CAR_Public/140806.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 155

                             Headlines


156-40 GRILL: Class Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
202 W. 49TH: Faces "Hirsch" Suit Over Disabilities Act Violation
ACRES MAINTENANCE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Class Says
ALPHA MANAGEMENT: October 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone Location Services

BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Sale of Pet Food Products
BUFFALO BILLS: Former Cheerleaders' Labor Suit Can Proceed
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: 1st Cir. Reverses Class Action Dismissal
CHINA MOBILE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
COBB ELECTRIC: Customers to Get Class Action Settlement Checks

CONNECTONE BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in N.J. Over Merger
CR ENGLAND: Court Approves $3-Mil. Class Action Settlement
DAKOTA PLAINS: Superior Court Removes Subsidiaries From Lawsuit
DEMOULAS SUPER MARKETS: Faces Suit Over Night Shift Policy
CHAI NY: Denies Equal Access to Restaurant, Double Amputee Says

COLLECTO INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DALCOM MODERN: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
DAVIS VISION: Accused of Monopolizing Ill. Ophthalmic Lens Market
ELECTRIC AVENUE: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ELGIN FURNITURE: Faces Suit for Not Paying Hours Worked Above 40

FIRST & FIRST: Denies Equal Access at Facilities, N.Y. Suit Says
FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal "Kickback" Scheme
FRANCO FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
GE CAPITAL: Uses Auto Dialing System to Place Calls, Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Electronic Power Steering

FREDERICK J. HANNA: Faces Suits Over Debt Collection Practices
H&R BLOCK: Wins Favorable Ruling in "Petroski" Labor Litigation
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in RAL & RAC Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Arbitrate Compliance Fee Suit for Consideration
H&R BLOCK: "Perras" Suit to Proceed on 2012 Tax Claims

H&R BLOCK: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Form 8863 Litigation
H&R BLOCK: International Textile Merger Suit Accord for Approval
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Ex-Employee Ordered to Reimburse Attorney Fees
HIGHER ONE: RSU Students May Participate in Class Action
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Calif. Court Tosses Class Suit Over Side Air Bags

JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy Victims Must Describe Trauma to Get Money
KANGADIS FOOD: Class Reps Seek Chapter 11 Case Dismissal
KBR INC: Solicitor General Briefs Wanted in Burn Pit Litigation
KBR INC: Still Faces Complaints in Tex. Court Over Restatement
KEEGO HARBOR, MI: Traffic Ticket Suit Obtains Class Action Status

KODIAK OIL: Being Sold to Whiting for Too Little, Suit Claims
LA PENTOLA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
LION PAVILION: Recalls Peach Slices Due to Undeclared Sulfites
M&N QUALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
MAKINA VE KIMYA: Law Firm Can Withdraw From Gun Liability Lawsuit

MARTIN MARIETTA: Has Agreement to Settle Lawsuit Over Merger
MEDEXPRESS URGENT: Violates Disabilities Act, Pa. Suit Claims
MEDTRONIC INC: Suit Over Sprint Fidelis in Pre-Trial Proceedings
MEDTRONIC INC: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Minn. Court
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Bruins Ex-Defenseman Sue Over Brain Injuries

ORIYA ORGANICS: Recalls Superfood Protein Medley Due to Chia Seeds
PFIZER INC: Lawyers Resolve Dispute Over Fees in HRT Litigation
PURITAN FOODS: Recalls Boneless Turkey Breasts Due to Misbranding
ROASTING PLANT: Fails to Remove Barriers Under ADA, Suit Says
RUSSIA: British Lawyers Mull Class Suit v. Putin Over MH17 Crash

SARA LEE: Recalls Sausage Product Due to Misbranding
SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SELIMA SALAUN: Violates Disabilities Act, New York Suit Claims
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Inks Agreement to Settle Lawsuit Over Merger
TJX COMPANIES: Recalls "Ecoato" Sweet Paprika Powder

TOWER GROUP: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Complaints
TOWER GROUP: "Bekkerman" Case Related to Consolidated Stock Suit
UNILEVER US: Court OKs $10.25MM Hair Loss Class Action Settlement
UNIQUE PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Sterile Drug Preparations
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Challenge Motion to Dismiss NSA Suit

WAWONA PACKING: Recalls Certain Lots of Whole Peaches, Nectarines
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls In-Store Baked Desserts With Fresh Fruits
WHITE & BLUE: Recalls Tattoo Inks & Needles Due to Pathogens
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Made-In-Store Items Prepared with Stone Fruit
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Chewies Cookies Due to Walnuts

WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Mini Caesar & Mini Mesclun Goat Cheese Salad
WORLD WRESTLING: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in Connecticut


                            *********


156-40 GRILL: Class Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Gutierrez, Flavio Minchala, Ana Maria Sanchez, Evangelos
Pollatos, and Margarita Podaras, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. 156-40 Grill LLC (d/b/a Taverna Greek
Grill), Michael Siderakis, and Konstantinos Siklas, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04532 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) is an action to recover minimum
and overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and associated rules and regulations,
and for breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Company.  They were
primarily employed as cooks, delivery persons, and dishwashers.

The Defendants owned, operated, and controlled a restaurant
located at 156-40 Cross Bay Boulevard, in Howard Beach, New York,
doing business as Taverna Greek Grill.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com
                  Michael@Faillacelaw.com


202 W. 49TH: Faces "Hirsch" Suit Over Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. 202 W. 49th Pub Inc., a New York corporation,
d/b/a Playwright Tavern & Restaurant, and Farmore Realty, Inc., a
New York corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05873-PAE (S.D.N.Y.,
July 29, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law and the New
York State Human Rights Law.

Mr. Hirsch is a double amputee and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

202 W. 49th Pub Inc. is a New York corporation doing business as
Playwright Tavern & Restaurant.  The Company is the lessee and
operator of a real property and the owner of the improvements
where the subject facility is located in New York City.  The
facility is commonly referred to as Playwright Tavern &
Restaurant.  Farmore Realty, Inc., is a New York corporation and
is the owner, lessor or operator of the real property where the
facility is located.

The facility is a place of public accommodation in that it is an
establishment, which provides goods and services to the public,
Mr. Hirsch says.  He contends that the Defendants have
discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against him and
others who are similarly situated by denying full and equal access
to goods, services and accommodations at the Defendants' property,
and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the
ADA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACRES MAINTENANCE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Class Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Gomez, Oscar Lopez, and Gerardo Pedroza, on behalf of
themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. Acres Maintenance, Inc., d/b/a Acres Enterprises, Inc.,
Premier Staffing Services, Inc., and Luis Burgos, Individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05812 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2014) is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs are the Defendants' past employees, who performed
work as drivers, worksite laborers, and foremen.

