CAR_Public/140805.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 154

                             Headlines


A FRESH CUT: Faces "Reyes" Suit Seeking to Recover Unpaid Wages
AARP INC: Sued for Sharing Members' Information With 3rd Parties
ABA RETIREMENT PLAN: Ex-Basketball Players File Suit in W.D. Tex.
AFFYMAX INC: Cal. Court Approves Settlement; Hearing in Sept.
ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Mateo" Suit Over Alleges FLSA Violations

ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Mero" Suit Over Violation of FLSA
ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Ovalle" Suit Over Violation of FLSA
APPLE INC: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Ma" Suit Claims
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit v. Epocrates
AUTOLIV INC: Fairness Hearing in U.S. OSS Antitrust Suit Expected

AUTOLIV LIV: No Cert. Timeline for Canadian Lawsuit Over OSS
AUTOLIV INC: Inks MoU to Settle Suit by CLPT for $22.5 Million
BACK PORCH: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BASS PRO: Urged by Court to Push Argument in Hiring Bias Suit
BLUE BUFFALO: Accused of Misrepresenting Ingredients of Dog Food

BOSTON MARKET: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Inaccessible Facilities
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Direct Purchaser Case Stayed Pending Settlement
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Feb. 2015 Hearing in Indirect Purchaser Action
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Has Deal in Principle With Winn-Dixie et al.
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Has Confidential Deal in Assoc. Wholesale Case

CLOROX COMPANY: Court Refused to Certify Class in Fresh Step Suit
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Customers May Be Paid in 2011 Blizzard Suit
DRISCOLL STRAWBERRY: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Suit Claims
EBAY INC: N.C. Appeals Court Ruling in Ticket Resale Suit Final
EBAY INC: PayPal Sued in Cal. for Limiting Users' Accounts

EBAY INC: Faces Suit in U.S. for "Monopoly" of Online Auctions
EBAY INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged TCPA Violations
ELI LILLY: Seeks Indemnification From Takeda
ELI LILLY: Still Faces Actos(R) Product Liability Suit in Canada
ELI LILLY: Still Faces 360 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits

ELI LILLY: Faces 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Merger in Del., Mass.
FAB UNIVERSAL: Faces Securities Litigations in New York Court
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Faces "JonWall" Suit Over Propane Reduction
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Alleged Propane Price Fixing

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: RC Gasoline Sues Over Propane Price Fixing
FLAGLER COUNTY: Faces "Rudell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FLUIDMASTER INC: Falsely Marketed Steel Line Products, Suit Says
FUJI JAPANESE: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Waitress Claims
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Accused of Using Promoters to Raise Price

GANNETT SATELLITE: Accused of Illegal Disclosure of Users' Info
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls About 718,000 Vehicles on Safety Issues
GYRODYNE CO: N.Y. Court Signs Order to Show Cause in Merger Suit
HERBALIFE LTD: Faces "Awad" Securities Suit in C.D. California
HERBALIFE LTD: Trial on "Bostick" Claims to Begin in April 2015

HOUSTON AMERICAN: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Reversed
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Still Faces "Gross" Securities Suit in Mo.
KIMBALL INT'L: Receives $3.5MM From Two Antitrust Class Actions
KINDER MORGAN: Faces "Slotoroff" Case in Delaware Chancery Court
KINDER MORGAN: Faces "Burns and Zehrer" Case

KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Case Stayed Pending "Slotoroff" Action
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued Over Failure to Handle Diminution Claims
MAGNUM HUNTER: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York Court
MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Faces Federal RESPA "Violations" Lawsuits
MITSUBISHI UFJ: Faces Lawsuit in U.S. Over Benchmark Submissions

NIELSEN CO: Faces Class Suit Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime
NORTHERN TRUST: Records $19MM Pre-Tax Charge From Settlement
NOVEX BIOTECH: Sued Over False Claims Related to Growth Factor-9
PAYLOCITY CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime
PRECISION SOLIDS: "Perry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

PRETIUM RESOURCES: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Canada
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
PURE BEAUTY: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Defrauds Small Businesses, Owners Claim in Ill.
QUAKER OATS: Received Final OK of $1.4-Mil. Deal in Labeling Suit

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Wants Police Pension Fund Case Dismissed
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Parties Agree to Stay "Foss" Case
REMI GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Rovai" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report

SEMILEDS CORP: New York Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Sued for Breaching Privacy of 33,000 Patients
T & R MARKET: Faces Suit in New Mexico Alleging Abuse of Navajos
TRIPLE LI: Faces "Zalloum" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims

* Most Recalled Products Still in Use Despite Warnings


                            *********


A FRESH CUT: Faces "Reyes" Suit Seeking to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bulmaro Reyes, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. A Fresh Cut Lawn Maintenance and Landscape
Design Corp., and Dave Frawley, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05792 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2014) seeks judgment for all unpaid
wages and compensation due to the Plaintiff as provided by the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Fresh Cut is an "enterprise" as defined by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, owned and operated in Illinois.  Dave Frawley is
the owner of Fresh Cut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


AARP INC: Sued for Sharing Members' Information With 3rd Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AARP and its profit-seeking
subsidiary AARP Services share members' confidential information
with commercial third parties, a class action claims in Washington
Federal Court.


ABA RETIREMENT PLAN: Ex-Basketball Players File Suit in W.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mack Calvin, William Melchionni, and Claude Terry, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. San
Antonio Spurs, LLC, Pacers Basketball, LLC, The Denver Nuggets
Limited Partnership, Brooklyn Nets, LLC, Heather Staples, and the
American Basketball Association Players' Retirement Plan, Case No.
5:14-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2014), is a class action suit
to redress breaches of fiduciary duty related to the maintenance
and operation of the American Basketball Association Players'
Retirement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan Horne, Esq.
      Peter J. Strelitz, Esq.
      Steven Hart, Esq.
      SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
      100 Congress Avenue, Suite 800
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 476-7834
      Facsimile: (512) 476-7832
      E-mail: nhorne@smsm.com
              pstrelitz@smsm.com
              shart@smsm.com

         - and -

      Michael Kreppein, Esq.
      HUELAT MACK & KREPPEIN
      450 St. John Road, Suite 204
      Michigan City, IN
      Telephone: (291) 879-3253
      E-mail: mkreppein@hmkattorneys.com

         - and -

      Matthew T. Hefner, Esq.
      SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST
      30 North La Salle Street, Suite 1210
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-3466
      E-mail: mhener@shhllp.com


AFFYMAX INC: Cal. Court Approves Settlement; Hearing in Sept.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara
granted preliminary approval of the settlement of the consolidated
derivative action against Affymax, Inc., according to the
company's July 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On July 11, 2014, the California Superior Court for the County of
Santa Clara granted preliminary approval of the settlement of the
consolidated derivative action against certain current and former
directors and officers of Affymax, Inc. ("Affymax" or the
"Company"), and against Affymax as a nominal defendant, and the
Court set a further hearing, currently scheduled for September 19,
2014, to consider final approval of the settlement.


ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Mateo" Suit Over Alleges FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Mateo, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Ali Baba Hotel Corp., Ameritania 54th
Associates, LLC, Moderne F&B LLC, and Sharon Olson, Case No. 1:14-
cv-05654 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees as a result of Defendants' willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State
Wage and Hour laws.

The Defendants own and operate hotels in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Gian Fanelli, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (210) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              gmf@jbtlawgroup.com


ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Mero" Suit Over Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Mariana Mero, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Amsterdam Hospitality, LLC, Amsterdam Hospitality
Group, LLC, Ali Baba Hotel Corp., and Sharon Olson, Case No. 1:14-
cv-05655 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees as a result of Defendants' willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State
Wage and Hour laws.

The Defendants are engaged in hotel business and maintain their
principal places of business at 888 7th Ave, New York, NY, 10019
and 226 W. 54th Street., New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Gian Fanelli, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (210) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              gmf@jbtlawgroup.com


ALI BABA HOTEL: Faces "Ovalle" Suit Over Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Liza Ovalle, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Amsterdam Hospitality, LLC, Amsterdam Hospitality
Group, LLC, Ali Baba Hotel Corp., and Sharon Olson, Case No. 1:14-
cv-05651 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees as a result of Defendants' willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State
Wage and Hour laws.

The Defendants are engaged in hotel business and maintain their
principal places of business at 888 7th Ave, New York, NY, 10019
and 226 W. 54th Street., New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Gian Fanelli, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (210) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              gmf@jbtlawgroup.com


APPLE INC: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Ma" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chen Ma, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Apple Inc., a California corporation; Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 5:14-cv-03344 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2014), is brought for
the damages arising out of Apple's blunt violation of iPhone users
privacy.

In or around September 2012, Apple released iPhone 4 which
contains an iOS operating system software that enables iPhone 4 to
track its users' whereabouts down to every minute, record the
duration that users stay at any given geographical point, and
periodically transmit these data stored on the users' devices to
Apple's data base for future references. This function is referred
to as "Location Service."

Apple Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino
California, it manufactures iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C and
iPhone 5S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Wang, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ADAM WANG
      P.O. Box 10881
      Pleasanton, CA 94588
      Telephone: (408) 421-3403
      Facsimile: (408) 416-0248
      E-mail: adamqwang@gmail.com


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit v. Epocrates
--------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint in the suit, Police and Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13cv0945,
according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

In March 1, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California captioned Police and Fire Retirement System of the City
of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13cv0945, against
Epocrates and certain of its former officers and directors. On
October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
Epocrates and two of its former officers, asserting claims under
sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of all Epocrates stockholders that purchased shares between
February 2, 2011 and August 9, 2011. The amended complaint alleges
that Epocrates made false or misleading statements regarding the
timing of its pharmaceutical clients' regulatory approvals of
interactive messages while awaiting guidance from the Food and
Drug Administration on the use of advertising and social media,
which, among other things, caused the clients to delay spending on
marketing, negatively impacted Epocrates' sales and revenue
growth, and resulted in purported GAAP violations in Epocrates'
financial statements. The amended complaint sought certification
as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and the motion was granted by the Court on June
4, 2014, with leave for the plaintiff to amend the complaint. On
June 25, 2014, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
alleging essentially the same claims against the same defendants
as the prior amended complaint. On July 14, 2014, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.


