets of tiny, powerfully magnetic stacking balls.  The refunds
will be paid for by Craig Zucker, the former head of Maxfield &
Oberton Holdings, which made Buckyballs.

Mr. Zucker's personal liability is novel for product recall cases,
which typically do not name individual company officers.  Lawyers
for Mr. Zucker fought the decision to name him personally, arguing
he could ultimately be liable for an estimated $57 million of
costs related to the recall.

But the commission said that as part of the recall agreement,
which was reached in May, Mr. Zucker would be required to pay a
maximum of $375,000 in refunds to consumers.  Refund requests,
which consumers can submit online, will not be honored once that
money runs out.

The commission had been trying to force Maxfield & Oberton to
recall the product since 2012, arguing that the high-powered
magnets present an ingestion hazard to children.  Made of
rare-earth elements, the balls are far stronger than most magnets,
and therefore present a potentially greater danger if swallowed.

The commission has not been able to say how many children were
injured because of the toys, but it estimates that 1,700 children
went to the emergency room between 2009 and 2011 because of high-
powered magnets, including Buckyballs.

"It's unfortunate that it took two years to get to this point,"
said Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the commission.  "This has
been a very serious issue, and it's been an issue with serious
consequences."

"After nearly two years of fighting, it's good to finally have
this case behind me," Mr. Zucker said in a statement in May after
the settlement was reached.

In 2012, the safety commission filed an administrative action that
demanded Maxfield recall Buckyballs and a related product called
Buckycubes, and refund customers their money.  The company fought
back, arguing that the products came with warnings that made it
clear the balls were not safe for children.  When the company went
out of business several months later, the commission named
Mr. Zucker as a respondent in the recall action.

While that move was highly unusual, it is not yet clear whether it
will set a precedent.

Mr. Wolfson said that the circumstances around the Buckyballs case
were unique and showed that the agency "will use all of its
enforcement tools."

"It remains to be seen whether the C.P.S.C. will adopt this
aggressive approach in future cases," said Nora F. Engstrom, an
associate law professor at Stanford.  "Was this a one-off response
to exceptional circumstances, or is this a new and powerful weapon
in C.P.S.C.'s arsenal?"

Last year, six companies, including Barnes & Noble, Hallmark and
Brookstone, issued voluntary recalls for Buckyballs.  But the
commission still fought to have Maxfield & Oberton recall those
sold elsewhere.


INVESTORS TITLE: Defendant in E.D. Mich. Transfer Tax Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit is pending against Investors Title Company
in which plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of actual
damages, contending that they were assessed, charged and paid the
full transfer tax when they sold their property, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2014.

A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
against several title insurance underwriters, including Investors
Title Insurance Company, and several title insurance agents,
entitled Bushman et al. v. R. Kevin Clinton, Treasurer of the
State of Michigan, et al. (2:14-cv-10011-GCS-MAR). Michigan law
requires the seller of property to pay a transfer tax based on the
total value of the property at the time of transfer. Exemptions
from the payment of this tax exist if (1) the property is the
seller's principal residence, and (2) the state equalized value
("SEV") of the property at the time of purchase is greater than
the SEV at the time of sale. Plaintiffs contend that,
notwithstanding this exemption, they were assessed, charged and
paid the full transfer tax when they sold their property. The
plaintiffs seek an award of actual damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees and other relief as determined at trial.
Management believes that this case is without merit, and intends
to vigorously defend against the allegations. At this stage in the
litigation, management does not have the ability to make a
reasonable range of estimates in regards to potential loss
amounts, if any.

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in other legal
proceedings that are incidental to their business. In the
Company's opinion, based on the present status of these
proceedings, any potential liability of the Company or its
subsidiaries with respect to these legal proceedings, will not, in
the aggregate, be material to the Company's consolidated financial
condition or operations.

Investors Title Company is a holding company that operates through
its subsidiaries, which includes Investors Title Insurance Company
(ITIC) and National Investors Title Insurance Company (NITIC). The
Company's primary business activity, and its only reportable
operating segment, is the issuance of residential and commercial
title insurance through ITIC and NITIC. . Additionally the Company
provides tax-deferred real property exchange services through its
subsidiaries, Investors Title Exchange Corporation (ITEC);
Investors Title Accommodation Corporation (ITAC); investment
management and trust services to individuals, trusts and other
entities through its subsidiaries Investors Trust Company
(Investors Trust) and Investors Capital Management Company (ICMC);
and management services to title insurance agencies through its
subsidiary, Investors Title Management Services (ITMS).


JEFFERIES GROUP: Defendant in 7 Leucadia Transaction Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferies Group LLC is a defendant in seven putative class action
lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with
the Leucadia Transaction by engaging in a flawed process and
agreeing to sell Jefferies Group, Inc. for inadequate
consideration pursuant to an agreement that contains improper deal
protection terms, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
July 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2014.

According to Jefferies Group, "seven putative class action
lawsuits have been filed in New York and Delaware concerning the
Leucadia Transaction. The class actions, filed on behalf of our
shareholders prior to the Leucadia Transaction, name as defendants
Jefferies Group, Inc., the members of the board of directors of
Jefferies Group, Inc., Leucadia and, in certain of the actions,
certain subsidiaries. The actions allege that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Leucadia
Transaction by engaging in a flawed process and agreeing to sell
Jefferies Group, Inc. for inadequate consideration pursuant to an
agreement that contains improper deal protection terms. The
actions allege that Jefferies Group, Inc. and Leucadia aided and
abetted the directors' breach of fiduciary duties. The actions
filed in New York have been stayed, the actions filed in Delaware
are proceeding and the claims against certain of the directors
have been dismissed. The Company is unable to predict the outcome
of this litigation or to estimate the amount of or range of any
reasonably possible loss."

During the first quarter of 2014, Jefferies reached a non-
prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney for the
District of Connecticut and a settlement agreement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), relating to an
investigation of purchases and sales of mortgage-backed
securities. That investigation arose from a matter that came to
light in late 2011, at which time the Company terminated a
mortgage-backed-securities trader who was then indicted by the
United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut in January
2013 and separately charged in a civil complaint by the SEC. Those
agreements include an aggregate $25.0 million in payments, of
which approximately $11.0 million are payments to trading
counterparties impacted by those activities, approximately $10.0
million of which is a fine payable to the U.S. Attorney's Office,
and approximately $4.0 million of which is a fine payable to the
SEC. At May 31, 2014, the outstanding reserve with respect to
remaining payments to be made under the agreements is
approximately $5.1 million.

Jefferies Group LLC and its subsidiaries operate as a securities
and investment banking firm. The Company operates in two business
segments: Capital Markets segment consists of the Company's
securities and commodities trading activities and its investment
banking activities, and Asset Management segment includes asset
management activities and related services. On July 1, 2011, the
Company acquired the Bache Global Commodities Group from
Prudential Financial, Inc., and as of November 30, 2011, the
Company operated a futures commission merchant through Jefferies
Bache, LLC in the United States and a global commodities and
financial derivatives broker through Jefferies Bache Limited in
the United Kingdom. Effective March 1, 2013, Leucadia National
Corp (Leucadia) acquired the remaining 71.4% interest in Jefferies
Group Inc . Effective March 1, 2013, Leucadia National Corp
(Leucadia) acquired the remaining 71.4% interest in Jefferies
Group Inc.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Class Suit by Rosen Law Firm in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action suit filed by the Rosen Law Firm alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, is currently at the
discovery stage, according to Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc.'s Form
10-K filed on July 1, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On November 15, 2011, the Rosen Law Firm
filed a class action suit, alleging we had violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and omitting material facts with regard to disclosure
of related party transactions and effectiveness of internal
controls in past public filings. The case is currently at the
discovery stage, located in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, and we believe there is no
basis to the suit filed by the Rosen Law Firm and intend to
contest the case vigorously."

Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. (Keyuan) through its operating
subsidiaries, Ningbo Keyuan and Ningbo Keyuan Petrochemicals, are
engaged in the manufacture and sale of petrochemical and rubber
products in the People's Republic China. The Company's operations
include production facility with an annual petrochemical
production capacity of 720,000 metric tons of a variety of
petrochemical products, and facilities for the storage and loading
of raw materials and finished goods. It manufactures and supply's
petrochemical products, including BenzeneToluene-Xylene Aromatics
(BTX Aromatics), propylene, styrene, liquid petroleum gas (LPG),
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), Styrene butadiene styrene
(SBS), and other petrochemicals. Its BTX Aromatics consists of
benzene, toluene, xylene and other chemical components used for
further processing into plastics, gasoline and solvent materials
used in paint, ink, construction coating and pesticide.


LEHIGH VALLEY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Ford" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James M. Munley denied a motion to dismiss the case
captioned MATTHEW FORD and ELISABETH YUSCAVAGE, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. LEHIGH
VALLEY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, NO. 3:14CV227, (M.D.
Pa.).

The putative class-action complaint arose from Lehigh Valley's
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage
requirement. The plaintiffs filed a three count complaint alleging
violations of: 1) the FLSA; 2) Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act and
3) Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law. Because the
latter two causes of actions involve state statutes, the parties
have agreed to litigate these claims in state court. Thus, the
only remaining claim was Count One -- violation of the FLSA's
minimum wage requirement.

In a memorandum dated July 9, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/HtQxxgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Munley concluded
that to properly participate in a tip pool a restaurant employee
must have direct customer interaction . . .  At this early stage
of litigation, plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief
can be granted and defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' FLSA
claim will be denied.

Matthew Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Peter D. Winebrake --
pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Mark J.
Gottesfeld -- mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & R. Andrew Santillo -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
-- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC.