Acres Maintenance, Inc., doing business as Acres Enterprises,
Inc., provides landscaping and maintenance services.  Premier
Staffing Services, Inc., assisted Acres Maintenance in providing
these services by facilitating in the recruitment and hiring of
employees.  Luis Burgos is an owner or operator of Premier
Staffing.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

               - and -

          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784-3541
          Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
          E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org


ALPHA MANAGEMENT: October 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT
MIDDLESEX COUNTY

13-0560

PAUL RENIERE and
WILLIAM LUCAS

v.

ALPHA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND URBAN
HILLSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FINAL HEARING

TO: ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO, AS OF APRIL 2012, WERE TENANTS AT:

17-19 WASHINGTON STREET, MALDEN,
86-96 MAPLE STREET, MALDEN
40 CEDAR STREET, MALDEN, OR
349 PLEASANT STREET, MALDEN

A Class Action Lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Management
Corporation and Urban Hillside Properties, LLC on behalf of a
class of tenants at the above-named properties who paid a "Key and
Cleaning Deposit."  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
mishandled the deposits.

A proposed settlement has been reached that includes payment of
approximately $105 to each class member.  The Court has ordered
the publication of this notice.  If you resided at one of the
addresses above as of April 2012 you may be a member of the class
and may be entitled to payment.  If you believe you may be a class
member and you have not received a formal notice of class
settlement in the mail you must first obtain a copy of the Mail
Notice in order to receive payment or object to the settlement.
You may obtain a Mail Notice by contacting Class

Counsel:

Josh Gardner
Gardner and Rosenberg, P.C.
33 Mount Vernon St.
Boston, MA 02108

(857) 225-2743
josh@gardnerrosenberg.com

If you wish to file a claim, you must request a Mail Notice from
Class Counsel, and fill out and return such Mail Notice to Class
Counsel before October 7, 2014.  If you wish to object to the
settlement, you must request a Mail Notice from Class Counsel,
which describes the process that must be followed to file an
objection.  All objections must be received by October 7, 2014.

DO NOT ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE TO THE CLERK OF THE
COURT OR TO THE JUDGE.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone Location Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jasper Hamill, writing for The Register, reports that a woman has
brought a class-action lawsuit for "invasion of privacy" against
Apple over claims surrounding the firm's use of Location Services
to track iPhone users and store data on their movements.

The class action suit was filed by a consumer named Chen Ma on
behalf of an estimated 100 million affected users.  She wants
Apple to give all these iPhone owners some sort of compensatory
damages and promise to no longer use Location Services to collect
data without explicitly asking fanbois for their permission.

Her complaint focuses on its Location Services software, which
comes as standard on all Apple mobes.

In a legal filing, Ms. Ma alleged her "daily whereabouts would be
tracked, recorded and transmitted to Apple database [sic] to be
stored for future reference".  Her case was sparked by a report on
CCTV, China's state-sponsored broadcaster, which led her to
believe Apple was "surreptitiously acquiring the data of her daily
whereabouts down to every minutes [sic] without her knowledge,
approval and permission".

The data was collected, Apple admitted in the broadcaster's
report, but it insisted the information was not disclosed to any
third party.

However, Ms. Ma's legal team questioned this claim and alleged
that it had made handed over data "including but not limited to US
government" who had made "more than 1,000" requests for the
information.  She was also concerned that users were offered "no
meaningful" way to switch off Location Services without
"substantially compromising" key parts of the iPhone's
functionality.

Blamed for sapping batteries with its constant pinging, location
tracking was introduced in iOS 4.  In 2010, Apple wrote to
Congress and explained that its location tracking feature wasn't
as creepy as it sounded and insisted the data was only stored in
an anonymized form which did not identify the user.  However, that
didn't satisfy the powers that be and Cupertino was forced to
explain itself again in 2011 after the House Energy and Commerce
Committee's wrote a letter asking for details of tracking
undertaken by its mobile phones.

Last year, a US judge threw out a similar data privacy lawsuit,
after ruling the plaintiffs had failed to show any evidence that
they had bothered to read Apple's privacy policies before they
bought their iPhones.


BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Sale of Pet Food Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathon Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd, a Delaware
Corporation, and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05937-FMO-
SH (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2014) alleges that the Company's
advertising of its pet food products is false and misleading.

The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business located in Wilton, Connecticut.  Blue
Buffalo manufactures, markets, and sells pet food, pet treats, and
related products nationwide.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Allison Rachel Willett, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
                  awillett@milsteinadelman.com
                  savila@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


BUFFALO BILLS: Former Cheerleaders' Labor Suit Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that five
former Buffalo Bills cheerleaders scored a pre-season victory
after a judge sustained their unfair labor practice case against
the professional football franchise.

Supreme Court Justice Timothy Drury said a question of fact
remains on whether the Bills maintained functional control over
the cheerleading squad even though the team insists that the
Buffalo Jills are not its employees, but independent contractors
retained by other companies.  At issue are allegations that the
cheerleaders were denied minimum wages, that unlawful deductions
were taken from their paychecks and that the employer committed
other state Labor Law violations.

Court records show that the Bills contracted with Citadel
Communications Co. and later Stejon Productions Corp. to provide
cheerleading services.  The team contends it exercises control
only to the extent necessary to protect its brand.

But Justice Drury said "the minute control that Citadel and Stejon
exercised over the work of the cheerleaders supports the
conclusion that they were not independent contractors but
employees."

The amount of control, and therefore potential liability, of the
football team will ultimately be determined under the "economic
reality test" delineated in Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F 3d
61, a 2003 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit that was cited by all of the parties. Zheng set forth a
series of factors used to determine if an entity assumes "joint
employer" status.

In Jaclyn v. Buffalo Bills, 2014 NY Slip Op 51120, Justice Drury
said both sides "made good points" with their respective Zheng
argument, leaving a question of fact sufficient to overcome a
summary judgment motion.

Sean Cooney -- scooney@dolcepanepinto.com -- a partner at Dolce
Panepinto, represents the lead plaintiff.  The Bills are
represented by a team of attorneys from Lipsitz Green Scime
Cambria in Buffalo, including senior partners Jeffrey Reina --
jreina@lglaw.com -- and Michael Schiavone -- mschiavone@lglaw.com
-- and partner Jonathan Brown -- jbrown@lglaw.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: 1st Cir. Reverses Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that Charter
Communications Inc. and a subsidiary must defend a class action
filed by customers claiming they should have been extended billing
credits because their cable, Internet and telephone service was
disrupted during a Massachusetts snowstorm.