AUTOLIV INC: Fairness Hearing in U.S. OSS Antitrust Suit Expected
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is currently anticipated that the fairness hearing for the
direct purchaser class settlement in the Occupant Safety Systems
(OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, of
which Autoliv, Inc. is a defendant, will occur in late 2014,
according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its
competitors are defendants in a total of eighteen purported
antitrust class action lawsuits filed between July 2012 and
October 2013. Fourteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
and have been consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS)
segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On May 30, 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability,
entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives
of each of the three classes of plaintiffs in the MDL. Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million
to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto
dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor
settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was
expensed during the quarter. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed
that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes would release
Autoliv from all claims and demands that were or could have been
asserted in the MDL. The direct purchaser settlement is subject to
potential downward adjustments to a floor of $24 million based on
the volume of Autoliv's sales represented by direct purchasers who
may elect to opt out from the direct purchaser settlement class.
Each settlement can be voided if opt-outs exceed certain
thresholds. On July 1, 2014, the settlements received preliminary
court approval. Each settlement remains subject to final approval
by the MDL Court following notice to the settlement class, an
opportunity for settlement class members to object or opt out, and
a fairness hearing. It is currently anticipated that the fairness
hearing for the direct purchaser class settlement will occur in
late 2014, and that notices to the settlement classes and the
fairness hearings for the other two class settlements will be
deferred by the plaintiffs and the MDL Court for processing with
additional, future settlements due to the cost of giving notice to
large settlement classes. These settlements, if approved, will not
resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt out of the
settlements or the claims of any purchasers of occupant safety
systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such
as states and municipalities.


AUTOLIV LIV: No Cert. Timeline for Canadian Lawsuit Over OSS
------------------------------------------------------------
There is currently no timeline for class certification or
discovery in the Canadian cases filed against Autoliv, Inc. on
behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers
of occupant safety systems, according to the company's July 18,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Four lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac
Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv,
Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14,
2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet
Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's
Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of
Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on
behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers
of occupant safety systems. The Company denies the overly broad
allegations of these lawsuits and intends to defend itself in
these cases. While it is probable that the Company will incur
losses as a result of these Canadian antitrust cases, the duration
or ultimate outcome of these cases currently cannot be predicted
or estimated and no provision for a loss has been recorded as of
June 30, 2014. There is currently no timeline for class
certification or discovery in the Canadian cases.


AUTOLIV INC: Inks MoU to Settle Suit by CLPT for $22.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis,
reflecting an agreement in principle to settle a securities
lawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5
million, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On April 17, 2013, the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of
Greater St. Louis ("CLPT") filed a purported class action
securities lawsuit against Autoliv and two of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Civil Action File No. 13-CIV-2546) (the "Lawsuit"), and later
added as a third individual defendant an employee of one of the
Company's subsidiaries. The amended complaint alleged, among other
claims, misrepresentations or failures to disclose material facts
that artificially inflated the Company's stock price in violation
of the federal securities laws, in particular Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
CLPT purports to bring the Lawsuit on behalf of a class of
purchasers of common stock of the Company between October 26, 2010
and July 21, 2011. CLPT seeks to recover damages in an unspecified
amount.

On June 27, 2014, the Company announced that it entered into a
memorandum of understanding with CLPT reflecting an agreement in
principle to settle the Lawsuit and the claims of the alleged
class for a payment of $22.5 million. The proposed agreement is
not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the
Company or any of the individuals named in the complaint. The
defendants are settling to eliminate the uncertainties, risk,
distraction and expense associated with protracted litigation. The
proposed agreement is subject to negotiation and execution of a
final settlement agreement among the parties and final approval by
the court following notice to the settlement class and a fairness
hearing. If approved, the settlement will resolve the claims
asserted in the Lawsuit against the Company and the individuals
named in the complaint, including the claims of the settlement
class members who do not opt out of the settlement. Autoliv has
recorded a net expense of approximately $4.5 million in its second
quarter results. The balance of the settlement amount will be paid
by Autoliv's insurance carrier.


BACK PORCH: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Holmes, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Back Porch Oyster Bar, Inc., Patricia Creef and Lee Creef,
individually and as the owners of the corporate Defendant, Case
No. 1:14-cv-02388 (N.D. Ga., July 24, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable
expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Back Porch Oyster Bar, Inc., is a corporation formed under the
laws of the State of Georgia which provides food and alcohol in
the State of Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry Allen Pankey, Esq.
      PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
      Suite 500, 4360 Chamblee Dunwoody Road
      Atlanta, GA 30331
      Telephone: (770) 670-6250
      Facsimile: (770) 670-6249
      E-mail: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com


BASS PRO: Urged by Court to Push Argument in Hiring Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bass Pro Shops failed to refute charges it discriminates against
minority job applicants, but a federal judge urged the company to
press its argument that it cannot be sued on behalf of
unidentified victims, reports Cameron Langford, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's case against Bass
Pro Outdoor World LLC, parent company of Bass Pro Shops, dates
back to 2007 when it issued a commissioner's charge based on
allegations that the retailer discriminated against black
applicants.

The agency amended the charge in 2008 to include allegations that
Bass Pro also rebuffed female, Hispanic and Asian applicants.

Title VII of The Civil Rights Act requires the EEOC to first
"endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment
practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation and
persuasion."

But after years of unproductive settlement talks the agency sued
Bass Pro in September 2011, accusing the Missouri-based company of
a "pattern or practice of unlawfully failing to hire black and
Hispanic applicants."

To prove its case the EEOC analyzed hiring data supplied by Bass
Pro and found the company had a shortfall of 1,000 black and
Hispanic hires compared to its competitors.

The agency claimed the odds of such a shortage of black and
Hispanic hires were less than one in a million.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison refused to dismiss the case in
March and ordered a stay for settlement talks on the EEOC's claims
that Bass Pro had violated Section 706 of the Civil Rights Act by
failing to hire minorities.  But the negotiations went nowhere and
Bass Pro filed a reprisal of its dismissal motion, arguing that
the EEOC had shown bad faith during the stay, and failed to
adequately investigate its claims before filing lawsuit.

The EEOC, meanwhile, urged Ellison to reconsider a previous ruling
in the case that it could not use Supreme Court precedent from
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States to prove
its section 706 claims.

In the International Brotherhood case the high court found that
once the named plaintiff in a pattern-or-practice discrimination
case proves the employer discriminated, all affected class members
are entitled to relief.

Ellison backtracked on July 30, 2014, and wrote that his "earlier
ruling was in error and that . . . the commission can employ the
Teamsters framework to prove its Section 706 claims."

Bass Pro contended that using the Teamsters precedent "would
render Section 707 superfluous" and go against a longstanding
principle that "terms in a statute should not be considered so as
to render any provision of that statute meaningless or
superfluous."

Section 706 of the Civil Rights Act pertains to the EEOC's "power
. . . to prevent unlawful employment practices," while Section 707
specifically states when a company "is engaged in a pattern or
practice" of employment discrimination the EEOC can sue it.

Ellison agreed with the EEOC's citation of 6th Circuit precedent
in Serrano v. Cintas Corp., where the appellate court decided
"relevant Supreme Court precedent suggests that the exclusion of
pattern-or-practice language from Section 706 does not mean that
the EEOC may utilize a pattern-or-practice theory only when
bringing suit under Section 707.  Instead, it suggests that the
inclusion of the language in Section 707 simply means that the
scope of the EEOC's authority to bring suit is more limited when
it acts pursuant to Section 707."

In its dismissal motion, Bass Pro also questioned whether the EEOC
can sue on behalf of unidentified people.

While admitting that it is a "very close question" Ellison
determined that he is "not fully persuaded that the commission is
barred from bringing Section 706 claims on behalf of unidentified
victims."

He did, however, urge Bass Pro to file a motion for an
interlocutory appeal to revisit the matter.

Though Ellison sided with the EEOC in the 47-page ruling he
conceded that guidance from the appellate courts would be much
appreciated.

"The disputes presented by these two motions reflect a fundamental
disagreement as to the role that the commission is to play in the
vindication of rights guaranteed by Title VII and the scope of its
authority to represent those who may have been aggrieved by
unlawful employment practices . . .  Indeed, this is an area of
law ripe for further illumination from the appellate courts.  All
of this is to say that, while the Court ultimately sides with the
EEOC on both motions, it is fully sensitive to the strength of the
antithesis," the judge wrote.

Bass Pro is represented by:

          Michael W. Johnston, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-3581
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: mjohnston@kslaw.com

The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bass Pro
Outdoor World, LLC, and Tracker Marine, LLC, Case No. 4:11-CV-
3425, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.


BLUE BUFFALO: Accused of Misrepresenting Ingredients of Dog Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Blue Buffalo Co.
misrepresents the ingredients of its dog food, a class action
claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.


BOSTON MARKET: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Inaccessible Facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Boston Market Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00997
(W.D. Pa., July 24, 2014), seeks a declaration that the
Defendant's facilities violate federal law as described and an
injunction requiring the Defendant to remove the identified access
barriers so that Defendant's facilities are fully accessible to,
and independently usable by individuals with mobility
disabilities, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Boston Market Corporation owns and operates a fast food chains
headquartered at 14103 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Direct Purchaser Case Stayed Pending Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on July 28, 2014,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2014, that the direct purchaser putative class cases
were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On February 28,
2014, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of
the Company's settlement of these cases, conditionally certifying
the class for settlement purposes and approving the Notice Plan
submitted by the parties.  The Court will hold a final fairness
hearing on the settlement on September 18, 2014.  All proceedings
against the Company in the direct purchaser putative class action
are stayed pending the Court's final approval of the Company's
settlement.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania court has organized
the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers
and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for
the named plaintiffs in each group.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large
domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to
artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that
all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by:
(a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports;
and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.

Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek
treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all other putative class members in the United States. Although
both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions
allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running
"through the present," the Court's ruling on the statute of
limitations alters the period for which damages are available.

In the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled
that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred
prior to September 24, 2004.  In the indirect purchaser putative
class action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover
damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of
limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted,
with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and
claim-by-claim basis.  The direct purchaser putative class actions
allege two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of
shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products.  The
direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the
Sherman Act.  The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the
statutes and common-law of various states and the District of
Columbia.

Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not
counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal
settlement papers).  In four of the remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Act.  In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling.
The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the
Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect
purchaser cases).