Elisabeth Yuscavage, Plaintiff, represented by Peter D. Winebrake,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Mark J. Gottesfeld, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC.

Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David J. Freedman -- dfreedman@barley.com -- Barley Snyder, LLC &
Richard L. Hackman -- rhackman@barley.com -- Barley Snyder, LLC.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Judge Refuses to Sanction Counsel in Fax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida
federal judge on July 16 declined to sanction a defense attorney
for allegedly accusing opposing counsel of bribery in a class
action accusing Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and a retirement
plan provider of illegally sending junk fax ads.

Anderson & Wanca, which is representing plaintiff C-Mart Inc., the
alleged recipient of the junk faxes, alleged that Howard
Poznanski, who represents defendants Scott Storick, Storick Group
Co. and Storick Group Corp., made unsubstantiated allegations
against it, including that it paid bribes to the person who sent
Storick's faxes in exchange for the names of the recipients so
that the law firm could then sue the company that hired the fax
sender.

U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks said the alleged
statements do not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"However, both sides are cautioned with regard to the use of
fighting and accusatory rhetoric made before this court," Judge
Middlebrooks said.

Also on July 16, the judge denied a joint motion to stay the case
pending the preliminary and final approval of a settlement in a
separate lawsuit in Illinois that encompasses all of the claims in
the Florida action.  The parties in the Illinois case have agreed
in principle to a nationwide class settlement, according to the
motion.

C-Mart, MetLife and the Storick defendants had asked the court to
stay the Florida case in the interest of judicial economy, because
approval of the settlement in the Illinois action will obviate the
need for judicial intervention on the pending motions and the need
for a trial.

"While the court acknowledges the related case in Illinois state
court, preliminary and final approval of the settlement in the
Illinois action is uncertain and, if the settlement is not
approved, a stay would only serve to further delay this case," the
judge said.

On July 14 Judge Middlebrooks let Storick Group Corp. and Storick
Group Co. off the hook in the suit and said he now questions his
decision to certify the class.

Judge Middlebrooks agreed with Storick Group Co. and Storick Group
Corp. that there is no record of evidence that either of the
companies was a "sender" of a fax, as defined under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, or that either entity profited as a
result of a fax lead.

And the judge also questioned his February decision to grant class
certification in the case.  He said in the opinion that while the
complaint is filed in plaintiff C-Mart Inc.'s name, the company's
representative has stated that his only knowledge of the case is
what is relayed by its counsel at Anderson & Wanca.

"Thus, it appears that C-Mart is serving as a pawn for Anderson &
Wanca's class action suit," the judge said.  "The court has
serious concerns regarding whether this matter should have been
certified as a class action."

Judge Middlebrooks said he is worried about the adequacy of C-Mart
as class representative and Anderson & Wanca as class counsel. But
he said he will allow oral arguments before making any decision.

C-Mart is represented by Ryan M. Kelly, Brian J. Wanca, Ross M.
Good and David M. Oppenheim of Anderson & Wanca.

MetLife is represented by Frank Zacherl, Jeffrey Landau --
jlandau@shutts.com -- and Daniel Stabile -- dstabile@shutts.com --
of Shutts & Bowen LLP and Becca Wahlquist -- bwahlquist@manatt.com
-- of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP.

Storick and the Storick companies are represented by Howard
Poznanski.

The case is C-Mart Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al.,
case number 9:13-cv-80561, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.


MF GLOBAL: Vacation Time Claims Granted Class Status
----------------------------------------------------
Former employees of MF Global Inc. filed a putative class claim
for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation
time.  Those same employees raised identical allegations in
adversary proceedings filed against MFGI, as well as against MF
Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global
Holdings USA, Inc.  In two written opinions, the Court dismissed
the WARN Act claims asserted in the adversary proceedings, but
declined to decide the issue of liability for unpaid accrued
vacation time.  The SIPA Trustee, however, has conceded liability
for the vacation pay claims.

MFGI now objects to the class claim on the grounds that (1) the
WARN Act claims are barred by the "law of the case" doctrine and
(2) the claim for vacation pay is unnecessary and duplicative and
does not meet the requirements for the assertion of a class claim.

The class claimants concede that their WARN Act claims are barred
by the Bankruptcy Court's prior opinions, and that portion of the
Objection is sustained, Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn held in a
ruling July 17.

As to their claims for unpaid accrued vacation time, Judge Glenn
said the putative class claim satisfies the requirements for class
certification.  Further, allowing the claim to proceed as a class
claim will result in the most expeditious administration of the
MFGI estate.  Therefore, the Objection to the vacation pay portion
of the claim is overruled, and the Class Claimants are directed to
file a motion seeking class certification as soon as practicable.

A copy of the Court's July 17, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/AugcCifrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Todd Thielmann, et al. and Employee Representative
Claimants:

     Charles A. Ercole, Esq.
     KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP
     1835 Market Street, Suite 1400
     Philadelphia, PA 19103

          - and -

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016

Counsel for James W. Giddens, Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of
MF Global Inc., is:

     Dustin P. Smith, Esq.
     HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
     One Battery Park Plaza
     New York, NY 10004


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Conceals Effects of Brain Injuries, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Ballard and Gregory Westbrooks v. National Football
League Players Association, Raymond Lester Armstrong, III, Troy
Vincent, and Kevin Mawae, Case No. 4:14-cv-01267 (E.D. Mo., July
17, 2014), seeks medical monitoring and financial compensation for
the long-term chronic injuries, financial losses, expenses, and
intangible losses suffered by Plaintiffs along with all other
former professional football players, as a result of Defendants'
intentional and negligent tortuous misconduct.

This action arises from the pathological and debilitating effects
of traumatic brain injuries caused by concussive and sub
concussive impacts. The Defendants have been aware of the evidence
linking repetitive Traumatic Brain Injury to long-term
neurological problems and the risks associated with repetitive
traumatic brain injuries for decades, but they deliberately
ignored, failed to warn, and actively concealed the information.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
      SHAFFER AND LOMBARDO
      911 Main Street, Suite 2000
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 931-0500
      Facsimile: (816) 931-5775
      E-mail: rlombardo@sls-law.com


NATIONAL UNION METALWORKERS: Small Businesses Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legalbrief Today reports that small businesses, suffering damage
at the hands of what they believe to be strikers belonging to the
National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa), are considering
class action against the union and its leaders, but the union
continues to deny any foul play by its members.


NEW YORK, USA: Sued Over Alleged Bias in Teacher Tenure System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that New York state's teacher
tenure system unconstitutionally discriminates against poor and
minority children, a class action claims in Richmond County
Supreme Court.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Settles Stockholder Complaint for $6-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc., has agreed to pay $6 million in cash
pursuant to a court-approved settlement agreement in connection
with a consolidated stockholder class action, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated June 20, 2014, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2014.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California (the
"Court") on behalf of alleged stockholders of Novatel Wireless,
Inc. (the "Company"). On December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action and, in May 2010, the
consolidated lawsuits were captioned In re Novatel Wireless
Securities Litigation (the "Litigation"). The Litigation is being
pursued on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15, 2008. The
consolidated complaint named the Company and five of its current
and former officers as defendants. On December 6, 2013, to avoid
the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, legal
counsel for the defendants entered into a binding Memorandum of
Understanding with legal counsel for the lead plaintiffs,
reflecting a proposed agreement to settle the Litigation.

On June 20, 2014, the Court approved a settlement agreement with
respect to the Litigation. The settlement agreement does not admit
any liability and the Company and the individual defendants
continue to deny any and all liability. Under the terms of the
settlement agreement, the Company will pay $6 million in cash,
issue shares of the Company's common stock with a value of $5
million and issue a $5 million secured promissory note to resolve
all claims asserted in the Litigation on behalf of class members.
A portion of the $6 million in cash will be funded by insurers for
the Company. The $5 million in shares of the Company's common
stock will be unrestricted and freely tradable shares and exempt
from registration at the time of issuance and distribution to
class members, which will occur within 10 business days after the
entry of a final order of approval by the Court, which occurred on
June 23, 2014. The $5 million secured note, with a 5% interest
rate, will have a 30 month maturity and be secured by the
Company's accounts receivables.

The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion on July
1, 2014, requesting that the Court amend its judgment so that
judgment is entered on the date of the final approval hearing,
June 20, 2014. If the Court grants the motion, the Company
believes it will be relieved from an additional cash payment of
approximately $725,000 that will result if the judgment remains
entered as of June 23, 2014. The additional cash payment will be
required by a provision in the Stipulation of Settlement that is
triggered if the price of the Company's stock trades below a
certain threshold price as of the date of the Court's entry of
judgment.

Novatel Wireless, Inc. is a provider of wireless solutions for the
worldwide mobile communications markets. Its range of products
principally includes intelligent mobile hotspots, universal serial
bus (USB) modems, embedded peripheral component interconnect (PCI)
and wireless personal computer (PC)-card modems, and
communications and applications software. Novatel Wireless
operates in two segments: mobile computing products and machine-
to-machine (M2M) products and solutions. Its mobile-hotspot and
modem customer base is consisted of wireless operators, including
AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon Wireless; laptop PC and other original
equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, including Dell and Hewlett-
Packard; as well as distributors and various companies in other
vertical markets. The Company's M2M customer base is consisted of
transportation companies, industrial companies, manufacturers of
medical devices and geographical-location devices and providers of
security systems.


PENSKE LOGISTICS: Rest Break Laws Not Overridden, 9th Cir. Ruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reviving two class actions against employers that allegedly forced
workers to skip meals, the 9th Circuit said on July 9, 2014, that
a federal deregulation act does not override California's meal and
rest break laws, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service.