Judge William Kayatta Jr., writing for a three-judge panel also
including judges O. Rogeriee Thompson and Norman Stahl, ruled that
U.S. District Judge Michael Posnor erred in granting Charter's
motion to dismiss the class action.

The four putative plaintiffs cited disruption to their service
because of a severe snowstorm in October 2011.  Approximately
95,000 Charter customers lost power during the storm.  The
plaintiffs seek at least $75 for each member of the proposed
class.  If successful, the lawsuit could result in a $7.1 million
judgment against Charter.

Although three of the four plaintiffs have accepted credits from
Charter for the period in which they lost service and may not
receive statutory or treble damages under Massachusetts unfair
business-practice law, the plaintiffs also seek a declaration that
state law and Charter's licensing agreements require the company
to pay credits, Judge Kayatta said.

State law requires cable companies to grant subscribers pro rata
rebates in the event their service is interrupted for 24 or more
hours, Judge Kayatta said.

The panel also reasoned that it is not "unlikely that the New
England weather will produce another severe winter storm, as
evidenced by the fact that Massachusetts passed a law to address
the situation in the first place.  In these circumstances, we find
the dispute between the plaintiffs and Charter about the extent of
Charter's duties to the plaintiffs under Massachusetts law and its
licensing agreements to be live and proper for judicial
consideration."

The consumers have the right to sue Charter over unfair
competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices, the panel
said.  The panel also declined to reject the plaintiffs' quasi-
contractual claims.

Judge Kayatta rejected Charter's argument that the statutory
language requires rebates only to subscribers who ask for them.

The panel found that third-party consumers have no right to
enforce contracts between Massachusetts municipalities and Charter
defining the scope of the cable company's operations.


CHINA MOBILE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 25 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against China Mobile Games & Entertainment Group,
Ltd. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 14-cv-4745, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased CMGE's American Depository
Shares ("ADS") between September 20, 2012 and June 19, 2014,
inclusive, including those investors who purchased CMGE ADS
pursuant to the CMGE's secondary public offering that closed on or
about March 26, 2014.   This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased China Mobile Games
securities during the Class Period, you have until August 19, 2014
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

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

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

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

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

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


COBB ELECTRIC: Customers to Get Class Action Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Butschek, writing for The Marietta Daily Journal, reports
that after four years battling in court, many customers in a
class-action lawsuit who claim Cobb Electric Membership Corp.
withheld money that was rightfully theirs will get a check in the
mail.

More than 77,000 people who have used Cobb EMC as their electric
provider will receive checks in the coming weeks from Cobb EMC,
said David Cohen with Powder Springs-based Complex Law Group, who
is representing the customers.

Cobb EMC is a nonprofit owned by its 175,000 customers, called
"members," and was accused of failing to return excess revenues to
customers.  The suit alleged that $286 million should have been
returned to members but was kept by the electric co-op instead.
At the end of each year, Cobb EMC places its excess revenue in a
capital account where it is assigned to the members based on how
much electricity they use.  Until the lawsuit was filed in 2010,
the last time Cobb EMC refunded capital credits to its members was
in 1976, when it returned $500,000.  The lawsuit reached a $98
million settlement Feb. 25, which is the largest class-action
settlement in Cobb County's history.

Former county commissioner Butch Thompson, who was a lead
petitioner in the case, said it's a relief to see results after
such a long fight.

"I am very pleased.  This was something that should have been done
years ago," Mr. Thompson said.

He said Cobb EMC is being run by a responsible board now, and he
is glad to know his fight was worth it.

"It was worth it to correct a wrong, and as a result of it, the
customers now will get back some compensation for the years that
they should have," Mr. Thompson said.

In what Mr. Cohen called the "first wave" of distributions, a
total of $24.6 million, will be mailed out by the end of the week.

The Garden City Group, Inc., which was appointed by Cobb Superior
Court to be the claims administrator, was expected to send all the
checks by July 31.  The company is also in charge of issuing
notices, receiving claims and processing the claims related to the
settlement. The deadline to file a claim was March 8.

The payments vary, but Mr. Cohen said some larger businesses or
organizations could get as much as $500,000 with this check.

Payouts under the settlement range from fewer than $100 to several
million dollars. Members can choose to receive an immediate payout
of a portion of their capital credits or to receive the full
amount on a yearly basis over 24 years.

"Each check would depend on how long you've been a member, and the
patronage capital or capital credit depends on how much power
you've paid for each year," Mr. Cohen said.

A total of 117,915 claims were submitted, and of those, 89,475
were either duplicate claims or not completed correctly, Mr. Cohen
said.

Anyone who thinks they should get a check but doesn't receive one
this month should check the claim they filed, Mr. Cohen said.
Those who filed incomplete claims will get a letter in the mail to
notify them.

"In many cases, the problem is as simple as inadvertently not
selecting a payment option or not signing the claim form they
submitted," Garden City Group said in a statement.

Mr. Cohen said those claims will still be accepted once they are
completed and returned.

A lawsuit against former Cobb EMC President Dwight Brown is
ongoing, but trial dates before Cobb Superior Court Judge Robert
Flournoy have not yet been set, said Kim Isaza, the district
attorney's spokeswoman.

Mr. Brown was indicted in 2011 on theft and racketeering charges
after he was accused of running the electric co-op as a for-profit
company, benefiting its executives.  He has been out of jail on
bond since July of 2011.


CONNECTONE BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in N.J. Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder lawsuit was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey,
Bergen County over a proposed merger between ConnectOne Bancorp,
Inc. and Center Bancorp, Inc., according to the company's June 20,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On January 27, 2014, a complaint was filed against ConnectOne
Bancorp and the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, seeking class action status
and asserting that the Company and the members of its Board had
violated their duties to the Company's shareholders in connection
with the proposed merger with Center Bancorp.  Subsequently,
several additional complaints also seeking class action status and
raising substantially the same allegations, were filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. The plaintiffs
propose to consolidate these cases. The litigation is in its very
early stages, and the Company's time to answer has not yet run.