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.  While management believes
that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall
egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a
result of the settlements , there is still a reasonable
possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg
antitrust litigation.  At the present time, however, it is not
possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to
the Company because of these cases.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer and marketer of
shell eggs in the United States.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Feb. 2015 Hearing in Indirect Purchaser Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on July 28, 2014,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2014, that the indirect purchaser putative class
cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products
Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to
dismiss damages claims arising outside the limitations period
applicable to most causes of action.  On February 10 to 12, 2015,
the Court will hold a hearing on the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large
domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to
artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that
all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by:
(a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports;
and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.

Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek
treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all other putative class members in the United States. Although
both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions
allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running
"through the present," the Court's ruling on the statute of
limitations alters the period for which damages are available.  In
the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that
the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to
September 24, 2004.  In the indirect purchaser putative class
action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages
allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of
limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted,
with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and
claim-by-claim basis.  The direct purchaser putative class actions
allege two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of
shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products.  The
direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the
Sherman Act.  The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the
statutes and common-law of various states and the District of
Columbia.

Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not
counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal
settlement papers).  In four of the remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Act.  In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling.
The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the
Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect
purchaser cases).

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.  While management believes
that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall
egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a
result of the settlements, there is still a reasonable possibility
of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust
litigation.  At the present time, however, it is not possible to
estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company
because of these cases.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer and marketer of
shell eggs in the United States.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Has Deal in Principle With Winn-Dixie et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on July 28, 2014,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2014, that the six of the cases in which plaintiffs
do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the
putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products
Antitrust Litigation,  No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to
dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for damages arising
before September 24, 2004.  The parties have completed nearly all
fact discovery related to these cases.  The deadline for parties
to file dispositive motions is July 2, 2015.

On May 6, 2014, the Company agreed in principle to settle all
claims brought by the four plaintiffs in one of the non-class
cases pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.; Roundy's
Supermarkets, Inc.; C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.; and H.J. Heinz
Company, L.P. v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-
00510-GP.  The parties are still in the process of finalizing
their formal settlement papers.  The terms of the settlement are
confidential.  The Company is settling this case for an amount and
on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on the
Company's results of operations.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large
domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to
artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that
all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by:
(a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports;
and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.

Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek
treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all other putative class members in the United States. Although
both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions
allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running
"through the present," the Court's ruling on the statute of
limitations alters the period for which damages are available.  In
the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that
the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to
September 24, 2004.  In the indirect purchaser putative class
action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages
allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of
limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted,
with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and
claim-by-claim basis.  The direct purchaser putative class actions
allege two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of
shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products.  The
direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the
Sherman Act.  The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the
statutes and common-law of various states and the District of
Columbia.

Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not
counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal
settlement papers).  In four of the remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Act.  In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling.
The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the
Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect
purchaser cases).

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.  While management believes
that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall
egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a
result of the settlements, there is still a reasonable possibility
of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust
litigation.  At the present time, however, it is not possible to
estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company
because of these cases.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer and marketer of
shell eggs in the United States.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Has Confidential Deal in Assoc. Wholesale Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed on July 28, 2014,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2014, that on March 3 all claims against the Company
in the Kansas state court case styled as Associated Wholesale
Grocers, Inc., et al., v. United Egg Producers, et al., No. 10-CV-
2171, were dismissed with prejudice.  The Company entered into a
confidential settlement agreement settling this case for an amount
and on terms that are not expected to have a material impact on
the Company's results of operations.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more
of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that
had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and
have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others
who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large
domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to
artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that
all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by:
(a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports;
and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.

Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek
treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all other putative class members in the United States. Although
both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions
allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running
"through the present," the Court's ruling on the statute of
limitations alters the period for which damages are available.  In
the direct purchaser putative class action, the Court ruled that
the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred prior to
September 24, 2004.  In the indirect purchaser putative class
action, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages
allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of
limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted,
with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and
claim-by-claim basis.  The direct purchaser putative class actions
allege two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of
shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products.  The
direct purchaser putative class actions seek relief under the
Sherman Act.  The indirect purchaser putative class actions seek
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under the
statutes and common-law of various states and the District of
Columbia.

Five non-class cases remain pending against the Company (not
counting the case in which the Company is finalizing formal
settlement papers).  In four of the remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Act.  In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling.
The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the
Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect
purchaser cases).

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.  While management believes
that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall
egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a
result of the settlements, there is still a reasonable possibility
of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust
litigation.  At the present time, however, it is not possible to
estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company
because of these cases.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is the largest producer and marketer of
shell eggs in the United States.


CLOROX COMPANY: Court Refused to Certify Class in Fresh Step Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge has denied certification of a class of consumers who
say The Clorox Company made false claims about its Fresh Step cat
litter.

The company advertised in 2010 and 2011 that its carbon-based
litter product is "better at eliminating litter box odors" than
the competing brand, Super Scoop, a baking soda-based product by
Church & Dwight.  C&D sued Clorox, won an injunction against the
commercial and then settled privately out of court.

Citing C&D's evidence, consumers around the country sued Clorox
for misrepresentation.  They brought allegations under the
consumer-protection laws of California, Florida, New Jersey, New
York and Texas, as well as claims for breach of express warranty
and unjust enrichment in those same states.  They claim Clorox
tricked them into paying more for a brand of cat litter that C&D
studies show is no more effective than soda-based cat litter.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti denied in part and granted in
part Clorox's motion to dismiss in August 2013.

However, Conti denied class certification on July 28, 2014,
holding "the class is not ascertainable and because common
questions do not predominate."

He said, "the problem plaintiffs face is figuring out exactly who
purchased Fresh Step during the class period.  In their motion,
plaintiffs do not propose any method for making this
determination.  None of the named plaintiffs in this case, for
example, kept receipts for their purchases . . . nor do consumers
necessarily remember when they bought cat litter, which sizes,
types or even brands of cat litter they purchased."

As a result, Conti said there is no "administratively feasible
method of determining membership for the vast majority of
potential members of plaintiff's proposed sub-classes.  Therefore,
plaintiffs' proposed classes are not ascertainable."

Conti also said the plaintiffs' common questions don't predominate
over individual concerns and that there is a lack of typicality.
"Plaintiffs' proposed classes are hopelessly overbroad and include
many persons who likely never saw the allegedly misleading
statements," he said in his 27-page order.  "Those class members
therefore could not have relied on the alleged misrepresentations
to purchase Fresh Step.  Class certification is denied with
respect to all five proposed sub-classes."

The case is In Re Clorox Consumer Litigation, Master File No. 12-
00280 SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Customers May Be Paid in 2011 Blizzard Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune reports that about 35,000 ComEd customers who saw
damage and spoiled groceries from massive storms in 2011 will be
allowed to seek compensation, through a ruling on July 31 by the
Illinois Appellate Court.  The ruling upholds a 2013 decision by
the Illinois Commerce Commission.  That ruling culminated two
years of testimony related to six summer storms and a blizzard in
2011 that left large portions of ComEd's customer service area
without power for hours and, in some cases, days.

Although the state passed a law 16 years ago aimed at holding
ComEd financially responsible for damages related to extreme
outages that are preventable, regulators had never forced the
utility to pay under the law.  ComEd reviewed claims and rejected
most of them.

The customers in question -- 34,595 of them -- experienced
prolonged outages during the July 11, 2011, storm that could not
be explained by weather conditions.  The storm simultaneously left
more than 480,000 customers without electricity for at least four
hours.

The utility's defense through the years was that it could not
prevent massive power outages during storms.  The outages for
which ComEd is deemed liable under the law are preventable outages
that leave 30,000 customers without power for at least four hours.

In a statement on July 31, ComEd said it was "disappointed" in the
decision, affirming its belief that utilities should not be held
accountable for severe weather beyond their control.  It also said
that system improvements through the first half of the year have
prevented a half-million service disruptions.

ComEd is reviewing the decision and said it will evaluate its next
steps.

A spokesman for the Illinois Attorney General said in a statement:
"We are pleased that the Court rejected ComEd's attempts to avoid
paying customers for damages they experienced as a result of
storms that its system should have been able to withstand."

David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board,
also said his group expects the decision will incentivize ComEd to
act quickly to restore service in the event of future power
outages.  During the 2011 storms some people were out of power for
four or five days, he said.

"This is going to provide a valuable consumer protection for those
with power outages," Mr. Kolata said.  "Going forward it will
create the right incentives to make sure our service quality is as
good as it can be."


DRISCOLL STRAWBERRY: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Bolanos, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc.; and
Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. CV 179685, (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Santa Cruz Cty., July 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendant has a
consistent policy of failing to pay wages and overtime to all
"hourly employees" for the first eight hours worked on the seventh
day of work in any one workweek.

Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc., is a California corporation
headquartered in Watsonville, California.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.  Driscoll
grows and supplies berries.  The Defendant provides raspberries,
blueberries, blackberries, strawberries and organic berries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com


EBAY INC: N.C. Appeals Court Ruling in Ticket Resale Suit Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals to overturn a
ruling granting summary judgment to plaintiffs in a suit against
StubHub, alleging it violated North Carolina's maximum ticket
resale price law, is now final, according to eBay, Inc.'s July 18,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Regulatory agencies or courts may claim or hold that the company
is responsible for ensuring that the company's users comply with
these laws and regulations or that the company or the company's
users are either subject to licensure or prohibited from reselling
event tickets in their jurisdictions. In October 2007, two
plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit in North
Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub sold (and
facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert tickets to
plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were resold in
violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale price law
(which has been subsequently amended). In February 2011, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding
that immunity under the Communications Decency Act did not apply.
The trial court further held that StubHub violated the North
Carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices statute as it
pertained to the two named plaintiffs, and certified its decision
for immediate appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In
February 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned the
lower court's decision, and the Court of Appeals' decision is now
final. However, similar actions are expected in other states and
other jurisdictions, such as Ontario. Laws and regulations
governing the resale of event tickets outside the U.S. (for
example, in Europe) may be more restrictive, and carry harsher
penalties and fines, than corresponding U.S. laws and regulations.
For example, France passed a law in 2012 prohibiting the habitual
resale of event tickets without permission from the event
organizer and Belgium passed a similar law in 2013 prohibiting
habitual sale and subjecting occasional resale to a price cap.
Restrictions on ticket resale are also under consideration by the
Dutch Parliament and various state governments in Australia. In
addition, the unauthorized resale of football (soccer) tickets is
illegal in the U.K., where a StubHub site was launched in 2011.