The rulings come in the wake of, and may repair, a split in
California's federal courts over whether the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) pre-empts state
laws requiring employers to pay workers for a 30-minute meal break
for every five hours worked, or a 10-minute rest break for every
four hours worked.

Delivery drivers Mickey Lee Dilts, Ray Rios and Donny Dushaj
claimed in a state court action that they were often discouraged
from taking breaks while working for Penske Logistics and Penske
Truck Leasing Co., even though the company folded a 30-minute meal
break into their shifts.

In San Diego, the plaintiffs secured class certification but lost
on summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo
agreed with Penske that the FAAAA pre-empted California's
requirements.

Since that ruling came down, eight other California federal courts
have found that the FAAAA pre-empts California's meal and rest
break laws, while four others have held that it does not.

Dilts, Rios and Dushaj's appeal is the first to hit the 9th
Circuit, which reversed in their favor on July 9, 2014, sending
the case back to San Diego for consideration of the merits of the
workers' claims.

In a separate, unpublished ruling, the panel also revived Campbell
v. Vitran Express Inc., a similar case that also foundered on
federal pre-emption grounds.

While Congress adopted the FAAAA in the 1990s to stop states from
"undermining federal deregulation of interstate trucking" though
lawmaking, the act pre-empts only those state laws that are
"related to" pricing, or that require or ban certain routes or
services, the three-judge panel said.

California's meal and break laws do none of those things.

"They are normal background rules for almost all employers doing
business in the state of California," Judge Susan Graber wrote for
the court.  "And while motor carriers may have to take into
account the meal and rest break requirements when allocating
resources and scheduling routes -- just as they must take into
account state wage laws, or speed limits and weight restrictions
-- the laws do not 'bind' motor carriers to specific prices,
routes, or services."

The panel said it found an amicus brief against preemption by the
Department of Transportation "particularly persuasive."

In a concurrence, U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary, sitting on the
panel by designation from the Northern District of Ohio, argued
that Penske had "failed to demonstrate the impact of the
California law that would support a finding of preemption."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Deepak Gupta, Esq.
          Brian Wolfman, Esq.
          Gregory A. Beck, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Taylor, Esq.
          GUPTA BECK PLLC
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 328-7030
          E-mail: deepak@guptabeck.com
                  wolfmanb@law.georgetown.edu
                  greg@guptabeck.com
                  jon@guptabeck.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 "C" Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (888) 808-8358
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          James H. Hanson, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN  46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.,
          30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL  60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7200
          Facsimile: (312) 422-1224
          E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com

The appellate case is Mickey Lee Dilts, et al. v. Penske
Logistics, LLC, et al., Case No. 12-55705, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is
Mickey Lee Dilts, et al. v. Penske Logistics, LLC, et al., Case
No. 3:08-cv-00318-CAB-BLM, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.


PLX TECHNOLOGY: Defendant in 6 Merger-Related Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------
PLX Technology, Inc., is a defendant in six putative class actions
alleging, among other things, that the Company breached its
fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger
between Avago Wireless, Pluto and PLX, according to PLX's Form 8-K
dated June 25, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 8, 2014.

On June 25, 2014, June 26, 2014 and July 3, 2014, respectively,
three complaints were filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, against PLX Technology, Inc. ("PLX"), its
directors and certain officers, and Avago Technologies Limited
("Avago"), Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Avago
("Avago Wireless"), and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Avago Wireless
("Pluto" and collectively with Avago and Avago Wireless, the
"Avago Entities"). Additionally, on June 27, 2014, two complaints
were filed, and on July 2, 2014, a third complaint was filed, in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against PLX, its
directors and certain officers, and the Avago Entities. The six
cases are putative class actions brought by purported stockholders
alleging, among other things, that the PLX Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of June 23, 2014, between Avago Wireless,
Pluto and PLX, and that PLX and the Avago Entities aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. All six
complaints seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as
money damages.

PLX Technology, Inc. (PLX) is engaged in designing, developing,
manufacturing, and selling integrated circuits that perform
critical system connectivity functions. The Company markets its
products to customers that sell electronic systems in the
enterprise, consumer, server, storage, communications, personal
computer (PC) peripheral and embedded markets. PLX also provides a
range of connectivity bridges that allow systems that conform to
different standards communicate with each other, and to enable
customer field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) and application-
specific integrated circuits (ASICs) with non-standard interfaces
to connect up to the mainstream interconnects. PLX offers a
solution consisting of semiconductor devices, software development
kits, hardware design kits, software drivers and firmware
solutions. In July 2012, Entropic Communications Inc. acquired
specific direct broadcast satellite intellectual property and
corresponding technologies from the Company.


PPL CORP: Judge Trims Claims in Coal Ash Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that a Kentucky federal
judge on July 15 trimmed a proposed class action alleging dust
from a PPL Corp. coal-fired power plant contaminated nearby homes
and caused health problems, tossing most claims brought under the
Clean Air Act and another federal law but keeping alive state-law
nuisance and trespass claims.

In a ruling granting in part and denying in part a motion to
dismiss from PPL subsidiary Louisville Gas & Electric Co., U.S.
District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. found state regulators had
already ordered changes to operations at the coal-fired Cane Run
plant that largely addressed claims made by the plaintiffs under
the CAA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Kathy Little filed suit in 2013 alleging she and her neighbors
suffered thousands of dollars in property damage as a result of
dust emissions from the Cane Run plant, in addition suffering
respiratory ailments, eye irritation, skin irritation, and severe
mental and physical ailments from exposure to the dust, according
to their complaint.

The city of Louisville's Air Pollution Control District issued
several notices of violation to LG&E concerning particulate
emissions and the odors produced by Cane Run.  In July 2011, prior
to the plaintiffs' filing their lawsuit, the APCD issued a notice
of violation finding that LG&E allowed fly ash particulate
emissions to enter the air and be carried beyond its property
line.

The violations resulted in an order requiring LG&E to implement
and comply with a plantwide control plan to reduce dust and
emissions.  The defendants claimed these changes rendered most of
the plaintiffs' CAA claims moot by providing the relief they
sought -- an argument Judge McKinley agreed with.

"The court agrees with LG&E and PPL that in making these requests,
the plaintiffs ask the court to decide issues which were already
decided by the APCD -- and reach a different result than it did,"
Judge McKinley said.  "This is impermissible."

However, Judge McKinley refused to dismiss nuisance and trespass
claims made under Kentucky law, rejecting arguments from the
defendants that the CAA preempts state common-law claims.

Judge McKinley said his finding that the state-law claims were not
preempted by the CAA was supported by a Sixth Circuit ruling that
said language in the CAA "clearly indicates that Congress did not
wish to abolish state control" with regard to state-law statutory
claims.

"We are pleased with the ruling," the plaintiffs' attorney Steve
Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP told Law360.  "With the
state-law claims being upheld, this provides a clear path for the
injured homeowners to recover from the injuries caused by the
pollution from the coal ash."

Besides the state-law claims, Judge McKinley refused to dismiss
the portion of the plaintiffs' CAA claims alleging LG&E's
operating permit for the Cane Run plant expired in 2007.  Judge
McKinley refused to consider LG&E's documentation related to the
renewal application on the basis the court may not take judicial
notice of facts subject to reasonable dispute as part of a motion
to dismiss.

Judge McKinley also denied a request to dismiss LG&E parent
company PPL from the case, rejecting the defendants' arguments
that the plaintiffs failed to provide information as to any
conduct by PPL that caused or contributed to the alleged
violations.  Judge McKinley ruled that the plaintiffs "have
implicitly alleged that PPL controlled and/or supervised the
plant," and that PPL therefore can't be dismissed from the case at
this stage in the litigation.

An LG&E spokesman told Law360 that the company welcomes the
court's ruling despite not agreeing with every element within it.

"It is a thoughtful decision, and we are pleased that the
litigation has been significantly pared down by the court at this
early stage," the company said, adding that it will "continue to
defend this matter vigorously."

The plaintiffs are represented by Noah I. Axler and Michael D.
Donovan of Donovan Axler LLC; Steve W. Berman and Ari Y. Brown of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Charles L. Williams of Williams &
Skilling PC; and Jeffrey M. Sanders of Jeffrey M. Sanders PLLC.

The defendants are represented by John C. Bender and Richard C.
Larkin of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP; Sheryl G. Snyder and Jason
P. Renzelmann of Frost Brown Todd LLC; Nash E. Long, Brent A.
Rosser, Sarah Anna Santos, F. William Brownell and Robert M. Rolfe
of Hunton & Williams LLP; and J. Gregory Cornett, Travis A. Crump
and Robert J. Ehrler of LG&E and KU Energy LLC.

The case is Little et al. v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. et al.,
case number 3:13-cv-01214, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky.


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Defendant in 2 Brucejack Project Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two proposed class actions were filed in Ontario against Pretium
Resources Inc., alleging that certain of the Company's disclosures
contained material misrepresentations or omissions regarding the
Brucejack Project, according to the Company's Form F-10 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2014.

On October 29, 2013, David Wong, a shareholder of the Company,
filed a proposed class action against the Company, Robert
Quartermain (a director, the President and the CEO of the Company)
and Snowden (the "Wong Action"). A similar proposed class action
was filed by Roksana Tahzibi, a shareholder of the Company, on
November 1, 2013 (the "Tahzibi Action"). The defendants in the
Tahzibi Action are the Company, Mr. Quartermain, Joseph Ovsenek
(an officer and director of the Company), Kenneth McNaughton (an
officer of the Company), Ian Chang (an officer of the Company) and
Snowden. The Wong Action and Tahzibi Action (together, the
"Ontario Actions") were filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.