Center Bancorp and ConnectOne Bancorp announced on January 21,
2014, that they have entered into a definitive agreement to merge,
in a transaction valued at $243 million, based on the closing
price of Center common stock on January 17, 2014.  Based on
financial results as of December 31, 2013, the combined company
will have approximately $3.0 billion in total assets, $2.3 billion
in total deposits and $2.1 billion in total loans with 24 branch
locations across northern New Jersey. On a pro forma basis, the
combined bank will be the fourth largest New Jersey headquartered
banking institution in the markets it serves and will be focused
on serving middle market commercial businesses in some of the most
affluent counties in the state.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, which has been approved
by both companies' boards of directors, ConnectOne shareholders
will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 2.6 shares of Center common
stock for each share of ConnectOne common stock. Upon closing,
Center shareholders will own approximately 54% of the combined
company's stock, while ConnectOne shareholders will own
approximately 46%. The merger is expected to generate fully
phased-in annual cost savings of approximately $7.0 million or
approximately 14% of the expected combined expense. The merger is
expected to be accretive to both Center's and ConnectOne's
earnings per share in 2015, excluding the impact of potential
revenue enhancement opportunities. Additionally, it is anticipated
that the combined company's capital ratios will remain well in
excess of regulatory minimums and that the combined company will
have sufficient capital to continue its growth strategy.

On June 24, 2014, ConnectOne Bancorp and Center Bancorp, parent
company of Union Center National Bank, jointly announced that
their respective shareholders, at annual meetings held earlier
that day, approved the merger.  The merger was to close effective
July 1, 2014.


CR ENGLAND: Court Approves $3-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Jill Dunn, writing for OverdriveOnline.com, reports that a federal
court has approved a $3 million class action settlement over
truth-in-leasing regulations in favor of the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association against C.R. England Inc.

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' June 19 final order ended
a dozen years of litigation on behalf of owner-operators who
leased equipment and provided service to England 1998-2006. The
Salt Lake based company had no immediate comment on the
settlement.

The settlement covers approximately 7,000 drivers who signed a
lease agreement with the carrier between 1998-2006.  Class members
who signed the version in effect until 2002, which was determined
to be out of compliance, will receive more compensation than
members who signed the revised lease implemented by C.R. England
in 2002 -- and currently in effect -- because the court determined
that the revised lease complied with the regulations.

In June 2002, two owner-operators and OOIDA filed suit against
England.  That summer, the company implemented a revised
independent contractor operating agreement.

In 2007, the court ruled the original agreement violated leasing
regulations, but damages had not been proven on charge-back and
forced purchase claims. However, the amended agreement was
compliant with law, it stated.

Still, the court agreed England had violated the escrow provisions
of leasing regulations and ordered an accounting audit.  When that
was concluded, it awarded judgment for the plaintiffs, but both
sides appealed.

In June final order pays $1 million in class counsel attorney fees
and reimburses an additional $190,164 in attorney expenses.  The
two owner-operators named in the suit will receive $15,000 each.

The remaining class action members will receive awards based on
which of three categories they fall under.  The first is the 781
members who entered the original agreement and were awarded monies
pursuant to the judgment entered by the court.  The second are
those who had that agreement but were not awarded under that
judgment.  The third is class members who entered only into the
revised agreement with England during this time.


DAKOTA PLAINS: Superior Court Removes Subsidiaries From Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. entities were removed from a lawsuit
filed in the Canadian Province of Quebec, in the district of
Megantic, according to the company's June 19, 2014, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 15, 2013 four named plaintiffs filed a petition in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, in the district of Megantic, seeking
permission from the court to pursue a class action seeking to
recover compensatory and punitive damages along with costs. On
June 18, 2014, the plaintiffs sought permission to discontinue the
class action proceedings with respect to Dakota Plains Holdings,
Inc. and each of its subsidiaries, Dakota Plains Marketing, LLC
and Dakota Plains Transloading, LLC. On the same day, the Justice
Bureau of the Quebec Superior Court granted permission for the
discontinuance and, consequently, each of those entities have been
removed from the class action proceeding.


DEMOULAS SUPER MARKETS: Faces Suit Over Night Shift Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
MyFoxBoston.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Market Basket amid allegations that the supermarket chain
has violated Massachusetts wage laws.

A complaint, dated July 23, alleges Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.
has specifically violated wage laws by requiring its night shift
workers take an unpaid, mandatory one hour break and by locking
them in the store so they are unable to go outside or use their
break time as they wish.

The plaintiffs are identified individually in the complaint as
Daniel Sheridan and Hatsanai Manivong, and on behalf of "a class
of similarly situated individuals."  They are seeking class
certification, treble damages, attorneys' fees, cost and interest,
and injunctive relief.

Both plaintiffs identified individually are residents of
Leominster.  Mr. Sheridan has worked at Market Basket since 1995,
at stores in Leominster and Bellingham.  Mr. Manivong worked the
night shift at Market Basket from 2010 until the late summer of
2012.

A representative for the company told FOX 25 they have not yet
seen the lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes amid a feud between employees and the company's
leaders over former CEO Arthur T. Demoulas.


CHAI NY: Denies Equal Access to Restaurant, Double Amputee Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Chai (NY) Inc., a New York corporation, d/b/a
Chai Thai Kitchen, and Azone Realty Corp., a New York corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05872-PAC (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) is brought
for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs, including court
costs and expert fees, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York State
Human Rights Law.

Mr. Hirsch is a double amputee and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Chai (NY) Inc. is a New York corporation doing business as Chai
Thai Kitchen.  Chai is the lessee and operator of a real property
and the owner of the improvements where the subject facility is
located in New York City.  The facility is commonly referred to as
Chai Thai Kitchen.  Azone Realty Corp. is a New York corporation
and is the owner, lessor or operator of the real property where
the facility is located.

The facility is a place of public accommodation in that it is an
establishment, which provides goods and services to the public,
Mr. Hirsch says.  He contends that the Defendants have
discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against him and
others, who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal
access to goods, services and accommodations at the Defendants'
property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant
to the ADA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLECTO INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Marsico, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Collecto, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04544-LDW-WDW
(E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669-0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


DALCOM MODERN: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christrine Shi, Sook Yin Ng, Effendy Satrijo, Devi K. Kon, Aram
Hong, Jonathan Gutierrez-Vivar, and Javier Cisneros, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Dalcom Modern, Inc.
d/b/a Sushi Damo and Red Cork Espresso and Wine Bar, Kiwon Chong,
Won-Chu Chong, Eun Y. Kim, Soo Huan Han, and Yoon Choi, Case No.
1:14-cv-05837 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper minimum wages, overtime
compensation and "spread of hours" premium.