While the company has secured a number of commercial partnerships
in the UK in order to enable the company's customers to buy and
sell football (soccer) tickets, if it is unable to maintain these
partnerships or develop new partnerships on acceptable terms, the
company's tickets business would suffer.


EBAY INC: PayPal Sued in Cal. for Limiting Users' Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------
PayPal, Inc. is facing lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California that contains allegations it
improperly held users' funds or otherwise improperly limited
users' accounts, according to eBay, Inc.'s July 18, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc.; and Moises
Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. These lawsuits contain
allegations that PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise
improperly limited users' accounts. These lawsuits seek damages as
well as changes to PayPal's practices among other remedies. A
determination that there have been violations of laws relating to
PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to significant liability.

Any changes to PayPal's practices resulting from these lawsuits
could require PayPal to incur significant costs and to expend
product resources, which could delay other planned product
launches or improvements and further harm the company's business.
Also, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau launched a
complaints portal on its website that allows customers to file
complaints against money transfer service providers, including
PayPal and Venmo, and publishes information on such complaints. If
PayPal is unable to provide quality customer support operations in
a cost-effective manner, PayPal's users may have negative
experiences, PayPal may receive additional negative publicity, its
ability to attract new customers may be damaged and it could
become subject to additional litigation. As a result, current and
future revenues could suffer, losses could be incurred and its
operating margins could decrease.


EBAY INC: Faces Suit in U.S. for "Monopoly" of Online Auctions
--------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the United States for allegedly
monopolizing a market for online auctions, according to the
company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The company is subject to scrutiny by various government agencies
under U.S. and foreign regulations, including competition laws.
Some jurisdictions also provide private rights of action for
competitors or consumers to assert claims of anti-competitive
conduct. Other companies and government agencies have in the past
and may in the future allege that the company's actions violate
the antitrust or competition laws of the U.S., individual states,
the European Commission or other countries, or otherwise
constitute unfair competition. Contractual agreements with buyers,
sellers or other companies could give rise to regulatory action or
antitrust litigation. Also, the company's unilateral business
practices could give rise to regulatory action or antitrust
litigation. Some regulators, particularly those outside of the
U.S., may perceive the company's business to have so much market
power that otherwise uncontroversial business practices could be
deemed anticompetitive. In the U.S., the company has been sued by
a plaintiff representing a putative class of sellers who alleges
that it has illegally monopolized a market for online auctions. In
Korea, the national competition authority investigated allegations
that the company has engaged in illegal exclusive conduct and
rendered a decision against the company in October 2010. Both the
main case and a related administrative action were resolved in the
company's favor. The competition authorities in Germany and
Australia have conducted investigations (now completed) of various
actions taken by the company's businesses. Other competition
authorities have conducted market studies of the company's
industries. Such claims and investigations, even if without
foundation, may be very expensive to defend, involve negative
publicity and substantial diversion of management time and effort
and could result in significant judgments against the company or
require the company to change the company's business practices.


EBAY INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. remains a defendant in lawsuits filed in California and
Illinois, alleging it violated The Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containing
allegations that the company's businesses violated the TCPA.
Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in February 2012) contains
allegations that commercial advertisements for PayPal products and
services were sent via text message to mobile phones without prior
consent. In May 2013, the Court granted PayPal's motion for
summary judgment challenging the viability of plaintiff's
individual claim on grounds that plaintiff consented to receive
the text message and entered judgment in favor of PayPal.
Plaintiff has filed an appeal of this judgment. Murray v. Bill Me
Later (filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois in June 2012) contains allegations that Bill Me Later
made calls featuring artificial or prerecorded voices without
prior consent. These lawsuits, and other private lawsuits not
currently alleged as class actions, seek damages (including
statutory damages) and injunctive relief, among other remedies.
Given the enormous number of communications the company sends to
the company's users, a determination that there have been
violations of laws relating to PayPal's or Bill Me Later's
practices (or those of any of the company's other companies) under
the TCPA or other communications-based statutes could expose the
company to significant damage awards that could, individually or
in the aggregate, materially harm the company's business.


ELI LILLY: Seeks Indemnification From Takeda
--------------------------------------------
A jury in the Western District of Louisiana on April 7, 2014,
found in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Terrence Allen, et
al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064. Because
of the existence of the indemnification agreement, Eli Lilly and
Company tendered its defense of the case to Takeda, according to
Eli Lilly in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014. The jury awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages to
plaintiffs (allocated 75 percent to Takeda and 25 percent to Eli
Lilly) and punitive damages of $6.00 billion against Takeda and
$3.00 billion against Eli Lilly and Company.

"We believe the evidence did not support plaintiffs' claims and
strongly disagree with the verdict. We and Takeda intend to
vigorously challenge this outcome through all available legal
means," according to Eli Lilly.

Eli Lilly added, "After the jury reached a verdict in Allen,
Takeda notified us that it was reserving its right to challenge
its obligations to defend and indemnify us with respect to the
Allen case. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of
our losses and expenses in Allen and all other U.S. cases;
however, there can be no guarantee we will ultimately be
successful in obtaining full indemnification."

The Company said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates as a defendant in
approximately 4,200 product liability cases in the U.S. related to
the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in
the U.S. from 1999 until September 2006. Our agreement with Takeda
calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and
expenses with respect to the U.S. product liability litigation and
other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.

"In general, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused
or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active
cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation
in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a
coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated
state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are
without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against
them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company is an American global pharmaceutical
company.


ELI LILLY: Still Faces Actos(R) Product Liability Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd. as a defendant in three purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one
in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North
America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly
et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).

"We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. We believe these claims
are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously," Eli Lilly said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28,
2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates as a defendant in
approximately 4,200 product liability cases in the U.S. related to
the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-promoted with Takeda in
the U.S. from 1999 until September 2006. Our agreement with Takeda
calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us against our losses and
expenses with respect to the U.S. product liability litigation and
other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.

"In general, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused
or contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active
cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation
in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a
coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated
state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are
without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against
them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company is an American global pharmaceutical
company.


ELI LILLY: Still Faces 360 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is named as a defendant in approximately 360
Byetta product liability lawsuits involving approximately 800
plaintiffs. Approximately 95 of these lawsuits, covering about 500
plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in
a Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Approximately 260
lawsuits, covering about 290 plaintiffs, are filed in federal
court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multi-district
litigation in the Southern District of California. The remaining
approximately 10 lawsuits, representing about 10 plaintiffs, are
in various state courts. Approximately 300 of the lawsuits,
involving approximately 415 plaintiffs, contain allegations that
Byetta caused or contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily
pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer).

"We are aware of approximately 400 additional claimants who have
not yet filed suit. The majority of these additional claims allege
damages for pancreatitis. We believe these lawsuits and claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously,"
the company said.

Eli Lilly and Company is an American global pharmaceutical
company.


ELI LILLY: Faces 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is named as a defendant in approximately 10
U.S. lawsuits primarily related to allegations that the
antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in
the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014, with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2014.

"We are aware of approximately 550 additional claims related to
birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these
lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend
against them vigorously," the company said.

Eli Lilly and Company is an American global pharmaceutical
company.


EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Merger in Del., Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is facing lawsuits over its merger
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
And in the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts
Superior Court, Suffolk County, according to the company's July
15, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Between April 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in
the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior
Court, Suffolk County, against Zalicus, Merger Subsidiary, the
members of Zalicus' board of directors and Epirus. These actions
are: Paul Patrick Laky v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-
1380; Michael Ma v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1381;
Harrypersaud v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1455
(collectively, the "Massachusetts Actions"). The Massachusetts
Actions allege that the Zalicus board breached its fiduciary
duties, and that Epirus, Zalicus and Merger Subsidiary aided and
abetted the purported breaches, in connection with the proposed
Merger. The Massachusetts Actions seek relief including, among
other things, to enjoin defendants from proceeding with the
Merger, to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger unless
additional procedures are implemented, and an award of all costs
of the Massachusetts Actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees.

On May 1, 2014, another putative class action lawsuit, Harvey
Stein v. Zalicus, Inc. et al., Case No. 9602, was filed by a
purported stockholder of Zalicus in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against Zalicus, Zalicus' directors and Epirus
(the "Delaware Action"). The Delaware Action alleges that the
Zalicus board breached their fiduciary duties, and Epirus and
Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted the purported breaches, in
connection with the proposed Merger. The Delaware Action seeks
relief including, among other things, to preliminary and
permanently enjoin the proposed Merger, to enjoin consummation of
the proposed Merger and rescind the Merger if consummated (or to
award rescissionary damages), and an award of all costs of the
Delaware Action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.


FAB UNIVERSAL: Faces Securities Litigations in New York Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
FAB Universal Corp. is facing securities lawsuits in the federal
court for the Southern District of New York in relation to
statements it made about the number of kiosks it had deployed,
according to the company's July 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In November and December 2013, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the federal court for the Southern District
of New York against FAB Universal Corp., its CEO and its CFO.  The
actions are:  Simmons v. Spencer et al. (1:13-cv-08216-RWS. filed
11/18/13), Stubblefield v. Fab Universal Corp. et al. (1:13-cv-
08499-RWS, filed 11/27/13), and Cox v. Fab Universal Corp. et al.
(1:13-cv-08716-RWS, filed 12/09/13).  According to the complaints,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about FAB's business, operations,
prospects and performance. Plaintiffs allege that defendants
overstated the number of kiosks that FAB had deployed. FAB's
kiosks are "inundated with pirated digital entertainment content,"
and the company's Chinese subsidiary issued RMB 100 million ($16.4
million) worth of bonds to Chinese investors that are not
reflected in the Company's publicly disclosed financial
statements.  Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs assert causes of
action for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages, recessionary damages, fees and costs.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Faces "JonWall" Suit Over Propane Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------
JonWall, Inc., d/b/a The Original Tom Thumb, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.,
Ferrellgas L.P., AmeriGas Partners, L.P., AmeriGas Propane, L.P.,
AmeriGas, Inc., and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02370 (D.
Kan., July 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to
reduce the amount of propane gas contained in portable steel
tanks, referred to as "propane exchange tanks," from 17 pounds to
15 pounds without a corresponding price decrease.