The plaintiffs in the Ontario Actions seek certification of a
class action on behalf of a class of persons, wherever they
reside, who acquired the Company's common shares commencing on
November 22, 2012, and ending on October 22, 2013 (in the case of
the Wong Action) or commencing on July 23, 2013 and ending on
October 21, 2013 (in the case of the Tahzibi Action). The
plaintiffs in the Ontario Actions allege that certain of the
Company's disclosures contained material misrepresentations or
omissions regarding the Brucejack Project, including statements
with respect to probable mineral reserves and future gold
production at the Brucejack Project. The plaintiffs further allege
that until October 22, 2013, the Company failed to disclose
alleged reasons provided by Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. for
its resignation as an independent qualified person overseeing the
bulk sample program. The Tahzibi Action also includes a claim for
unjust enrichment as against Mr. McNaughton.

The Wong Action claims $60 million in general damages. The Tahzibi
Action claims $250 million in general damages.

The plaintiffs in the Ontario Actions have asked for the
appointment of a case management judge. The Company believes that
the allegations made against it in Ontario Actions are meritless
and will vigorously defend them, although no assurance can be
given with respect to the ultimate outcome of the Ontario Actions.

Pretium Resources Inc., is engaged in the acquisition, exploration
and development of precious metal resource properties. The
Company's projects include Brucejack Project and the Snowfield
Project. The Brucejack Project is located approximately 950
kilometers northwest of Vancouver, British Columbia and 65
kilometers north-northwest of Stewart, British Columbia and
consists of nine mineral claims totaling 3,199.28 hectares in
area. It holds 100% interest in Brucejack Project. The Snowfield
Project is located in northern British Columbia is located 65
kilometers north of the town of Stewart and 21 kilometers south-
southeast of Barrick's Eskay Creek Mine. It consists of one
mineral claim with an area of 1,267.43 hectares. The Snowfield
property hosts a porphyry-style gold deposit with gold-copper,
molybdenum and rhenium mineralization.


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Moved to Dismiss U.S. Brucejack Project Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pretium Resources Inc., moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
class action complaint filed in the United States alleging that
the Company misrepresented or failed to disclose material
information concerning the Brucejack Project, according to the
Company's Form F-10 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 8, 2014.

Between October 2013 and November 2013, five putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, alleging that defendants
violated the U.S. securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to
disclose material information concerning the Brucejack Project.
All five actions were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2014, the Court ordered that these actions be
consolidated into a single action, styled In re Pretium Resources
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 13-CV-7552. The Court has
appointed as lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action three
individuals who are suing on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common shares between
November 20, 2012 and October 21, 2013. In March 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.

In May 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint. The motion remains pending. The
Company believes that the allegations made against it in these
actions are meritless and will vigorously defend the matter,
although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate
outcome of such proceedings.

Pretium Resources Inc. is engaged in the acquisition, exploration
and development of precious metal resource properties. The
Company's projects include Brucejack Project and the Snowfield
Project. The Brucejack Project is located approximately 950
kilometers northwest of Vancouver, British Columbia and 65
kilometers north-northwest of Stewart, British Columbia and
consists of nine mineral claims totaling 3,199.28 hectares in
area. It holds 100% interest in Brucejack Project. The Snowfield
Project is located in northern British Columbia is located 65
kilometers north of the town of Stewart and 21 kilometers south-
southeast of Barrick's Eskay Creek Mine. It consists of one
mineral claim with an area of 1,267.43 hectares. The Snowfield
property hosts a porphyry-style gold deposit with gold-copper,
molybdenum and rhenium mineralization.


PROGRESSIVE FINANCE: Accused of Violating FDCPA in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Williams v. Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-05373 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2014), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.

Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC, is a debt collector with
address at 11629 S. 700 East, Draper, Utah 84020.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      1669 East 12th Street, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718)339-0856


RAYMOND JAMES: Court Approved Closed End Funds Accord for $62MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that certain of the
Morgan Keegan entities, but entities which were not part of the
Company's Morgan Keegan acquisition, have been named in class-
action lawsuits in which the Court approved the settlement
regarding the closed end funds for $62 million, in August 2013.

According to the Company, "Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities,
along with Regions, have been named in class-action lawsuits filed
in federal and state courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions
and investors who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the
Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds"). The
Regions Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management
("MAM"), an entity which was at one time a subsidiary of one of
the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity which was not part of
our Morgan Keegan acquisition. The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Regions Funds and the
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts
relating to the activities of the funds. In August 2013, the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
approved the settlement of the class action and the derivative
action regarding the closed end funds for $62 million and $6
million, respectively. No class has been certified. Certain of the
shareholders in the funds and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in the class action lawsuits."

Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) is a financial holding
company. The Company's subsidiaries are engaged in various
financial services businesses predominantly in the United States
of America and Canada. As of September 30, 2013, its principal
subsidiaries include Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (RJ&A),
Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (RJFS), Raymond James
Financial Services Advisors, Inc. (RJFSA), Raymond James Ltd. (RJ
Ltd.), Eagle Asset Management, Inc. (Eagle), and Raymond James
Bank, N.A. (RJ Bank). All of these subsidiaries are wholly owned
by RJF.The Company opeartes in five segments: Private Client Group
or PCG; Capital Markets; Asset Management; RJ Bank and the Other
segment.


RAYMOND JAMES: Trial in Lawsuit v. Subsidiary Set for Sept. 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative, but currently uncertified class action was brought
against a subsidiary of Raymond James Financial, Inc., seeking
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, is set for trial in
September 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May
9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The states of Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged
securities law violations by MK & Co. in the underwriting and sale
of certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action was brought by
the Missouri Secretary of State in April 2013, seeking monetary
penalties and other relief. In November 2013, the state dismissed
this enforcement action and refiled the same claims as a civil
action in the Circuit Court for Boone County, Missouri. Civil
actions were brought by certain investors of the bonds beginning
in March 2012, seeking a return of their investment and
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. A putative, but
currently uncertified class action was brought on behalf of
purchasers of the bonds on September 4, 2012, seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. These actions are in various
stages of litigation, with the putative class action set for trial
in September 2014. These matters are subject to the
indemnification agreement with Regions.

Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) is a financial holding
company. The Company's subsidiaries are engaged in various
financial services businesses predominantly in the United States
of America and Canada. As of September 30, 2013, its principal
subsidiaries include Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (RJ&A),
Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (RJFS), Raymond James
Financial Services Advisors, Inc. (RJFSA), Raymond James Ltd. (RJ
Ltd.), Eagle Asset Management, Inc. (Eagle), and Raymond James
Bank, N.A. (RJ Bank). All of these subsidiaries are wholly owned
by RJF. The Company operates in five segments: Private Client
Group or PCG; Capital Markets; Asset Management; RJ Bank and the
Other segment.


RITE AID: Defendant in FLSA Complaint in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed that it has been named in a pending
collective and class action lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay
overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under
certain New York state statutes, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on July 3, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2014.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state
and federal claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court
conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of
individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since
March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit
action be sent to the purported members of the collective group
(approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and
approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to
certification issues has been completed. On September 26, 2013,
the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York
store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to
damages, and denied the Company's motion for decertification of
the nationwide collective action claims.

The Company has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the
Court's September 26, 2013 decision and briefing on that motion is
complete and awaiting a ruling. Once approved by the Court, notice
of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only will be
sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in
the state of New York. At this time, the Company is not able to
either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential
range of loss with respect to the lawsuit. The Company's
management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit
and not appropriate for collective or class action treatment and
is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Rite Aid Corporation is a retail drugstore chain in the United
States. In the Company's stores, it sells prescription drugs and a
range of other merchandise, which it calls front end products.
Front end products include over-the-counter medications, health
and beauty aids, personal care items, cosmetics, household items,
beverages, convenience foods, greeting cards, seasonal merchandise
and other everyday and convenience products, as well as photo
processing. It offers a variety of products under its private
brands, which contributed approximately 18.3% of its front end
sales in the categories where private brand products were offered
in fiscal 2013. Effective August 5, 2013, Rite Aid Corp acquired
Kings Pharmacy East Inc, which owns and operates pharmacy.
Effective April 1, 2014, Rite Aid Corp acquired Health Dialog
Services Corp, a Boston-based provider of healthcare system
research and development services. In April 2014, Rite Aid
acquired RediClinic.


RITE AID: Defendant in California Wage & Hour Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation is a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits alleging, among other things, violations of
California wage and hour laws, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on July 3, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2014.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations
pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed
meals and rest periods and failure to provide employee seating.
These suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial
damages. The Company has aggressively challenged both the merits
of the lawsuits and the allegations that the cases should be
certified as class or representative actions. With respect to
cases involving meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v. Rite
Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and
Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County Superior
Court), in light of the cost and uncertainty involved in these
lawsuits, the Company is involved in ongoing discussions with
counsel for the Plaintiffs concerning a possible resolution of
these matters. During the period ended March 1, 2014, the Company
recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters. With
respect to the other lawsuits described in this paragraph, the
Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome
of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to said lawsuits.

Rite Aid Corporation is a retail drugstore chain in the United
States. In the Company's stores, it sells prescription drugs and a
range of other merchandise, which it calls front end products.
Front end products include over-the-counter medications, health
and beauty aids, personal care items, cosmetics, household items,
beverages, convenience foods, greeting cards, seasonal merchandise
and other everyday and convenience products, as well as photo
processing. It offers a variety of products under its private
brands, which contributed approximately 18.3% of its front end
sales in the categories where private brand products were offered
in fiscal 2013. Effective August 5, 2013, Rite Aid Corp acquired
Kings Pharmacy East Inc, which owns and operates pharmacy.
Effective April 1, 2014, Rite Aid Corp acquired Health Dialog
Services Corp, a Boston-based provider of healthcare system
research and development services. In April 2014, Rite Aid
acquired RediClinic.


RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $23.6BB Damages in Robinson Tobacco Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for Law.com, reports that the so-called Engle
progeny tobacco litigation has been percolating away in Florida
for nearly a decade now, producing a steady stream of mostly
predictable verdicts and appeals with no end in sight.

Now a state court jury has broken the monotony in a big way.

Jurors in Pensacola awarded plaintiff Cynthia Robinson a whopping
$23.6 billion in damages on July 18, sticking R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company with the largest single-plaintiff wrongful death
verdict in Florida history.  The verdict follows a four-week trial
and an additional $17 million compensatory damages award issued on
July 16.

Ms. Robinson claimed that RJR's deceit about the dangers of
smoking led to her husband Michael Johnson's lung cancer and early
death in 1996.

RJR was represented at trial by a team from Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice including Randal Baringer -- rbaringer@wcsr.com
-- Jonathan Engram -- jengram@wcsr.com -- and Geoffrey Beach --
gbeach@wcsr.com The company immediately vowed to appeal the
verdict, calling it "grossly excessive and impermissible under
state and constitutional law."

"We plan to file posttrial motions with the trial court promptly
and are confident that the court will follow the law and not allow
this runaway verdict to stand," RJR vice president and assistant
general counsel J. Jeffery Raborn said in a statement.

The lead lawyer behind the July 18 outsized verdict is Willie Gary
of Gary, Williams, Parenti, & Watson, the Florida plaintiffs
lawyer known for his extravagant style and his private Boeing 737,
"Wings of Justice II."

"We hope that this verdict will send a message to RJ Reynolds and
other big tobacco companies that will force them to stop putting
the lives of innocent people in jeopardy," Mr. Gary said in a
statement.  Christopher Chestnut of the Chestnut Firm in Atlanta
and Howard Acosta, a St. Petersburg solo, also represent the
plaintiff.

The case is one of more than 3,000 individual smoker lawsuits
pending in Florida state and federal courts in the wake of Engle
v. Liggett Group, a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision that
vacated a record $145 billion class action verdict against the
tobacco companies.  The court decertified the Engle class but gave
some of the jury's key findings preclusive effect in future cases,
allowing plaintiffs to bypass proving that smoking causes many
diseases and that the defendants hid the dangers of smoking.

The July 18 eye-popping verdict comes just a month after the
cigarette makers lost their latest bid to rein in the sprawling
litigation at the U.S. Supreme Court.  The defendants have
consistently argued that Florida's courts are denying them due
process in the way they've interpreted the Engle ruling and
adopted the Engle jury's findings.  So far -- including after
multiple attempts to persuade the Supreme Court to weigh in -- the
argument hasn't gotten them anywhere.

As for plaintiff Cynthia Robinson, the July 18 verdict seems to
have surprised her as much as anyone.  She told The New York Times
that she initially thought the jury had awarded her multiple
millions, until her lawyer told her: "That was a 'B' -- billion."


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Moved to Dismiss Amended WMS Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation in February 2014, moved to dismiss an
amended complaint filed by plaintiffs in a putative class action
alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with WMS merger,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

Complaints challenging the WMS merger were filed in early 2013 in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois and the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Lake County, Illinois.  The actions are putative class actions
filed on behalf of WMS stockholders.  The complaints generally
allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their consideration and approval of the merger and
in connection with their public disclosures concerning the merger.
The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS,
Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific
Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The
plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the
acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs
in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware
Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with
the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the
consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions have been transferred to Cook
County. All of the Illinois actions have been consolidated in Cook
County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH
3540).

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion
for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on
the merger. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in the
Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions
in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for
preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote in return for WMS's agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those
supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on April 29, 2013.

The plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed a claim for interim
attorney fees of $0.85 million. In November 2013, the court
granted our motion to stay the plaintiffs' claim for an interim
award of attorney fees.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an
amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged
aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company believes the claims in the Illinois and Delaware
actions are without merit.

Scientific Games Corporation is a global supplier of solutions to
lottery and gaming organizations worldwide. The Company's products
and services include instant lottery games, lottery gaming
systems, terminals and services, and Internet applications, as
well as server-based interactive gaming machines and associated
gaming control systems. The Company reports its operations in
three segments: Printed Products Group, Lottery Systems Group and
Diversified Gaming Group. Printed Products Group is a provider of
instant lottery tickets in the world. The Company's Lottery
Systems Group is a provider of customized computer software,
software support, equipment and data communication services to
lotteries. In October 2013, the Company announced that it has
completed the acquisition of WMS Industries Inc.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Settles Overtime Class Action for $5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that Sears Holdings
Management Corp. agreed on July 16 to pay $5 million to end a
proposed class action accusing the retail giant of misclassifying
about 700 employees at Sears and Kmart retail stores as overtime
exempt in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

If approved by U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur, the
settlement will put to bed the Illinois federal court suit that
was filed in July 2011 by named plaintiff Robert O'Toole on behalf
of current and former loss prevention managers at Sears and Kmart
stores across the country who were denied overtime compensation.

"This settlement resolves all current and potential litigation
concerning the classification of the LPM position," the motion for
approval of the settlement said.  "The parties believe that the
settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the
class members [and it] spares the litigants the uncertainty, delay
and expense of a trial, while simultaneously reducing the burden
on judicial resources."

Mr. O'Toole's suit, which was amended in April 2012 to include 13
more named plaintiffs, claimed Sears and Kmart had a "policy and
practice" of refusing to pay employees overtime for working more
than 40 hours per week.

As part of the deal, the parties are seeking certification for a
collective class of employees making claims under the FLSA as well
as seven classes of employees in Illinois, California, Oregon,
Washington, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania making claims
under each of the states' various wage laws, according to court
documents.

Judge Shadur had conditionally certified the collective action
under FLSA in October 2011.  To date, 657 class members have opted
into the collective action, according to the settlement.

The FLSA class would include all plaintiffs who opted into Mr.
O'Toole's suit as well as class members from a second related
class action as of July 14.  The state wage law classes, save for
the New York group, would include Sears or Kmart employees who
worked for the retail chains from as far back as 2009, according
to the settlement.

Unlike all the other subclasses, however, the proposed New York
class would not include Kmart workers and would cover Sears
employees in the state stretching back to 2006, according to the
settlement.

The related suit, filed in January by named plaintiff Michael
Nowalski, includes a proposed class of 36 individuals who did not
opt into the O'Toole class, according to court documents.  As part
of the deal, the Nowalski suit will be voluntarily dismissed and
its class members would be eligible to receive funds from the
July 16 settlement, the parties said.

Of the $5 million Sears agreed to pay, attorneys representing the
class members are seeking a one-third payout of approximately $1.6
million to cover attorneys' fees as well as a $5,000 award for
each named plaintiff, according to the deal.

Following the deductions, the parties estimate that the deal will
pay the workers an average of about $21 for each week they worked
during the relevant statutory time period covered by the
settlement, or an average of about $1,800 per worker.

Sears spokesman Howard Riefs told Law360 on July 17 that resolving
the matter "allows us to focus our energies and resources on
providing our customers and members with superior service and
value."

"The company maintains its actions were legal," Mr. Riefs said.
"However, we decided to settle to avoid the burden, expense, and
uncertainties involved in continued litigation and to eliminate
disruption to our day-to-day businesses."

The proposed class is represented by Michael A. Josephson, Andrew
W. Dunlap and Joseph C. Melugin of Fibich Hampton Leebron Briggs &
Josephson LLP and Douglas M. Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com -- and
Maureen Salas -- msalas@flsalaw.com -- of Werman Salas PC.

Sears and Kmart are represented by Gregory P. Abrams --
gabrams@morganlewis.com -- Anne Marie Estevez --
aestevez@morganlewis.com -- Sharon A. Lisitzky, Brendan Killeen,
Christopher M. Robertson, James P. Walsh Jr. and Terry D. Johnson
-- terry.johnson@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is O'Toole v. Sears Holdings Management Corp., case
number 1:11-cv-04611, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


SHANGHAI HUSI: McDonald's, Yum Suspend Meat Product Purchases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Burkitt, Jacob Bunge and Julie Jargon, writing for The Wall
Street Journal, report that the U.S. owner of a meat supplier in
Shanghai apologized and promised a swift response on July 21 after
McDonald's Corp. and Yum Brands Inc. suspended purchases in China
in the wake of allegations it sold expired chicken and beef to
restaurants.

McDonald's and Yum, parent of KFC and Pizza Hut, said they halted
orders from Shanghai Husi Food Co., owned by OSI Group Inc. of
Aurora Ill., after local Chinese media reported that Shanghai Husi
was selling meat products beyond their shelf life.

China's Food and Drug Administration announced it halted on
July 20 all business activities of Shanghai Husi and that it
launched a nationwide investigation of the company.

OSI, a longtime supplier to both fast-food companies, said its
executives were "appalled" by the report and apologized to its
customers and consumers.  The company "has formed an investigation
team, is fully cooperating with inspections being conducted by
relevant, supervising government agencies, and is also conducting
its own internal review," it said.

OSI said it thinks the media report showcased an "isolated event"
but "takes full responsibility for the situation and will take
appropriate actions swiftly."  A spokeswoman declined to comment
further.

In a statement on its official microblog account posted late on
July 21, Starbucks Corp. said it pulled a chicken applesauce
panini available at some of its Chinese stores because its
supplier used chicken ingredients from Shanghai Husi.  It also
pledged to adhere to its global quality standards as well as
Chinese law.  "We put quality and safety first," it said.