Dalcom Modern, Inc., doing business as Sushi Damo, is a New York
domestic corporation.  Dalcom owned and operated a Japanese
restaurant and sushi bar known as Sushi Damo, and an espresso and
wine bar known as Red Cork.  Sushi Damo and Red Cork are located
adjacent to one another in New York City.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, shareholders, or officers of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


DAVIS VISION: Accused of Monopolizing Ill. Ophthalmic Lens Market
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Optical Laboratories, LLC v. Davis Vision, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-03231-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., July 29, 2014) alleges
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, and seeking
damages, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
declaring DV is enjoined from enforcing, entering into, or
maintaining contracts with Illinois optometrists and opticians
requiring these to exclusively use DV's ophthalmic lens
manufacturing laboratories for all of DV's members' manufacturing
orders of prescription eyeglass lens sales.

Davis Vision, Inc., is a registered Illinois Limited Liability
Company, and is headquartered in Normal, Illinois, McLean County.
DV manufactures ophthalmic goods, including digitally manufactured
freeform ophthalmic lenses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas T. Williams, Esq.
          H.W. HOLDINGS LLC
          2221 W. College Ave.
          Normal, IL 61761
          Telephone: (618) 698-5625
          Facsimile: (312) 244-3272
          E-mail: n.williams@hwholdings.com


ELECTRIC AVENUE: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan C. Revello v. Electric Avenue, Inc., and Ofer Sisson,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22787-UU (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2014)
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Electric Avenue, Inc. is a Florida corporation, having its main
place of business in Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff
worked as a sales store employee for the Defendant.  Ofer Sisson
is the Manager/Partner of Electric Avenue.  Electric Avenue is a
store located at Downtown Miami, specializing in the sale of an
extensive selection of electronics, computers, communication, and
photographic equipment.  Because of its location, the store caters
mostly to tourist from out of state and also to tourist from all
around the world, Mr. Revello says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELGIN FURNITURE: Faces Suit for Not Paying Hours Worked Above 40
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Best, 4510 Warrensville Center Rd. #209, North Randall,
OH, 44128, on her own behalf and for all others similarly situated
v. Elgin Furniture and Appliance, Inc., c/o Jed Brenner, agent,
26400 Lakeland Blvd., Euclid, OH 44132; and Elgin Northfield,
Inc., c/o Jed Brenner, agent, 26400 Lakeland Blvd., Euclid, OH
44132, Case No. 1:14-cv-01662 (N.D. Ohio, July 29, 2014) arises
from the Defendants' alleged refusal and failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class for the time
they worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week.

Elgin Appliance, Inc., is an Ohio Corporation that owns and
operates furniture and appliance stores in the cities of Cleveland
and Cleveland Heights in Cuyahoga County.  Elgin Northfield, Inc.,
is an Ohio Corporation that owns and operates a furniture and
appliance store in the city of Northfield, Cuyahoga County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          Daniel Nealon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FINE
          3637 South Green Road, 2nd Floor
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 292-8884
          E-mail: mfine@ohioconsumerlawyer.com

               - and -

          Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq.
          Markus Lyytinen, Esq.
          ZIPKIN WHITING CO., LPA
          3637 South Green Road, 2nd Floor
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 514-6400
          Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
          E-mail: mlyytinen@zipkinwhiting.com
                  zfwlpa@aol.com


FIRST & FIRST: Denies Equal Access at Facilities, N.Y. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. First & First Finest Deli Corp., a New York
corporation, d/b/a First & First Finest Deli, and 18-20 First Ave.
Inc., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05866-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was denied
full and equal access and enjoyment of facilities at the
Defendants' property arising from alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights
Law and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Mr. Hirsch is a double amputee and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

First & First Finest Deli Corp. is a New York corporation doing
business as First & First Finest Deli.  The Company is the lessee
and operator of a real property and the owner of the improvements
where the subject facility is located in New York City.  The
facility is commonly referred to as First & First Finest Deli.
18-20 First Ave. Inc., a New York corporation, is the owner,
lessor or operator of the real property where the facility is
located.

The facility is a place of public accommodation in that it is an
establishment, which provides goods and services to the public,
Mr. Hirsch says.  He contends that the Defendants have
discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against him and
others who are similarly situated by denying full and equal access
to goods, services and accommodations at the Defendants' property,
and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the
ADA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal "Kickback" Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Pitblado, Esq. -- jpitblado@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, in article for JD Supra, reports that a putative
class of mortgage consumers sued Flagstar Bank and its captive
reinsurer alleging that they engaged in an illegal "kickback"
scheme with private mortgage insurers, which scheme artificially
inflated the price of such insurance for the plaintiffs, in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").
The defendants claimed plaintiffs failed to file suit within
RESPA's one year statute of limitations.  Plaintiffs claimed the
statute was equitably tolled because defendants actively concealed
the "scheme."

After declining to grant a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, and
allowing the parties to make an adequate factual record on the
statute of limitation issue for summary judgment, the court
granted the defendants' summary judgment motion.  The statute ran
"from the date of the occurrence of the violation," which
commences upon the closing of the loan, and that each of the
plaintiffs' claims were filed in excess of a year from closing.
The court rejected the plaintiffs' equitable tolling argument,
noting that in RESPA cases, "silence is insufficient to toll the
statute of limitations; the defendant must have performed an
independent act of concealment upon which the plaintiff
justifiably relied."  The record included no evidence of active
concealment on the defendants' part. Hill v. Flagstar Bank, Case
No. 12-2770 (USDC E.D. Pa. June 26, 2014).


FRANCO FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Suriel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Franco Food Corp. d/b/a Associated Supermarket and Pilar Franco
Encarnacion, Case No. 1:14-cv-05835-KPF (S.D.N.Y.,
July 29, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Franco Food Corp., doing business as Associated Supermarket, is a
New York corporation headquartered in Bronx, New York.  Pilar
Franco Encarnacion is the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of
the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


GE CAPITAL: Uses Auto Dialing System to Place Calls, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Pittman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01466-RDP (N.D. Ala., July 29, 2014) alleges that the Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an
automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency calls to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, without his consent.