The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business,
and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
      SHARP MCQUEEN PA
      6900 College Blvd., Suite #285
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 661-9931
      Facsimile: (913) 661-9935
      E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

          - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
      GRIES LENHARDT MICHENFELDER ALLEN, PLLP
      12725 43rd Street NE, Suite 201
      St. Michael, MN 55376
      Telephone: (763) 497-3099
      Facsimile: (763) 497-3639
      E-mail: Pat@GLMALaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Alleged Propane Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zerka's Party Store, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a
limited partnership.; Ferrellgas L.P., a limited partnership
(d/b/a Blue Rhino); Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership
(d/b/a Amerigas Cylinder Exchange); Amerigas Propane, Inc.;
Amerigas Propane, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case
No. 2:14-cv-04193 (W.D. Mo., July 24, 2014), arises out of a
conspiracy to fix the price of propane sold in exchangeable
portable steel tanks commonly referred to as "propane exchange
tanks."

The Defendants sell propane, stored in propane exchange tanks,
directly to retailers across the United States, including grocery
stores, convenience stores, and gas stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC
      1100 Main St, Ste 2500, PO Box 26188
      Kansas City, MO 64196
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: RC Gasoline Sues Over Propane Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
RC Gasoline, 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-02371 (D. Kan., July
24, 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.

The Defendants supply propane in propane exchange tanks to
thousands of gas stations, convenience stores, hardware stores,
grocery stores, and big box retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
      SHARP MCQUEEN PA
      6900 College Blvd., Suite #285
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 661-9931
      Facsimile: (913) 661-9935
      E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com


FLAGLER COUNTY: Faces "Rudell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ruddell on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Flagler County Sheriff's Office, James L. Manfre,
Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Flager
County Sheriff's Office, Case No. 3:14-cv-00873 (M.D. Fla., July
24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing law enforcement
and protection to the general public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly De Arcangelis Woods, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 420-5956
      E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com


FLUIDMASTER INC: Falsely Marketed Steel Line Products, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Sullivan, Karen Rhyne, Steve Ellefson, Mark Eisen, Bruce Elder
and Jon Naef, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05696 (N.D. Ill.,
July 24, 2014), is brought for failure to disclose that its NO-
BURST Braided Lines were subject to a serious design defect, were
unsafe, and posed a substantial risk of failure, in that they
would rupture and burst resulting in flooding and damaging
building owners' real and personal property.

Fluidmaster, Inc. manufactures and markets a line of braided steel
supply lines used to supply water to common household fixtures
including faucets, toilets and dishwashers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq.
      Edward Anthony Wallace, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: aek@wexlerwallace.com
              eaw@wexlerwallace.com


FUJI JAPANESE: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Waitress Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evangeline Baughman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Fuji Japanese Buffet, Inc., and Zhi Bin Dong, Case No.
5:14-cv-12958-JCO-MKM (E.D. Mich., July 29, 2014) is brought on
behalf of current and former employees of the Defendants, who
worked as waiters and waitresses.

Ms. Baughman alleges that the Defendants did not compensate her
for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Fuji Japanese Buffet, Inc., is a Michigan corporation with its
place of business in Madison Heights, Oakland County, Michigan.
FJB owns and operates a restaurant in Madison Heights.  Zhi Bin
Dong is a resident of Troy, Oakland County, Michigan, and the
principal shareholder of FJB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Hardesty, Esq.
          Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
          Armin Halilovic, Esq.
          GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
          2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 275-5200
          Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
          E-mail: dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com
                  cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com
                  ahalilovic@goldstarlaw.com


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Accused of Using Promoters to Raise Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Galectin Therapeutics and its
top three officers used stock promoters to inflate its share price
and the price fell from $14.54 to $5.70 in a day when the truth
came out, shareholders claim in Nevada Federal Court.


GANNETT SATELLITE: Accused of Illegal Disclosure of Users' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Yershov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.
d/b/a Usa Today, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-13112
(D. Mass., July 24, 2014), seeks to put an end to its unlawful
practice of disclosing its users' sensitive information, and to
obtained redress for such conduct in violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act.

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. is an international
media company that produces a variety of news and entertainment
programming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: emirabella@gnemlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls About 718,000 Vehicles on Safety Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Chappell, writing for The Two-Way, reports that announcing
six different safety recalls on July 23, GM said it needs to fix
problems that range from a turn-signal bug to an unpredictable
loss of power steering.  The flaws were found in vehicles from
model years 2011 to 2015.

GM says no deaths and only two crashes have been linked to the
recalls, which come in a year that has already seen the Detroit
carmaker recall nearly 30 million vehicles worldwide.  The company
has "passed the 22 million vehicles recalled by all automakers
last year," the AP says.

More than 400,000 of the recalled vehicles have a potential
problem with a bolt in their front-seat height adjustor.  Others
have more serious risks, such as a possible loss of steering.

"We are bringing greater rigor and discipline to our analysis and
decision making," GM Global Vehicle Safety Vice President
Jeff Boyer said.  "If we identify an issue -- large or small --
that might affect the safety of our customers, we will act
decisively."

Here are the models and problems GM outlined on July 23 in a news
release that blamed "varying safety issues" for the recalls:

414,333 Vehicles: "2011-2012 model year Chevrolet Camaro; 2010-
2012 model year Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain; 2011-2012 Buick
Regal and LaCrosse; and 2010-2012 Cadillac SRX models in the U.S.
equipped with power height adjustable driver or front passenger
seat structures.  In these vehicles, the bolt that secures the
height adjuster actuator may become loose or fall out.  If the
bolt falls out, the seat will move up and down freely because it
is no longer attached at the height adjuster.  The vehicles are
safe to drive, but customers should not use the power height
adjustable feature until dealers can replace the height adjuster
bolt.  GM is aware of one crash and three injuries but no
fatalities related to this condition."

124,008 Vehicles: "Model year 2014 Chevrolet Caprice, 2014
Chevrolet SS, 2014-2015 Chevrolet Silverado LD and HD, 2013-2014
Cadillac ATS, 2014 Cadillac CTS, 2014 Cadillac ELR; 2013-2014
Buick Encore; and 2014-2015 GMC Sierra LD and HD vehicles because
certain vehicles may have an incomplete weld on the seat hook
bracket assembly.  A loss of power to a laser welding machine may
have resulted in an incomplete weld, according to data collected
from the machine between July 2013 and January 2014.  Dealers will
inspect the weld.  If it is sufficient, no further action is
necessary.  If it is insufficient, dealers will replace the lower
seat track at no charge. Less than 1 percent of welds are expected
to require seat track replacement.  GM is unaware of any crashes
or injuries as a result of this issue."

120,426 Vehicles: "2011-2013 model year Buick Regal and 2013 model
year Chevrolet Malibus equipped with front turn signals that use
two bulbs in each front turn signal.  While the driver would get a
rapidly flashing turn signal arrow in the instrument cluster if
both bulbs in one turn signal were burned out; if only one bulb on
either side burns out, there would be no signal to the driver.
Dealers will reprogram the body control module to fix the
condition.  GM knows of no crashes, injuries or complaints related
to this issue."

57,242 Vehicles: "2014 Chevrolet Impalas equipped with belt-drive
electric power steering.  On certain vehicles, customers may
experience reduced or no power steering assist at start-up or
while driving due to a poor electrical ground connection to the
Power Steering Control Module.  If power steering is lost, a
warning message is displayed on the Driver Information Center and
a chime sounds.  Steering control can be maintained because the
vehicle will revert to manual steering mode, but would require
greater driver effort particularly at low vehicle speeds.  Paint
may have seeped behind the nut on the power steering control
module ground stud.  Dealers will inspect and clean paint from
behind the ground nut, re-torque the nut and update the power
steering control module software at no charge.  GM is aware of one
crash but no injuries or fatalities related to this condition."

1,919 Vehicles: "2014-2015 Chevrolet Sparks imported from Korea
that were assembled with a lower control arm bolt not fastened to
specification.  The condition could result in noise from the front
suspension and separation of the lower control arm from the
steering knuckle while driving resulting in loss of steering
control.  Dealers will inspect the left and right hand lower
control arm attaching bolts to assure they are tightened to
specification.  GM knows of no crashes, injuries or fatalities
related to this condition."

22 Vehicles: "2015 model year Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban and GMC
Yukon/Yukon Denali vehicles in the U.S. In these vehicles, the
roof carriers may have been attached with the wrong retaining
nuts, resulting in holes or tears in the roof rail air bags if
they deploy.  Eight of these vehicles are in dealer stock and will
be repaired before being sold."


GYRODYNE CO: N.Y. Court Signs Order to Show Cause in Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk
signed an Order to Show Cause submitted by the plaintiff in a suit
against Gyrodyne Company Of America, Inc. over a merger, setting a
return date on certain of plaintiff's motion, according to the
company's July 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On July 3, 2014, a purported stockholder of Gyrodyne filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Gyrodyne and members of the
Board (the "Individual Defendants"), and against Gyrodyne Special
Distribution, LLCand Gyrodyne, LLC (collectively, the
"Defendants"), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Suffolk (the "Court"), captioned Cashstream Fund, on
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Paul L.
Lamb, et al., Index No. 065134/2014 (the "Action").  The plaintiff
in the Action alleges that (i) the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted the breach of those
duties in connection with the Merger and (ii) Gyrodyne and the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to disclose material information in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.  The plaintiff in the Action seeks, among
other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, requiring
corrective disclosures in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and interest, attorney's
fees, expert fees and other costs.  On July 17, 2014, the Court
signed an Order to Show Cause submitted by the plaintiff setting a
return date of August 5, 2014 on plaintiff's motion for an order
(a) preliminarily enjoining consummation of the Merger, (b)
granting expedited discovery and (c) scheduling a hearing for
continuation of a preliminary injunction after completion of
expedited discovery.


HERBALIFE LTD: Faces "Awad" Securities Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed on April
14, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al.  The case asserts
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers made
material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and
business practices, and contends that the Company is operating a
pyramid scheme. The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount and asks to represent a class of investors in Herbalife
between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the class action suit.

Herbalife Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempt limited liability company,
or Herbalife, was incorporated on April 4, 2002.  Herbalife Ltd.
is a global nutrition company that sells weight management
products, nutritional supplements, energy, sports & fitness
products and personal care products.