The episode is the latest in a long series of food-industry flaps
in China that have prompted calls for improved safety standards
and oversight.  Concerns about the conditions of domestic hog
farms and the use of antibiotics in poultry production have
spurred China's government to push modernization in the meat
sector -- moves that often include Chinese industry turning to
Western companies for raw materials and expertise.

Closely held OSI, which had $6.1 billion in sales last year and
ranks among the largest U.S. meat processors, has been active in
China since 1991 and currently operates in eight cities there,
supplying meat as well as produce.  OSI began supplying McDonald's
Chinese operations in 1992 and Yum in 2008, according to the meat
processor's website.

Meat-industry experts said that expired meat likely represented a
quality problem, rather than a food-safety threat.  However, the
perception of lax quality control within a key supplier to major
restaurant chains was expected to resonate with Chinese consumers,
many of whom prize imported brands and foreign labels because
these are believed to maintain higher standards than their Chinese
rivals.

"It will raise questions about U.S. food processors in general,"
said Michael Doyle, professor and director of the Center for Food
Safety and Quality Enhancement at the University of Georgia.
"Perception is reality."

McDonald's spokeswoman Heidi Barker said on July 21 that if the
practices described in media reports were confirmed, they would be
"completely unacceptable to McDonald's."

The company said it has switched to other suppliers, and was
cooperating fully with authorities investigating the issue.

McDonald's, which has more than 2,000 outlets in China, has been
trying to solidify its standing with Chinese consumers. The
company faced tough times in the country last year, with sales at
stores open 12 months or more down 3.6% compared with 2012.

The development could be a bigger setback for Yum, which has just
begun to recover from food-safety issues that had dogged the
company for more than a year.

A Chinese media report in November 2012 alleged that two KFC
chicken suppliers had been using growth hormones and excessive
levels of antibiotics to help chickens grow faster.  The claims,
which quickly spread online, tapped into widespread consumer fears
in China over food safety.

Government officials investigated, and recommended Yum strengthen
its poultry supply-chain practices, which Yum said it had done.
Still, Yum's sales in China struggled for much of last year,
further hurt by a bird-flu outbreak last spring.  The company has
staged a recovery recently with new menu items and marketing
campaigns.  Yum has reported that in the second quarter of this
year, same-store sales in China rose 15%, driven by 21% growth at
KFC.  Sales in China account for more than half of Yum's revenue.

Yum said its decision to stop buying meat from Husi would cause
temporary supply shortages for two breakfast products at some KFC
restaurants and a beef product at Pizza Hut outlets.  Yum said it
"will not tolerate any violations of government laws and
regulations from our suppliers."

OSI, which traces its roots to a suburban Chicago meat market
founded in 1909, has built its business on processing huge volumes
of meat for restaurant chains that require a steady, consistent
supply around the world.  In 1955, OSI struck what would become a
lasting alliance with McDonald's, agreeing to supply the then-
fledgling burger chain with beef patties.

China has been a major focus for OSI as it seeks to keep pace with
the demands of customers targeting the world's largest market for
chicken and pork. Along with McDonalds and Yum, OSI supplies
Chinese operations of Burger King Worldwide Inc., Subway, Papa
John's International Inc. and Starbucks Corp., according to OSI.

OSI last year opened its ninth and 10th plants in China, part of a
$750 million investment to become one of China's biggest poultry
producers, capable of processing more than 300 million chickens
per year through complexes that include hatcheries, farms, feed
mills and slaughterhouses.

The same approach has been adopted by rivals such as Tyson Foods
Inc. of Springdale, Ark., the largest U.S. meat processor.
However, Tyson earlier this year said its expansion in China would
slow as consumers' demand for poultry in the country cooled
following recent outbreaks of avian influenza.


SHANGHAI HUSI: McDonald's Japan Cuts Ties Over Expired Meat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Burkitt, Megumi Fujikawa and Fanfan Wang, writing for The
Wall Street Journal, report that more companies are cutting ties
to a U.S.-owned Chinese food supplier over worries that they may
have served expired meat to their customers, as they moved to
shore up their reputations in a market known for food-safety
problems.

The issue, which on July 21 prompted KFC owner Yum Brands Inc.
and McDonald's Corp.'s China arm to drop the China-based food
supplier, spread to Japan on July 22.  McDonald's on July 22 said
its outlets there cut ties with Shanghai Husi Food Co., an arm of
OSI Group Inc. of Aurora, Ill.  Shanghai Husi has been accused in
Chinese media reports of selling meat products beyond their shelf
life.

McDonald's said it pulled chicken nuggets supplied by the company,
affecting 10% of its Japanese stores, a move that will create a
short-term nugget shortage until new orders arrive from a supplier
in Thailand.

"In this case we do feel that we were a bit deceived relative to
one of these plants," said McDonald's CEO Don Thompson, speaking
on the company's earnings conference call on July 22.

McDonald's, which has more than 2,000 outlets in China, is working
with Chinese authorities to investigate, a company spokeswoman
said.  "It appears from the initial news report that these alleged
mis-practices have been hidden from McDonald's," she said.

OSI representatives in China didn't respond to requests for
comment on July 22.  On July 21 the company said it believed the
Chinese media reports depicted an isolated incident, but said it
takes full responsibility and would act accordingly.

In China, Starbucks Corp., Burger King, the 7-Eleven convenience
store chain and others on July 22 also said they cut ties with
Shanghai Husi.

China's Food and Drug Administration ordered nationwide checks on
July 22 of restaurants that Shanghai Husi supplied.  Local
authorities in China have also moved to seize meat products across
the country that they deem suspicious.  Shanghai's municipal
government said on July 22 it visited nine companies that used the
supplier and seized 100 metric tons of meat products.

The spreading worries and swift actions by foreign companies show
the sensitivity of the issue in China.  Chinese consumers don't
react well to a perception of lax quality control, said Ben
Cavender, a senior analyst at Shanghai-based consultancy China
Market Research Group.

"When you're looking at the Chinese market, you have to see what
the consumer sees," said Mr. Cavender, adding, "They trust foreign
companies like McDonald's and they expect them to hold up their
end of the bargain."

Experts say China's food safety has improved since 2008, when the
country was galvanized by the deaths of six infants and illness in
more 300,000 in a tainted-milk scandal.  But they say enforcement
hasn't kept up with new regulations mandating inspections of meat-
processing plants and manufacturers, and episodes of food problems
are commonly reported by local media.

The problems aren't lost on Chinese consumers.  In a survey last
year of more than 3,200 Chinese people, 38% said food safety was a
"very big problem," up from 12% in 2008, according to Pew
Research.

Many companies selling food in China are forced to take action
beyond what they do in the U.S. or other markets to make up for
lax enforcement.  Many also beef up inspections because Chinese
regulators often levy fines and other penalties on retail outlets
for problems that stem from manufacturers, the retailers say.  In
the U.S. and most other countries, it is usually manufacturers
that have primary responsibility for product quality.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. tests at least 600 products daily in China to
catch flaws before the food is sent out to stores.  Chicken
processor Tyson Foods Inc. has spent hundreds of millions of
dollars in recent years to build its own farms in China so that it
can control the safety of its entire supply chain, from chicks
hatching to the grocer's shelf. In the U.S., Tyson doesn't run its
own farms.

Seven & i Holdings Co., the parent of the 7-Eleven chain, said it
halted sales of products including pork-egg hamburgers and pepper-
chicken hamburgers that it sold only in its Shanghai outlets.  A
spokesman said there were no reports of illnesses so far, and that
the company reported information to health authorities in China.

Starbucks said it withdrew a chicken applesauce panini available
at some of its Chinese stores because its supplier used chicken
ingredients from Shanghai Husi.

Burger King Worldwide Inc. said on its official microblog that it
severed supplies from Shanghai Husi on July 21.  Echoing
McDonald's, a Burger King spokeswoman said the fast-food chain
feels "we were deceived." The company has begun an investigation
into the matter and continues to cooperate fully with Chinese
food-safety authorities, she said.

Fast-food chain Dicos, owned by Taiwanese company Ting Hsin
International, said on its official microblog that the China-based
company has stopped selling breakfast sandwiches that used ham
from the meat supplier.

Closely held OSI, which had $6.1 billion in sales last year and
ranks among the largest U.S. meat processors, has been active in
China since 1991 and currently operates in eight cities there,
supplying meat as well as produce.  OSI began supplying the
Chinese operations of McDonald's in 1992 and those of Yum in 2008,
according to the meat processor's website.


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: $425K Deal With Fire Service Technicians Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maria-Elena James of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted final approval to Siemens
Industry, Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by
Albert Ching.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Siemens has agreed to pay up
to $425,000 to settle and release all claims asserted by the
Plaintiff on behalf of the proposed class.  The Class is defined
as "all current or former Service Technicians employed to install,
inspect, repair and/or maintain fire systems by Siemens in the
State of California between August 19, 2007, and
December 31, 2012."

The Court awards the Plaintiff's counsel attorneys' fees for
$127,000 and reimbursement of expenses for $9,000.  The Court also
awards an incentive payment of $5,000 to the Class
Representative/Plaintiff, Albert Ching.

The wage and hour class action was filed on September 30, 2011.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, failure to
pay prevailing wages and overtime under the California Labor Code
and failure to pay wages and overtime.