GE Capital, doing business as GE Capital Retail Bank, provides
retail banking and credit services to consumers, businesses,
merchants, and retailers in the United States and internationally.
GE offers retail sales finance, like private label credit card
programs, installment lending, bankcards, and financial services
for consumers, retailers, manufacturers, and health-care
providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: ggreenwald@mgjdlaw.com
                  aradbil@mgjdlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Electronic Power Steering
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Jones v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05850-UA
(S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) arises out of General Motors and its
predecessor's alleged failure to disclose and lengthy concealment
of a known defect affecting the Electronic Power Steering system
of over 1.3 million vehicles and compromising the safety and
integrity of those vehicles

General Motors LLC is a foreign limited liability company formed
under the laws of Delaware maintaining its principal place of
business in Detroit, Michigan.  GM was incorporated in 2009.  GM
acquired substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities
of General Motors Corporation through a sale pursuant to Section
363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Axelrod, Esq.
          Jay Douglas Dean, Esq.
          AXELROD & DEAN LLP
          830 Third Avenue, Floor 5
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 448-5264
          Facsimile: (212) 480-8560
          E-mail: rjaxelrod@axelroddean.com
                  jddean@axelroddean.com

               - and -

          Stuart McKinley Paynter, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Murray, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486
          Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
          E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com
                  murrayj@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Andrew Steven Friedman, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Kevin R. Hanger, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AX 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com
                  khanger@bffb.com


FREDERICK J. HANNA: Faces Suits Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Zibel and Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that a U.S. financial regulator could upend the
business model of law firms that file waves of cookie-cutter
lawsuits to collect money from people who haven't paid their
bills.

The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last month filed its
first lawsuit against a debt-collection firm, Marietta, Ga.-based
Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, accusing it of violating federal
consumer-protection laws.

Legal specialists said the suit could signal the regulator's
intent to target similar high-volume law firms -- and potentially
banks and debt buyers -- over allegations that debt collection
claims can be out of date, incorrect in their amounts, lacking in
documentary support or overlapping with claims filed against the
same debtors.

People targeted by such suits, typically lacking the law firms'
expertise with the judicial system, often don't show up to contest
the cases in court, resulting in judgments that can be difficult
to correct.

The CPFB's case, filed in federal court in Georgia, accused Hanna
& Associates of churning out more than 350,000 credit card
collection complaints against consumers, some of whom may owe
nothing or owed less than was claimed.  Lawyers for the firm
typically spend less than a minute reviewing each suit, the CPFB
alleged.

Critics say such collection practices are widespread.  "What
they've singled out isn't an anomaly," said Peter Holland, a
consumer lawyer and adjunct professor at the University of
Maryland School of Law.

Lawyers at Hanna & Associates insist they have done no wrong,
saying the firm ensures the debts being collected are valid and
for the proper amount.  The firm has fought off government
inquiries in the past.  In 2010, a Georgia court ruled that a
state consumer official who sought to investigate the firm's
practices didn't have the authority to do so.

"We have successfully defended ourselves against these types of
claims before," said Joseph Cooling, the law firm's managing
partner.

The CFPB's case represents an intrusion by the federal government
into the practice of law, said Joann Needleman, a lawyer in
Philadelphia who is president of the National Association of
Retail Collection Attorneys.  "It has always been up to the states
to regulate their licensed attorneys," Ms. Needleman said.

CFPB officials say the regulator may sue law firms if they operate
as debt-collection businesses rather than legal advisers.

Roughly 77 million Americans have debt in collections, according
to a study published by the Washington, D.C.-based think tank
Urban Institute.

The vast majority of borrowers sued in such cases don't appear in
court.  As a result, many cases end in a default judgment allowing
the collector to garnish wages, freeze bank accounts or put a lien
on property.

Eduardo Austin, a 34-year-old information technology project
manager from Atlanta, is the named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit
seeking class-action status that alleges that the Hanna law firm
bilked consumers by adding extra interest to paid-off debt.

Mr. Austin paid off a $2,400 debt on a Discover card and then
discovered that the firm was trying to garnish another $970 in
interest.  "I couldn't believe it.  I remember the balance being
zero and being relieved that it was over," Mr. Austin said.  "Then
after that, I was like, this is ridiculous."

Mr. Cooling said the money sought from Mr. Austin was permissible
under state law and resulted from a backlog of debt-collection
cases in the court system.  The firm "complied with all provisions
of Georgia garnishment statutes," he said.

CFPB officials are also weighing regulations that would impose
tougher requirements on debt collectors to establish they have the
right to collect on a debt and ensure the amount is accurate.
Besides debt collection law firms, the rules would impact banks
and debt buyers such as Encore Capital Group Inc. and Portfolio
Recovery Associates.  Representatives of Encore and Portfolio
Recovery declined to comment.

When a defendant doesn't respond to a suit, there is only so much
a judge can do to verify the claims made by the debt-collection
firms.

"I'm a judge," said Gary LeShaw, a semiretired magistrate judge in
DeKalb County, Ga., who has presided over thousands of debt-
collection cases in small-claims court.  "I can't be the defense
lawyer."


H&R BLOCK: Wins Favorable Ruling in "Petroski" Labor Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order
in favor of H&R Block, Inc. in the labor lawsuit Barbara Petroski,
et al. v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No.
10-00075-CV-W-DW), according to the company's June 19, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2014.

On January 25, 2010, a wage and hour class action lawsuit was
filed against the company in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri styled Barbara Petroski, et al.
v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No. 10-
00075-CV-W-DW). The plaintiffs generally allege failure to
compensate tax professionals nationwide for training that is
required to be eligible for rehire the following tax season, and
seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. A
conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act
in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals nationwide who
worked in company-owned offices and who were not compensated for
such training on or after April 15, 2007). Two classes were also
certified under state laws in California and New York (consisting
of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in
California and New York and who were not compensated for such
training on or after March 4, 2006 and on or after March 4, 2004,
respectively). The company filed a motion to decertify the
classes, along with a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
On April 8, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in the
company's favor on all claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal. On
May 1, 2014, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
order of the trial court in the company's favor.


H&R BLOCK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in RAL & RAC Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by H&R Block, Inc. to compel arbitration in IN RE: H&R
Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373/No: 1:12-
CV-02973-JBG) remains pending, according to the company's June 19,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2014.

A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011
concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products. The plaintiffs generally allege
the company engaged in unfair, deceptive or fraudulent acts in
violation of various state consumer protection laws by
facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate
TILA disclosures, and by offering RACs without any TILA
disclosures. Certain plaintiffs also allege violation of
disclosure requirements of various state statutes expressly
governing RALs and provisions of those statutes prohibiting tax
preparers from charging or retaining certain fees. Collectively,
the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who purchased RAL or RAC
products in up to 42 states and the District of Columbia during
timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present. The plaintiffs seek
equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and
statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs. These cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation into a single proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund
Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373/No: 1:12-CV-02973-JBG).
The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which remains
pending.