HERBALIFE LTD: Trial on "Bostick" Claims to Begin in April 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife LTD has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed April 8, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Bostick, et al., v. Herbalife
International of America, Inc., et al) challenging the legality of
the company's network marketing program under various state and
federal laws.  On May 30, 2013, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit on a variety of grounds. On October 11, 2013,
after plaintiff indicated his intention to dismiss certain claims
brought under federal law, the Court denied the company's motion
to dismiss the remaining state claims.

On July 7, 2014, the complaint was amended to add additional
plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2014, a class has not been certified.
Trial on these state claims has been set to commence on April 21,
2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

"We believe the suit is without merit and plan to defend the suit
vigorously," the Company said.

Herbalife Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempt limited liability company,
or Herbalife, was incorporated on April 4, 2002. Herbalife Ltd. is
a global nutrition company that sells weight management products,
nutritional supplements, energy, sports & fitness products and
personal care products.


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. (NYSE MKT: HUSA) announced that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed
the District Court's prior dismissal of the previously disclosed
securities class action lawsuit brought against the company,
according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The appellate court ruling focused on the sufficiency of the
pleadings in the case, made no determination regarding the merits
of the factual allegations, and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.

           About Houston American Energy Corp.

Based in Houston, Texas, Houston American Energy Corp is an
independent energy company with interests in oil and natural gas
wells and prospects. The Company's business strategy includes a
property mix of producing and non-producing assets with a focus on
Colombia, Texas and Louisiana. Additional information can be
accessed by reviewing the company's Form 10-K and other periodic
reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For additional information, view the company's website at
www.houstonamericanenergy.com or contact the Houston American
Energy Corp. at (713) 222-6966.


KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Still Faces "Gross" Securities Suit in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities suit Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-
cv-00345-BCW continues in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, according to the company's July 18,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter June 30, 2014.

On April 15, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Missouri against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The securities class action is
styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-cv-00345-
BCW. On April 16, 2014, the first of two shareholder derivative
actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Company (which is
named as a "nominal defendant") was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri against
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers. The first derivative action is styled as Webster v.
Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00349-BCW. The second derivative action
was filed on June 6, 2014, and is styled as Lerner v. Starling, et
al., 4:14-cv-00509-BCW. The complaints allege, among other things,
that the Company made misrepresentations or omitted to disclose
certain facts in connection with its volume guidance for fiscal
year 2013. The complaints seek unspecified damages and equitable
relief.


KIMBALL INT'L: Receives $3.5MM From Two Antitrust Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimball International said in its Form 10-12b (Amendment No. 2)
filed on July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, for the first nine months of fiscal year 2014, net
sales increased 6% compared to the first nine months of fiscal
year 2013 due to growth in net sales to customers in the
automotive and industrial markets. Sales to customers in the
automotive market improved primarily due to the strength of the
Chinese market. Sales to customers in the industrial market
improved primarily due to additional program awards from an
existing customer. For the first nine months of fiscal year 2014,
net sales to the public safety and medical industries declined
compared to the same period of fiscal year 2013. Sales to
customers in the public safety industry were negatively impacted
by lower spending and delays in ordering by government agencies.
Net income for the first nine months of fiscal year 2014 totaled
$19.3 million, inclusive of $3.5 million of after-tax settlements
received related to two anti-trust class action lawsuits of which
Kimball Electronics was a class member. Net income for the first
nine months of fiscal year 2013 totaled $14.3 million.

Kimball Electronics is a global provider of engineering,
manufacturing, and supply chain services to customers in the
automotive, medical, industrial, and public safety end markets.


KINDER MORGAN: Faces "Slotoroff" Case in Delaware Chancery Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action
and derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware (Case No. 9318) on February 5, 2014 against
defendants Kinder Morgan, Inc, Kinder Morgan G.P, Inc., and
nominal defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.  The suit
was filed by Jon Slotoroff, a purported unitholder of KMEP, and
seeks to assert claims both individually and on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all public holders of KMEP units
during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date of the
filing of the suit.

The suit alleges direct and derivative causes of action for breach
of the partnership agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference.
Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad
faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions
and growth rate.

The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions to KMGP, KMI and
any related entities, beyond amounts that would have been
distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation of
maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified
monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees.
Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend
it vigorously.

KMEP is a Delaware limited partnership formed in August 1992. KMEP
is a leading pipeline transportation and energy storage company in
North America, with a diversified portfolio of energy
transportation and storage assets.


KINDER MORGAN: Faces "Burns and Zehrer" Case
--------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014 that a putative class action
and derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware (Case No. 9479) on March 27, 2014 against
defendants Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P, Inc. and
nominal defendant KMEP.

The suit was filed by Darrell Burns and Terrence Zehrer, purported
unitholders of KMEP, and seeks to assert claims both individually
and on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders
of KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the
date of the filing of the suit. The suit asserts claims and
allegations substantially similar to the suit filed by Jon
Slotoroff, and on April 8, 2014, the Court ordered that this suit
be consolidated for all purposes with the suit filed by Jon
Slotoroff and the caption of the consolidated action shall be In
Re Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation,
Consolidated Case No. 9318.

KMEP is a Delaware limited partnership formed in August 1992. KMEP
is a leading pipeline transportation and energy storage company in
North America, with a diversified portfolio of energy
transportation and storage assets.


KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Case Stayed Pending "Slotoroff" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 28, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014 that a putative class action
and derivative complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas (Case No. 2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District)
on March 6, 2014, against Kinder Morgan Inc, Kinder Morgan
G.P,Inc, Kinder Morgan Management, LLC, Richard D. Kinder, Steven
J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and
nominal defendant KMEP.

The suit was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of
KMEP, and alleges direct and derivative causes of action for
alleged violation of duties owed under the partnership agreement,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
"abuse of control" and "gross mismanagement" in connection with
the calculation of distributions and allocation of capital
expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and maintenance
capital expenditures.

The suit seeks unspecified money damages, interest, punitive
damages, attorney and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified
equitable relief, and demands a trial by jury. Defendants believe
this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. By
agreement of the parties, the case is stayed pending further
resolution of the suit filed by Jon Slotoroff.

KMEP is a Delaware limited partnership formed in August 1992. KMEP
is a leading pipeline transportation and energy storage company in
North America, with a diversified portfolio of energy
transportation and storage assets.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued Over Failure to Handle Diminution Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chis, LLC, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., Liberty Mutual
Group, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., and Peerless Insurance
Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-00277 (M.D. Ga., July 24, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants have implemented, and continue to implement,
procedures whereby it systematically fails to assess for and pay
diminution in value in first-party physical damage claims and
fails to establish procedures to handle diminution in value
claims.

Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc. is a Massachusetts mutual
holding company and maintains its principal place of business at
175 Berkeley Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. is a for-profit, Massachusetts
corporation, which maintains its principal place of business at
175 Berkeley Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 and is a licensed
insurer in the State of Georgia.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. is a for-profit, Massachusetts
corporation, which maintains its principal place of business at
175 Berkeley Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02166 and is a licensed
insurer in the State of Georgia.

Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company is a for-profit, Illinois
corporation, maintains its principal place of business at 27201
Bella Vista Parkway.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      P. Princenthal, Esq.
      C. Cooper Knowles, Esq.
      PRINCENTHAL & MAY, LLC.
      260 Peachtree St Nw Ste 502
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 524-4000
      E-mail: aprincenthal@akpfirm.com
              cknowles@akpfirm.com

          - and -

      Clinton W. Sitton, Esq.
      Richard Kopelman, Esq.
      KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC
      4840 Roswell Rd Ste E200
      Atlanta, GA 30342
      Telephone: (404) 257-0777
      E-mail: clint@kopelmansitton.com
              richard@kopelmansitton.com

          - and -

      James C. Bradley, Esq.
      Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      PO Box 1007
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com
              nfields@rpwb.com

          - and -

      Michael J. Brickman, Esq
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      174 E Bay St.
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Telephone: (843) 727-6520
      E-mail: mbrickman@rpwb.com


MAGNUM HUNTER: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation continues to face a securities
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's July 18, 2014, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom also serve as directors. On April 24, 2013, Horace
Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
the Company and certain of its officers, two of whom also serve as
directors. Several substantially similar putative class actions
have been filed in the Southern District of New York and in the
Southern District of Texas. All such cases are collectively
referred to as the Securities Cases. The cases filed in the
Southern District of Texas have since been dismissed, but the
cases in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated
and remain ongoing.  The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases have
filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company
made certain false or misleading statements in its filings with
the SEC, including statements related to the Company's internal
and financial controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based
compensation expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form
10-K, the dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent
registered accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the
auditors' position with respect to the dismissal, and other
matters identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as
amended.  The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act based on
alleged false statements made regarding these issues throughout
the alleged class period, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Act based on alleged false statements and
omissions regarding the Company's internal controls made in
connection with the 35,000,000-share secondary offering that
Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012.   The consolidated
amended complaint demands that the defendants pay unspecified
damages to the class action plaintiffs, including damages
allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock price
between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Faces Federal RESPA Violations Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to face purported class
cases in various U.S. district courts, according to the company's
July 16, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Consumers continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders
and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including
MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the
anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly
known as FCRA. MGIC's settlement of class action litigation
against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled
the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA
in December 2004, following denial of class certification in June
2004. Since December 2006, class action litigation has been
brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their
captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.
Beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage
lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant
in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various
U.S. District Courts. Seven of those cases have previously been
dismissed without any further opportunity to appeal. The
complaints in all of the cases allege various causes of action
related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the
mortgage lenders, including that the lenders' captive reinsurers
received excessive premiums in relation to the risk assumed by
those captives, thereby violating RESPA. MGIC denies any
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations in the lawsuits. There can be no assurance that the
company will not be subject to further litigation under RESPA (or
FCRA) or that the outcome of any such litigation, including the
lawsuits as mentioned, would not have a material adverse effect on
the company.