The case is Albert Ching v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 3:11-
cv-04838-MEJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


SKYLINE TOURS: Faces "Morinville" Action over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Morinville on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v.  Skyline Tours LLC, a limited liability company,
and John Doe, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-04347 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid compensation due to time-
shaving, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Skyline Tours LLC operates a double decker bus tour business in
New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Anne Seelig, Esq.
       C.K. Lee, Esq.
       LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
       30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (212) 465-1124
       Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
       E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
               cklee@leelitigation.com


SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patti Regal v. Springfield Township, Case No. 1:14-cv-04524
(D.N.J., July 17, 2014), alleges that the Defendant did not
properly compensate Plaintiff, and those similarly situated
employees, for all overtime hours worked in a work week.

Springfield Township is in the business of managing the Township
of Springfield.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Must Pay $500 Mil. to Johns-Manville
---------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Travelers Indemnity Co. must pay more than $500 million to Johns-
Manville Corp. under an insurance policy covering asbestos claims,
a unanimous federal appeals panel has ruled, reinstating a
bankruptcy court order that had been overturned by a district
court.

A Second Circuit panel ruled on July 22 in In re: Johns-Manville
Corp., 12-1094-bk, that Southern District Judge John Koeltl had
been wrong to rule that settlements in 2003 and 2004 requiring
Travelers to pay the claims were not enforceable.

Judge Ralph Winter wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Rosemary
Pooler and Denny Chin.

Johns-Manville, a manufacturer of roofing and insulation, filed
for bankruptcy in 1982, facing a slew of asbestos-related claims
from employees.  In 1986, it accepted a settlement, and its
insurers agreed to pay $2.8 billion toward a fund to pay 660,000
asbestos claimants in exchange for a release from claims.

Despite that settlement, plaintiffs continued to sue insurers,
including Travelers, Johns-Manville's primary insurer, for
tortious interference.  They alleged that Travelers did not
disclose what it knew about asbestos risk to Johns-Manville.  In
2003 and 2004, Travelers entered into agreements in which it
agreed to pay those plaintiffs $445 million from the settlement
fund.  The agreements were contingent on an order "clarifying" the
1986 settlement and providing that Travelers would be released
from future asbestos claims.

The deal was challenged by various third parties, including Chubb
Indemnity Insurance Co., which argued that any indemnity claims it
might have against Travelers would be improperly barred by the
broad release.

A prior Second Circuit ruling found that third-party claims like
Chubb's were not barred.

In 2011, Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland ordered
Travelers to pay out the $445 million, plus interest.  Travelers
objected, arguing that the settlement could not be enforced
because it was getting a narrower release than it bargained for in
light of the Second Circuit's ruling on third-party claims.
Judge Koeltl agreed with that argument and found the settlement
unenforceable in March 2012 (NYLJ, March 5, 2012).  The plaintiffs
appealed.

Judge Winter, in the July 22 order, ruled that Travelers'
interpretation of the release "could not reasonably have been
intended by the parties, whatever Travelers' private hopes and
dreams, and is not supported by the language of the agreements."

In fact, he said, under Travelers' interpretation, the settlement
would have exceeded the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

"Travelers would have required the bankruptcy court either to: (i)
certify that all potential claimants -- all entities and
individuals on the planet, from now until the end of time -- have
received constitutionally sufficient notice of the 1986 orders and
their relevant proceedings; or (ii) bar all claimants whether or
not they had constitutionally sufficient notice," he wrote.  "But
neither action could have been intended by sophisticated parties
because each would have been well beyond the bankruptcy court's
power."

Judge Winter also ruled that Judge Lifland had correctly
calculated interest in the case.

Sander Esserman -- esserman@sbep-law.com -- of Stutzman, Bromberg,
Esserman & Plifka, who represents one of three groups of
plaintiffs involved in the appeal, said he was "very pleased" with
the decision.  "We think they clearly understood both the facts
and the applicable law and rendered their decision accordingly,"
he said.  "We look forward to the receipt of the money and the
eventual distribution to the plaintiffs, who have been waiting a
long time."

Ronald Barliant -- ronald.barliant@goldbergkohn.com -- a principal
at Goldberg Kohn who represents another group of plaintiffs, said
he was "particularly gratified that Judge Lifland's last order in
the Manville case has now been affirmed, because he certainly
worked very hard to bring about a just result in that case for
more than 20 years."

Joseph Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice, who
represents the third group of plaintiffs, said the decision "puts
an end to a 10-year battle."

The settlement was brokered by former governor Mario Cuomo --
mcuomo@willkie.com -- who has remained involved in the case
through the various challenges and appeals.

Mr. Cuomo, of counsel at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, said he
expected the case would continue after the Second Circuit's order.

"Travelers has a number of options and I'm sure they'll use some
of them," he said.

Furthermore, he said, some people entitled to relief might still
have objections.

Mr. Cuomo said the case, which he noted had spanned a "large part"
of his career, was remarkable both for the length of time it has
taken, and because it "shows the flexibility in our system."

"It was an extraordinary ride, and it's not over yet," Mr. Cuomo
said.

Travelers is represented by Barry Ostrager, a partner at Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett, who could not be reached for comment.

Travelers spokesman Patrick Linehan said in an email, "We are
still reviewing the decision, but this is a matter we have
disclosed for more than 10 years, and we have contemplated this as
a potential outcome in our reserving, although we do not have a
provision for interest of approximately $75 million pre-tax, or
approximately $50 after tax."


UNITED STATES: Denies Counsel to Undocumented Kids, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that public interest attorneys on
July 9, 2014, filed a federal class action against the United
States, claiming it is illegally denying counsel to thousands of
undocumented children whom the government already has started
deporting.

Attorneys for lead counsel the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
claim Attorney General Eric Holder et al. are violating the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the due process clause of the
Fifth Amendment.

The lawsuit comes as thousands of undocumented children, many of
them unaccompanied, are being flown and bused hither and yon
across the country after being arrested, usually, in Texas.

"Plaintiffs are eight immigrant children, ranging in age from ten
to seventeen," the 27-page lawsuit begins.  "The government has
begun proceedings to deport each of them; they will soon be called
to appear before an Immigration Judge.  In court, the Department
of Homeland Security ('DHS') will be represented by a trained
lawyer who will argue for the child's deportation.  But no lawyer
will stand with the child.  Each will be required to respond to
the charges against him or her, and, in theory, will be afforded
an opportunity to make legal arguments and present evidence on his
or her own behalf.  But in reality those rights will be
meaningless because children are not competent to exercise them.
Each child has attempted to find representation through pro bono
legal service providers, but none of them have found anyone with
the resources to take on their cases.  Absent this Court's
intervention, these children will be forced to defend themselves
pro se under the immigration laws -- a legal regime that, as the
courts have recognized, rivals the Internal Revenue Code in its
complexity."

Ninety-three paragraphs later, the complaint states: "The
Immigration and Nationality Act requires that all individuals in
removal proceedings be afforded a reasonable opportunity to, inter
alia, examine and present evidence and witnesses.  See 8 U.S.C.
Section 1229a(b).  These provisions require that unrepresented
children be provided a fair hearing in their immigration
proceedings.  The only way to ensure that these children receive a
fair hearing is by providing them with legal representation."

The complaint also claims that "The Due Process Clause requires
that unrepresented children in immigration proceedings be provided
legal representation."

The American Immigration Council, of Washington, D.C., co-counsel
in the case, issued a statement describing some of the child
plaintiffs:

   * "A 10-year-old boy, his 13-year-old brother, and 15-year-old
     sister from El Salvador, whose father was murdered in front
     of their eyes.  The father was targeted because he and the
     mother ran a rehabilitation center for people trying to
     leave gangs.

   * "A 14-year-old girl who had been living with her
     grandparents, but was forced to flee El Salvador after being
     threatened and then attacked by gang members.

   * "A 15-year-old boy who was abandoned and abused in
     Guatemala, and came to the United States without any family
     or friends.

   * "A 16-year-old boy born in Mexico who has lived here since
     he was 1 year old and has had lawful status since June 2010.

   * "A 16-year-old boy with limited communication skills and
     special education issues who escaped brutal violence exacted
     on his family in Honduras, and who has lived in Southern
     California since he was 8 years old.

   * "A 17-year-old boy who fled gang violence and recruitment in
     Guatemala and now lives with his lawful permanent resident
     father in Los Angeles."

The lawsuit, and the status of the children, recapitulates the
situation from the 1980s, when wars in Central America drove
millions of people from their homelands to the United States.
After several multi-year lawsuits, federal judges found that the
U.S. government had denied legal rights to hundreds of thousands
of refugees and asylum-seekers.  Many of the legal abuses then --
such as running detainees to court and strip searching children
and mothers for asking to see an attorney -- were inflicted in a
deliberate attempt to deny refuge-seekers access to counsel.

"At the present time, legal service organizations representing
immigrant children throughout the country have nowhere near the
capacity to meet the demand," the new complaint states.  "The
rising number of children fleeing to this country will likely
worsen that shortfall.  The Government, in contrast, is
represented in every case.

"Neither the Constitution nor the immigration laws permit this
state of affairs.  More than four decades ago, the Supreme Court
recognized that when the government initiates proceedings against
children facing juvenile delinquency charges, the Due Process
Clause requires the government to provide those children with
legal representation to ensure that the proceedings are
fundamentally fair.  In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 41 (1967).  The
Court held that '[t]he juvenile needs the assistance of counsel to
cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts,
to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain
whether he has a defense and to prepare and submit it.  The child
requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the
proceedings against him.'  Id. at 36 (citation and quotation marks
omitted).  The Constitution guarantees children this safeguard
notwithstanding the civil, rather than criminal, character of
juvenile delinquency proceedings. . . .