H&R BLOCK: Bid to Arbitrate Compliance Fee Suit for Consideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District remanded the case
Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case #
1216CV12290) for further consideration of a motion to compel
arbitration, according to the company's June 19, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2014.

On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.
(Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail
tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks
to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance
fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The
company filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims.
The court denied the motion. The company filed an appeal. On May
6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed
the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further
consideration of the motion.


H&R BLOCK: "Perras" Suit to Proceed on 2012 Tax Claims
------------------------------------------------------
The case over compliance fee, Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK), is continuing to proceed on the 2012
tax seasons claims, according to the company's June 19, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance
fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax
seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons nationwide
(excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance
fee, and asserts claims of violation of various state consumer
laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification in September 2013. The
court subsequently granted the company's motion to compel
arbitration of the 2011 claims and stayed all proceedings with
respect to the 2011 claims. The case is continuing to proceed on
the 2012 claims.


H&R BLOCK: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Form 8863 Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration and to strike
class allegations in IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION
(MDL No. 2474/Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG), according to the
company's June 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in various federal courts and one state court beginning on
March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits
purport to represent certain clients nationwide who filed Form
8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using
H&R Block At Home online tax services or tax preparation software,
and allege breach of contract, negligence and violation of state
consumer laws in connection with transmission of the form. The
plaintiffs seek damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs. In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action
voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. On October 10,
2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the
company's petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits
for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled
IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No.
4:13-MD-02474-FJG). The company filed a motion to compel
arbitration and to strike class allegations relating to clients
who agreed to arbitrate their claims, which remains pending.


H&R BLOCK: International Textile Merger Suit Accord for Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval is being sought for the settlement reached in In re
International Textile Group Merger Litigation, according to H&R
Block, Inc.'s June 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets LLC and others in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville
County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P.
Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant,
International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components
International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM
EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re International
Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action
claim. The plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil
conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against
MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the
Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI)
in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group,
Inc. and SCI. The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages,
pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8,
2012, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim
against all defendants. A class was certified on the remaining
claims on November 20, 2012. The court granted summary judgment in
favor of MCM on June 3, 2013 on the breach of fiduciary duty
claim. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with
litigation, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to
resolve the case, which is subject to approval by the court. The
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February
19, 2014. A final approval hearing was set for June 26, 2014. A
portion of the company's loss contingency accrual is related to
this lawsuit for the amount of loss that the company considers
probable and reasonably estimable.

In connection with the sale of RSM and MCM, the company
indemnified the buyers against certain litigation matters. The
indemnities are not subject to a stated term or limit. A portion
of the company's accrual is related to these indemnity
obligations.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Ex-Employee Ordered to Reimburse Attorney Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge has ordered a former Hewlett-Packard Co. employee to
reimburse the company for $165,000 in attorney fees and litigation
costs in a rare reversal of typical fee-shifting dynamics.

James Purvis, who worked as an HP sales associate off and on
between 2004 and 2008, was one of four named plaintiffs to accuse
the company of failing to pay their earned commissions and
bonuses.  The court granted summary judgment to HP in 2011, which
opened plaintiffs up to a unique vulnerability under the
California Labor Code.  Last week, U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer awarded HP $86,318 in costs and $79,316 in fees, all to be
paid out of Mr. Purvis' pocket.

The other three named plaintiffs in the case, all Colorado
residents, escaped Judge Breyer's ruling.  The court dismissed
their claims early on, ruling out-of-state employees are not
protected by California labor law.  Judge Breyer found Mr. Purvis
solely liable as HP only sought fees for work done after he
stepped into the case and the Colorado claims were dropped.

An HP spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.  Plaintiffs
lawyer Franklin Azar did not respond to phone messages and emails
on July 28.

Mr. Purvis' situation is a plaintiff's worst-case scenario,
according to David Lowe of Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, who is not
involved in this case.

"Other than appealing to the human sympathies of the judge . . .
or filing for bankruptcy, there may not be a lot of other
options," said Mr. Lowe.

When plaintiffs filed their claim in 2009, it fell under a state
law that allowed the prevailing party in certain wage nonpayment
suits to receive attorney fees, regardless of whether the victor
was the employer or an employee.  The Legislature amended that
statute last August to specify that employees only will be held
liable for fees if the court finds they filed a suit in bad faith.
That change took effect in January.

The amendment set off a heated argument between Mr. Azar, a
Colorado-based plaintiffs lawyer, and HP over which form of the
statute applied in this case.

"It would be a manifest injustice to burden plaintiffs with such
an enormous debt, simply for trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to
recover their lawful wages," he wrote.

HP's attorneys, led by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partners
Melinda Riechert -- mriechert@morganlewis.com -- and
Anne Brafford, accused plaintiffs attorneys of purposefully
dragging out the litigation in an attempt to take advantage of the
January amendment to the Labor Code.

"To try to create a smoke screen, plaintiffs engineered a
multitude of unnecessary discovery disputes and have dragged out
this litigation for years through an unfounded appeal and petition
for review, costing HP a substantial sum of money in needless
litigation costs," they wrote.  "This transparent gamesmanship
should not be endorsed."

Judge Breyer came down on HP's side in March, ordering fees and
costs against Mr. Purvis without finding the plaintiff acted in
bad faith.  Statutes generally do not operate retroactively, he
ruled, and creating an exception in this case would place an
unfair burden on HP.

"Defendant became entitled to attorneys' fees as soon as it
prevailed on summary judgment in August 2011," Judge Breyer wrote.
Ruling July 24, Judge Breyer awarded far less than the $855,000
sought by the defense.  Judge Breyer agreed plaintiffs counsel
appeared "to have unnecessarily multiplied the proceedings in this
litigation."  But he ruled the attorneys' conduct fell short of
punishment, and denied HP's request for $141,614 in sanctions.

It's rare a judge will order an employee to pay attorney fees in
employment suits.  Few statutes even allow for that type of fee
shifting, according to San Francisco employment attorney Kimberly
Kralowec.  The ones that do generally specify the employee only
has to pay if he or she acted in bad faith.

"The purpose of that," Ms. Kralowec said, "is to avoid
discouraging plaintiffs from going into court to pursue their
rights."