MITSUBISHI UFJ: Faces Lawsuit in U.S. Over Benchmark Submissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with benchmark submissions, Kabushiki Kaisha
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group/Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group,
Inc. was named defendant in a number of civil lawsuits, including
putative class actions, in the United States, according to the
company's July 18, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

In December 2012, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., or BTMU,
agreed to make an approximately $8.6 million payment to the Office
of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, of the U.S. Department of the
Treasury to settle potential civil liability for apparent
violations of certain U.S. sanctions regulations from 2006 to
2007. In June 2013, BTMU entered into a consent agreement with the
New York State Department of Financial Services, or DFS, to
resolve issues relating to certain U.S. dollar payments that were
routed through New York from 2002 to 2007. Under the terms of the
agreement with DFS, BTMU made a civil monetary payment of $250
million to DFS and retained an independent consultant to conduct a
compliance review of the relevant controls and related matters in
BTMU's current operations. BTMU continues to cooperate closely
with all relevant regulators and is undertaking necessary actions.

The company received requests and subpoenas for information from
government agencies in some jurisdictions that are conducting
investigations into past submissions made by panel members,
including the company to the bodies that set various interbank
benchmark rates. The company is cooperating with these
investigations and have been conducting an internal investigation
among other things. In connection with these matters, the company
and other panel members have been named as defendants in a number
of civil lawsuits, including putative class actions, in the United
States. In June 2013, BTMU was censured by the Monetary Authority
of Singapore for deficiencies in its governance, risk management
and internal controls for its involvement in benchmark submissions
and was directed, among other things, to adopt measures to address
these deficiencies.


NIELSEN CO: Faces Class Suit Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Nielsen Co. stiffs its field reps for overtime, a class action
claims in Broward County Court, in Florida, according to
Courthouse News Service.


NORTHERN TRUST: Records $19MM Pre-Tax Charge From Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28,
2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that "a number of
participants in our securities lending program, which is
associated with the Corporation's asset servicing business, have
commenced either individual lawsuits or purported class actions in
which they claim, among other things, that we failed to exercise
prudence in the investment management of the collateral received
from the borrowers of the securities, resulting in losses that
they seek to recover. The cases assert various contractual,
statutory and common law claims, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty under common law and under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA)."

In the fourth quarter of 2013, Northern Trust recorded a $19.2
million pre-tax charge in connection with an agreement to resolve
claims related to two of these lawsuits. The settlement is not
final as it requires further documentation, signed agreements and
court approval. Other lawsuits related to securities lending are
not part of the proposed settlement, and remain pending.

In April 2014, Northern Trust received a subpoena from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking documents related
to Northern Trust's securities lending activities. Northern Trust
is cooperating with the SEC in this investigation.

Northern Trust Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
leading provider of asset servicing, fund administration, asset
management, fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations,
institutions, families, and individuals worldwide. Northern Trust
focuses on servicing and managing client assets through its two
primary business units, Wealth Management (WM) and Corporate &
Institutional Services (C&IS). Asset management and related
services are provided to Wealth Management and C&IS clients
primarily by a third business unit, Asset Management. Northern
Trust emphasizes a high level of client service complemented by
the effective use of technology, delivered by a fourth business
unit, Operations & Technology (O&T). Except where the context
otherwise requires, the term "Northern Trust" refers to Northern
Trust Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.


NOVEX BIOTECH: Sued Over False Claims Related to Growth Factor-9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novex Biotech, Sierra Research Group and GNC Corp. falsely claim
that Growth Factor-9 is a "clinically tested hormone secretagogue"
that will create a "682% mean increase in serum growth hormone
levels," a class action claims in California Federal Court,
reports Courthouse News Service.


PAYLOCITY CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Johnson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Paylocity Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02667 (N.D.
Tex., July 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Paylocity Corporation is a provider of online payroll and human
resource products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Melissa Breanne Wesley, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
              mbwesley@l-b-law.com


PRECISION SOLIDS: "Perry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jody P. Perry, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Precision Solids Control, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-02370
(W.D. La., July 24, 2014), to recover unpaid wages, including
overtime pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Precision Solids Control, Inc. is a foreign corporation not
licensed to do but doing business in the State of Louisiana with
its principle address as 115 Lafferty Drive, Broussard, LA 70518.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH D. ST. PE
      311 W University Ave Ste A
      Lafayette, LA 70506
      Telephone: (337) 534-4043
      Facsimile: (337) 534-8379
      E-mail: kennethstpe@aol.com


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pretium Resources Inc. faces shareholder lawsuits in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, according to the company's July 18,
2014, Form F-10 filing (Amendment No. 1) with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

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.
("Strathcona") 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.


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in In re Pretium Resources Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 13-CV-7552 remains pending, according to the company's
July 18, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 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.


PURE BEAUTY: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Stravino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pure Beauty Services, Inc., Patrick Tunney and Regina
Tunney, Case No. 1:14-cv-04521-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Pure Beauty Services is a New York corporation that owns and
operates Pure Spa and Salon located in New York City.  Patrick and
Regina Tunney are owners of Pure Spa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent E. Bauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT E. BAUER
          112 Madison Avenue, 5th floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 575-1517
          Facsimile: (212) 689-2726
          E-mail: v.bauer@verizon.net


PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Defrauds Small Businesses, Owners Claim in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A debt collector defrauds mom and pop businesses, leasing them a
defective credit card processing machine, then suing to collect on
a forged four-year lease, business owners claim in a class action,
according to Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiffs Ronald Blankenship and Gary Brassfield sued
Pushpin Holdings, Lease Finance Group, and Jay Cohen, who owns
both companies, in Cook County Court.

"This class action is brought to stop a scam being operated by
Pushpin, Lease Finance and Cohen," the lawsuit states.  "The scam
is to threaten to file, and to actually file, hundreds of bogus
small claims suits in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
The suits are frivolous and all subject to dismissal with
prejudice.  They are frivolous because their filing violates
mandatory arbitration clauses in the subject lease agreements.  In
addition, the suits are time barred."

Blankenship is a 70-year-old sole proprietor of a shoe repair
store in Bessemer, Ala. Brassfield operates an auto lube shop in
Arkansas.

Both men say they were solicited with high-pressure sales tactics
to lease a credit card processing machine, and agreed to lease the
machine for one year.  They say the machines either did not work
properly, or broke, and they returned them.

Then the defendants sued them in small claims court, claiming they
had violated a 4-year lease agreement.

The plaintiffs say they "did not even sign the lease agreements on
which they are being sued. Instead, their signatures were forged
on the documents."

In 2013, Lease Finance settled criminal charges brought by the
state of New York accusing it of withdrawing $3.6 million from
more than 100,000 customers' bank accounts without authorization,
according to the complaint.  It agreed to repay the money, the
plaintiffs say, citing a press release from the New York Attorney
General's Office.

But "instead of learning their lesson from the New York
settlement, the class action defendants simply changed the nature
of the scam that they operate.  Instead of wrongfully taking money
from the bank accounts of customers on expired leases, they now
obtain default judgments on bogus collection suits filed in Cook
County and then extort money out of customers through unlawful
collection demands and threats," the plaintiffs say.

In the first two weeks of July this year, the defendants filed
more than 150 new collection suits in Cook County, according to
the complaint.

"The collection suits are brought in clear violation of mandatory
arbitration clauses which require that all disputes must be
submitted to arbitration.  The arbitration clauses say that all
disputes arising out of the leases shall be submitted to
arbitration.  Filing hundreds of collection suits is a willful
breach of contract," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs say the collection letters and notices are rife
with false or misleading information, and that the complaints
purport to be notarized by Luisa Tatbak, whose name is not on a
list of registered notary publics.  They seek class certification
and damages for fraud and violation of the Illinois Collection
Agency Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD PROSSNITZ
          218 North Jefferson, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 328-8201
          Facsimile: (312) 382-8203
          E-mail: howard@prossnitzlaw.com


QUAKER OATS: Received Final OK of $1.4-Mil. Deal in Labeling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Quaker Oats Co. has agreed to pay $1.4 million to settle a
class action that claimed it willfully mislabeled granola bars as
trans-fats free when in fact they were not, reports Rose
Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

Robert Chacanaca and Victor Guttmann filed a class action against
Quaker Oats in San Jose, Calif., alleging that Chewy Granola Bars
deceptively labeled as having "0g Trans Fat" actually contain
"dangerous amounts" of the "toxic additive."

Indeed, the granola bars are tainted with partially hydrogenated
oil (PHO), which causes heart disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes,
the plaintiffs claim.

But Quaker Oats "vigorously denies" the allegations and "stands by
its products and marketing," according to the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary settlement approval.

The company nonetheless agreed to injunctive relief at a cost of
approximately $1.4 million, and U.S. District Judge Richard
Seeborg preliminary approved the deal Feb. 12, under which Quaker
must pay up to $120,000 to cover the cost of notifying all
potential class members.

Under the settlement, "defendant agrees to remove PHOs by December
31, 2015 from the Oatmeal to Go and Instant Quaker Oatmeal
Products that currently contain PHOs, and not to reintroduce PHOs
into those products for a period of ten years," the plaintiffs'
motion states.

Quaker also agreed to not introduce PHOs into bars which do not
already contain the oils, for the next ten years, according to the
motion.

By the end of this year, the company must "cease making the
statement 'contains a dietarily insignificant amount of trans fat'
on the label of any product containing 0.2 grams or more of
artificial trans fat per serving,'" the motion states.

Judge Seeborg approved the final settlement on July 29, 2014,
finding that it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate, with terms
that are within the range of reasonableness.  The settlement
agreement was entered into at arms'-length by experienced counsel
and after extensive negotiations spanning months.  The settlement
agreement is not the result of collusion."

The court concluded "the complexity, expense and likely duration
of the litigation favor settlement -- which provides meaningful
benefits on a much shorter time frame than otherwise possible --
on behalf of the class."

"The support of class counsel, who are highly skilled in class
action litigation such as this, and the plaintiffs, who have
participated in this litigation and evaluated the settlement
agreement, also favor final approval," according to the ruling.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs released all "claims for
personal injury that resulted in actual bodily harm" relating to
the granola bars, the ruling states.

About 50 different flavors of Quaker's Instant Oatmeal and Chewy
and Oatmeal to Go bars are named in the decision, including
Reduced Sugar Cookies & Cream, Weight Control Maple & Brown Sugar,
Nestle Crunch, and 90 Calorie Low Fat Chocolate Chunk.

In a separate order, Seeborg tossed aside objections filed by
plaintiffs Chacanaca and Amy Yang, finding that the fee award "in
no sense" diminishes the cash available to the class.