"Yet every day in courts throughout the country, children
represent themselves in deportation cases that are often more
complex and more serious than most juvenile delinquency cases.
The resulting adjudications are fundamentally unfair.  Children
are forced to admit or deny allegations against them, compile
evidence in support of their claims to remain in the United
States, and articulate legal arguments on their own behalf, when
in reality they 'are unlikely to understand the complex procedures
they face and the options and remedies that may be available to
them under the law.'

"To fulfill its statutory and constitutional obligations, the
government must ensure that no child faces the life-altering
prospect of deportation without legal representation."

Plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment and an
injunction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matt Adams, Esq.
          Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq.
          NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
          615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 957-8611
          Facsimile: (206) 587-4025

               - and -

          Ahilan Arulanantham, Esq.
          ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-5211
          Facsimile: (213) 417-2211
          E-mail: aarulanantham@aclu-sc.org

               - and -

          Cecillia Wang, Esq.
          Stephen Kang, Esq.
          ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0770
          Facsimile: (415) 343-0950
          E-mail: stephenbkang@gmail.com

               - and -

          Carmen Iguina, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-5211
          Facsimile: (213) 417-2211

               - and -

          Sarah Dunne, Esq.
          ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
          901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 624-2184

               - and -

          Kristen Jackson, Esq.
          Talia Inlender, Esq.
          PUBLIC COUNSEL
          610 South Ardmore Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: (213) 385-2977
          Facsimile: (213) 385-9089
          E-mail: kjackson@publiccounsel.org

               - and -

          Beth Werlin, Esq.
          Melissa Crow, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 G Street NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 507-7500
          Facsimile: (202) 742-5619

               - and -

          Theodore Angelis, Esq.
          Todd Nunn, Esq.
          K&L GATES
          925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-7580
          Facsimile: (206) 623-7022
          E-mail: theo.angelis@klgates.com
                  todd.nunn@klgates.com

The case is J.E.F.M., et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Attorney General,
United States, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01026, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle).


UNITED STATES: Salvadoran Kids Can Meet With Class Action Lawyers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union on July 17 said that Salvadoran
children who have recently been taken into custody by federal
agents after crossing the U.S. border and detained in Nogales,
Ariz., will be allowed to meet privately with attorneys to learn
their rights, a Los Angeles federal district court judge ruled on
July 17.

The order, which requires the federal government to provide
attorneys in a class action lawsuit with access to the detained
children by July 30, comes after attorneys with the National
Immigration Law Center (NILC), American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) Immigrants' Rights Project, ACLU of Southern California,
and Munger Tolles & Olson LLP were repeatedly denied permission to
meet with the children at newly opened federal detention
facilities, including one in Nogales, Ariz.

"It's beyond belief that the government has been categorically
denying children at Nogales, who are fleeing violence, the right
to meet with counsel," said Jennifer Chang Newell, senior staff
attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project.  "The court's
ruling means that despite the urgency of the situation at the
border, the children's rights must be fully respected."

NILC, ACLU and co-counsel have repeatedly expressed concerns that
the government may not be complying with the Orantes-Hernandez v.
Gonzales federal permanent injunction, which orders the government
to protect the due process rights of detained Salvadorans.

"Since its inception, our country has been a place of refuge for
people fleeing persecution," said Linton Joaquin, general counsel
of the National Immigration Law Center.  "Sadly, in recent weeks
detained Central American children and families have been blocked
from visiting with attorneys who could help them determine whether
they can and should be protected from being returned to the
violence they escaped.  [The] ruling is important not just for
these children, but for those of us who believe in protecting the
most vulnerable among us."

In its original injunction, the court found that the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, which preceded the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), had engaged in a pattern and practice of
coercing and otherwise improperly encouraging Salvadorans to waive
their rights to apply for asylum.  Salvadorans were pressured to
accept voluntary departure and waive a hearing during their arrest
and processing, and this pattern and practice of misconduct
extended to detention centers, where their access to counsel and
information about their rights was severely restricted.

The need to continue the injunction's protections was reaffirmed
by federal courts in 2007 and 2009.  Now, as tens of thousands of
refugees cross the U.S. border, immigrants' rights attorneys have
been denied access to the children to determine if their rights
and the Orantes injunction are being violated.

In the filing with the court, the civil rights groups argued that
recent press reports and photographs of the Central American
children at the border show that "children and families are being
detained in large facilities that were not designed for this
purpose, in extremely overcrowded and inadequate conditions
(including sleeping on the floor), and where it appears highly
likely that the terms of the permanent injunction in this case
regarding access to telephones, law libraries and legal rights
materials, as well as attorney visitation, are being violated
. . ."

"We are delighted that Judge Morrow has taken this big step to
ensure that the rights and safety of these vulnerable children are
protected," said Brad Phillips -- Brad.Phillips@mto.com -- a
lawyer at Munger Tolles.  Her ruling reaffirms one of the
fundamental principles for which this country has always stood --
that everyone, no matter their status, is entitled to be treated
with fairness and decency and in accordance with our
Constitution."

NILC, the ACLU, and the law firm of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP are
currently serving as class counsel for the Orantes class members.
Attorneys on the case include: Linton Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, and
Alvaro Huerta of NILC; Ahilan Arulanatham and Jennifer Chang
Newell of the ACLU; and Brad Phillips, Steve Kristovich --
Steve.Kristovich@mto.com -- Susan Nash -- Susan.Nash@mto.com --
David Taylor, Emily Murphy, Kenneth Trujillo-Jamison, and Thomas
Clancy -- Thomas.Clancy@mto.com -- of Munger, Tolles & Olson.


VENDOURATA CORP: "Luna" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Luna, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. Vendourata Corp. d/b/a Liberty Diner and Cristos Kunidaris,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05396 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vendourata Corp. is a food/beverage establishment located at 2059
Williamsbridge, Bronx, NY 10461.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAL-MART STORES: Falsely Marketed Cranberry Juice, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Reynolds and Patricia Bell individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-00381 (N.D. Fla., July 17, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant has made, and continues to make, affirmative
misrepresentations and omissions regarding its Great Value 100%
Cranberry Pomegranate Juice.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. runs large chains of discount department
stores and warehouse stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
      HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA
      2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 298-4455
      Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
      E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


WHITLEY MEMORIAL: Hospital Nurse Stole Morphine, Patients Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Randolph at Courthouse News Service reports that a hospital
nurse stole patients' morphine, leaving them to suffer post-
surgical pain, three patients claim in a class action in Indiana
state court.

Lead plaintiff Deb Newswanger sued Whitley Memorial Hospital dba
Parkview Whitley Hospital, in Whitley County Court. The hospital
is the only defendant.  Newswanger, et al., claim the hospital
failed to maintain secure access to its supply of hydromorphone,
allowing a registered nurse to filch it and give the patients a
simple saline solution instead.

Registered nurse Britte E. Smith was arrested in June and charged
with interference with medical services, theft and possession of a
narcotic drug, all felonies, according to Indiana news reports,
which cited Indiana State Police.

Smith, 40, is not a defendant in the class action, but she is
identified in the lawsuit as the nurse who allegedly stole the
morphine.  According to the complaint, Smith had access to a Pyxis
machine, which dispensed medication at the hospital patients.
Smith provided identification each time she used the Pyxis, which
the hospital relied on to manage access to and monitor use of
hydromorphone.

"Smith's access records to the medications kept by Pyxis revealed
highly elevated access for Hydromorphone HCL, beyond that typical
of other nurses using Pyxis," the complaint states.

"Smith was found to have manipulated the medications withdrawn,
replacing the liquid Hydromorphone HCL with saline.  The saline
was then given to patients unknowingly, as a supposed aid to the
reduction of their pain."

All three named plaintiffs claim they were given saline solution
rather than morphine for pain.

The hospital said in a statement that it cooperated with police.

The plaintiffs seek class certification and damages for negligence
and constructive fraud.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Vanderpool, Esq.
          VANDERPOOL LAW FIRM, PC
          1810 E Center St
          Warsaw, IN 46580
          Telephone: (574) 268-9995


* U.S. Regulators Sue Law Firms Over Loan Modification Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Stephenson, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S.
regulators and 15 states announced a wave of lawsuits on July 23
against law firms and mortgage assistance companies they said have
scammed borrowers since at least 2011 by falsely promising home
loan modifications and other foreclosure relief.

The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade
Commission together filed nine lawsuits against people and
companies they said misled consumers about their eligibility for
modifications and inflated the amounts borrowers could save.

"Not only do they collect hundreds or thousands of dollars in
upfront fees from homeowners and then not deliver any results, but
they make the loss of people's homes even more likely by telling
consumers not to pay their mortgage or to talk to their lenders or
servicers," Katie Fallow, the FTC's deputy director for consumer
protection, said on July 23.

The companies, some of which have already ceased operations, also
violated rules that ban relief providers from receiving payment
before the borrower reaches a modification agreement with the
bank, the regulators said.

State attorneys general also are bringing a total of 32 legal
actions as part of the sweep, which the agencies are calling
"Operation Mis-Modification."

After the 2007-2009 financial crisis, millions of Americans were
unable to make payments and found themselves facing foreclosure.
Struggling borrowers sought to change the terms of their loans and
lessen payments.

Regulators say some of the service providers that cropped up
offering relief actually took advantage of desperate consumers.

Some consumers were unable to reach anyone at the company after
they paid an initial fee.  Others believed they were paying for
legal representation, but never spoke to a lawyer, said
Steve Antonakes, deputy director of the consumer bureau.

"These companies are nothing more than fronts for scammers,"
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who filed lawsuits against
two Chicago-area companies, said in a statement.

Attorneys general from Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Indiana,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin filed related lawsuits.


                             *********

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  * * *