"In essence, the objections reduce to a complaint that a fee award
is improper in the absence of a cash recovery by class members, or
that more favorable settlement terms might have been obtainable,"
Seeborg wrote.  "The parties have shown, however, that a
settlement providing only injunctive relief is appropriate here
given the value of that relief and the limited possibility of
recovering damages and distributing them in an economically-
feasible manner."

The judge also refused to seal the litigation, which might impact
similar claims pending against Quaker Oats in Chicago.

The case is In Re Quaker Oats Labeling Litigation, Case No. 5:10-
cv-00502 RS, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Wants Police Pension Fund Case Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action complaint
was filed on November 19, 2013, on behalf of the shareholders of
the Company other than the defendants against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Quality Systems, Inc.,
Steven T. Plochocki, Paul A. Holt and Sheldon Razin, No. SACV13-
01818-CJC-JPRx, by the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, a
shareholder of the Company. After the court appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, lead plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on April 7, 2014.

The amended complaint generally alleges that statements made to
the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial
condition and projected future performance were false and
misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that
the individual defendants are liable for such statements because
they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and
attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on June 20, 2014.

Quality Systems, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries operate as
four business divisions which are comprised of: (i) the QSI Dental
Division, (ii) the NextGen Division, (iii) the Hospital Solutions
Division and (iv) the RCM Services Division.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Parties Agree to Stay "Foss" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 28, 2014,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that on January 24, a complaint was
filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers
and current and former directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J.
Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C.
Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger,
Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and
Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J.
Foss, a shareholder of the Company and generally alleges breach of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by the
Company's directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider
selling by individual directors. The complaint seeks compensatory
damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, court costs,
attorneys' fees and implementation of enhanced corporate
governance procedures. The parties have agreed to stay this
litigation pending resolution of the Defendants' anticipated
motion to dismiss the Federal Securities Class Action.

Quality Systems, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries operate as
four business divisions, which are comprised of: (i) the QSI
Dental Division, (ii) the NextGen Division, (iii) the Hospital
Solutions Division and (iv) the RCM Services Division.


REMI GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Deana Friday, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Remi Group, LLC, Remi Corporation,
Remi Holdings, LLC, Daniel Schuster, Brent Howison, Robert
Fleischacker, and Brian Landon, Case No. 3:14-cv-00405 (W.D.N.C,
July 24, 2014), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
as a result of willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide Equipment Maintenance Management and Asset
Management Programs across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Leighton Kinsley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY ROBERTS
      2400 Freeman Mill Rd., Ste. 200
      Greensboro, NC 27406
      Telephone: (336) 333-9899
      Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
      E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

        - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Gian M. Fanelli, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Phone: (201) 630-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
              gianmfanelli@jtblawgroup.com


SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Jones and Leonel R. Leon, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. San Diego Metropolitan Transit
System; San Diego Trolley, Inc.; and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01778-LAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 29, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants have engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice of
failing to pay its operators for all compensable work performed by
those employees, including minimum wage and overtime pay, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No.
9-2001.

The Plaintiffs have each been employed as bus or train operators
by San Diego Metropolitan Transit System or San Diego Trolley,
Inc.

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System operates a public
transportation system and its principal place of business is in
San Diego, California.  San Diego Metropolitan Transit System uses
funds for operations from a countywide tax measure approved by the
voters of San Diego County, is part of a self-funded
San Diego Transit Pension Plan, can issues bonds, can be sued in
its own capacity, take property in its own name, can levy taxes,
and is legally obligated to pay money judgments levied against it.

San Diego Trolley, Inc. operates a public transportation system
and is a subsidiary corporation of San Diego Metropolitan Transit
System.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven G. Tidrick, Esq.
          THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
          2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (510) 291-3226
          E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Rovai" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Rovai, individually, and on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01738 (S.D. Cal., July 24, 2014), arises from the
Defendants systematic failure to report millions of dollars in
mortgage interest that it has actually received from consumers
holding negative amortization "Option Arm" loans -- and
potentially other types of loans where interest was deferred by
borrowers.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a Utah corporation and is,
according to its website "a nationally recognized leader in the
residential mortgage servicing business."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David James Vendler, Esq.
      Michael R. Brown, Esq.
      MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
      1055 W Seventh Street, 24th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-2503
      Telephone: (213) 891-9100
      Facsimile: (213) 488-1178
      E-mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com
              mbrown@mrbapclaw.com


SEMILEDS CORP: New York Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York signed a notice of dismissal for In re SemiLEDs Corporation
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-04776-DLC, according to the
company's July 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company is directly or indirectly involved from time to time
in various claims or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary
course of business. On July 10, 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, styled as Huard v.
SemiLEDs Corporation, et al., alleging violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws. On July 31, 2013, a second investor filed
a complaint, styled as Mohammad v. SemiLEDs Corporation, et al. On
September 30, 2013, the Court appointed Mohammad Yasir as lead
plaintiff and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as
lead counsel. On November 15, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed its
Amended Complaint, styled as In re SemiLEDs Corporation
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-04776-DLC (S.D.N.Y.). The
Amended Complaint alleged one count of violation of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and one count of violation of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, both arising out of alleged misstatements made
by the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in connection with the Company's initial public offering
and the Company's results in the first, second, and third quarter
of 2011. On February 20, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the action. On February 21, 2014, the Court
signed the notice of dismissal and the case was closed. There were
no material pending legal proceedings and claims as of May 31,
2014.


ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Sued for Breaching Privacy of 33,000 Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that St. Joseph Health System and
Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital breached the medical privacy of
33,000 patients, a class action claims in Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Sonoma.


T & R MARKET: Faces Suit in New Mexico Alleging Abuse of Navajos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a Gallup pawn shop abused an elderly Navajo widow by selling
off her pawned jewelry, baskets and clothes, charging illegal
rates, and keeping the profits from selling the collateral, though
it knew that was illegal, as it had been sued for it before, the
woman claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Caroline Tullie sued T & R Market on July 25.  She
claims T & R, which "makes high-cost pawn loans to people living
in poverty on the Navajo Nation . . . has engaged in the same
illegal conduct in its pawn loans to hundreds, if not thousands of
other customers."

And, Tullie, adds: "Defendant knew its conduct was illegal because
it was sued for many of the same violations of the law two years
ago, in Merritt et al. v. T & R Market, Inc."

The 27,413-square-mile Navajo Nation is the largest reservation in
the United States.  Thirty-eight percent of its people live below
the poverty line; 48 percent of the households earn less than
$25,000 a year, which is less than half the U.S. median household
income of $51,371, according to tribal and U.S. Census figures.

Tullie claims in the lawsuit that she and her husband pawned
jewelry, baskets, robes and shawls at T & R, and that when her
husband died in 2013 and she fell behind on payments, T & R
"misrepresented its right to sell the collateral and to keep the
entire proceeds of the sale," and that when it sold the collateral
it failed to pay her the surplus of the loan, "as required by
law."

T & R did this, Tullie claims, after violating a slew of lending
laws along the way, including charging illegally high interest,
misrepresenting the interest rates, failing to disclose legally
required information on the pawn tickets, failing to sign the pawn
tickets, and selling her possessions illegally after telling her
she owed much more on them than she actually did.

The lawsuit adds: "In the complaint in the Merritt case, plaintiff
pointed out that T & R's 'violations of law are willful.  The
Truth in Lending Act has been in effect for more than 40 years.
The defendant corporation was formed in 1973.  The TILA provides
model forms for the creditor to use.'

"T & R's willfulness is all the more vivid and indisputable now."

Tullie seeks class certification and statutory and treble damages
for violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, the New Mexico
Pawnbrokers Act, the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code, and the
New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Mattison, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FEFERMAN & WARREN
          300 Central Avenue SW, Suite 2000 West
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 243-7773
          Facsimile: (505) 243-6663


TRIPLE LI: Faces "Zalloum" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dalya Zalloum, individualy and similarly situated employees v. Mei
Hui Chen, Triple Li & J Asian Food, Inc., Triple Li of Ocala, LLC,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00418 (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2014) is brought for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in accordance to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Triple Li & J Asian Food, Inc. is in the business of providing
food and drink to customers. Its principal place of business is
Tony's Sushi, 3405 SW College Rd., Ocala, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600
      PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-05772
(C.D. Cal., July 24, 2014), is brought for negligently and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Zwicker & Associates, P.C. is a law firm whose primary business
function is debt collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

           - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              jason@kazlg.com

           - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Jessica R. K. Dorman, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              Jessica@westcoastlitigation.com


* Most Recalled Products Still in Use Despite Warnings
------------------------------------------------------
According to Corpus Christi Caller Times, the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission recalls hundreds of products every year
-- several of which have caused deaths or started fires.  But
despite warnings, many of these dangerous products are still in
homes around the country because consumers either ignored the
warning or weren't aware of it, experts say.

"We know most recalled products, no matter how dangerous, remain
in homes," Nancy Cowles, executive director for the safety
advocacy group Kids in Danger, told Dailyfinance.com.

Here are seven recalled products that are believed to be in
millions of homes across the country:

1. Dehumidifiers

More than 2.5 million dehumidifiers (all made in China by Gree
Electric Appliances) were recalled in 2013 and 2014 because they
can start fires.  Gree is arranging for refunds ($110 to $400) for
anyone who bought one.

2. Nap Nanny

The Nap Nanny infant recliner, designed for babies to sleep in,
has been connected to at least six deaths by government
investigators.  Consumers who have Nap Nanny products are urged to
stop using them.

3. Blair chenille robes

After a recall of hundreds of thousands of chenille robes sold by
catalog retailer Blair over concerns about their flammability, the
CPSC learned that at least nine women had died wearing robes that
had ignited.

4. Maclaren strollers

After the CPSC received reports of children's fingertips being
chopped off by exposed hinges in Maclaren strollers, it recalled
about a million sold from 1999 to 2009.

5. Buckyballs and Buckycubes

Magnetic Buckyballs and Buckycubes were recalled after dozens of
kids swallowed the toys and required medical treatment.  The high-
powered magnets can twist inside the intestines of anyone who
swallows them, posing a risk of death or serious injury.

6. Lane cedar chests

Lane cedar chests were first recalled in 1996 after at least a
half-dozen children died from suffocation after being trapped
inside the chests.  More deaths were reported since the recall,
including two more this year.

7. Simplicity cribs and bassinets

More than a dozen babies died in Simplicity cribs and bassinets.


                              *********

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  * * *