HIGHER ONE: RSU Students May Participate in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Cydney Baron, writing for Pryor Times, reports that Rogers State
University received the opportunity to participate in a class
action lawsuit over the school-issued Higher One Education cards.

Higher One's Easy Refund card is offered by RSU's bursar's office
as a way to "provide students with a faster way to receive
financial aid or school refunds."  According to the school
website, "Easy Refund is by far the fastest and easiest way to
gain access to your refund money -- literally the same day RSU
releases it."

A class action settlement notification has been mailed out to
potentially eligible students by the United States District Court
for the district of Connecticut.  The notice is prefaced by a
disclaimer that says, "A federal court authorized this notice.  It
is not a solicitation from a lawyer."

The notice states if the recipient opened a Higher One OneAccount
bank account between July 1, 2006, and Aug. 2, 2012, and incurred
a fee, they may be eligible for a payment from a class action
settlement.  It further states that a $15 million proposed
settlement has been reached in a class action suit against Higher
One Holdings, Inc., Higher One Inc., The Bancorp Bank, Wright
Express Financial Services Corporation (WEX Bank) and Taylor
Capital Group Inc.

The mailed notice concludes in saying, "Defendants maintain that
there was nothing wrong with their marketing and fee practices and
that they did not violate any laws.  The court has not decided
which side is right."

Nationwide, HigherOne has been under scrutiny for exorbitant fees.

CBS news reported that about 1.2 million students now possess a
HigherOne card.

"Students must pay 50 cents to use a PIN when making a purchase.
Students can also get hit with a monthly $19 inactivity penalty.
What's more, it also costs $2.50 to use another bank's ATM,"
according to the CBS reports.

Students, and financial reports investigating the institution,
claim HigherOne gives the student no other option to receive their
financial aid disbursements aside from using the card.

Reports show that once a university has contracted with HigherOne,
financial aid refunds are automatically placed in a HigherOne bank
account accessible only through a HigherOne debit card, without
the students knowledge or consent. RSU students say those who need
their financial aid money immediately have no other option.

"I think everyone gets assigned one and are persuaded to use it
becuase you get a 'faster' refund," said one RSU graduate.  "But
it was more annoying because you couldn't use the card everywhere,
you could only use it so much in one day, plus those huge fees.
It's easier to keep the card and get the refund on that rather
than cancel and wait another four weeks for a check from
HigherOne."

The student said her main complaint about the card is that the
school did nothing to warn the students about the inconveniences
or fees.

The Times was told by the RSU Bursar's office that the Higher One
Easy Refund cards are still being used and that receiving refunds
on them is not optional.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Calif. Court Tosses Class Suit Over Side Air Bags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Igor Kossov, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
court on July 24 threw out a putative class action by some owners
of Hyundai Tiburon cars that accused the company of poor safety
engineering, finding that they suffered no actual damages and
their claims are moot.

Lead plaintiffs Joann Anderson, Terri Hill and Jerome Jeffries
sued Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd. after discovering that collision
sensors for triggering side air bags were built into Tiburons'
crossmembers instead of the B-pillars as is standard for all other
Hyundai vehicles.  The plaintiffs cited two studies finding that
the crossmember mount receives a weaker signal and has a greater
chance of failing to deploy side airbags.  They said they suffered
economic loss from paying for safe vehicles which turned out to be
allegedly unsafe.

The court found that the plaintiffs don't allege any previous or
imminent injury, saying that their allegations are "conjectural
and hypothetical," and have introduced no evidence other than the
studies.  They also failed to demonstrate that they did not
receive "the benefit of their bargain." The case was dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Hyundai-conducted studies cited in the suit are GK Side-Impact
CAE Data Analysis for Sensing Location Selection, 1999, and GK
Advanced Calibration Report Including Confirmation Test Data,
2006.

B-pillars are the structural supports that sit directly behind the
driver and front passenger side windows.  The Tiburon, a small
sports coupe, has a curved "pillarless" profile.  The crossmembers
run across the underside of the car, supporting the engine and
transmission.

According to the plaintiffs, the Tiburon's side impact sensor took
20 milliseconds to detect a velocity change that a B-pillar sensor
detected in 10 milliseconds.  They also pointed to better response
sensitivity for the B-pillar sensor mount in a testing
environment.

The company had filed a motion to dismiss because plaintiffs were
complaining not about a defect but about a standard feature that
they hadn't linked to any specific accidents caused by poor side-
impact sensitivity.  The court affirmed the dismissal.  The
plaintiffs have until Aug. 14 to file an amended complaint.

Joanne Anderson, Terri Hill and Jerome Jeffries were represented
by Elaine T. Byszewski -- elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman,
and Sean R. Matt -- sean@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Ari S. Casper of the Casper Firm LLC and Ronald
Kovner -- RKovner@steinmitchell.com -- of Stein Mitchell Muse &
Cipollone LLP.

Hyundai was represented by Ekwan E. Rhow -- eer@birdmarella.com
-- Karis Ann-Yu Chi -- kac@birdmarella.com -- and Michelle C. Tam
of Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow PC.

The case is Joann Anderson et al. v. Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd. et
al., case number 13-cv-01842, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy Victims Must Describe Trauma to Get Money
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that thousands of women whose
genitals might have been photographed during gynecological exams
can share a $190 million settlement from Johns Hopkins Health
System.  But they'll have to describe their trauma before seeing
any money.  That might be painful for some women who feel
profoundly violated by Dr. Nikita Levy, who committed suicide in
February 2013 after being caught with hundreds of pelvis pictures.
Others who have gotten over their shock in the year and a half
since then might wonder if it's worth their trouble.  And still
other patients who didn't recall any exam-room trauma might try to
collect anyway.

One woman who contacted The Associated Press seeking to join the
class action couldn't remember Dr. Levy, but said she would try
for the money.

"I could have been a victim, and if I was, he should have to pay
for what he did and the hospital should have been more aware of
what was going on at the facility," the woman said.  The AP does
not usually identify possible victims of sex crimes.

As many as 8,000 women and girls already joined the class action.
News of the huge settlement filed on July 21 may encourage more of
the 12,600 patients Dr. Levy saw during his 25 years at Hopkins to
sign up as well.

Investigators found 1,200 videos and 140 images on Dr. Levy's home
computers, which they believe he secretly took with tiny cameras
during exams.  But none were linked to any particular patient, and
none were shared.  Dr. Levy committed suicide without explaining
himself or pointing to any victims.

What comes next depends on each woman's perception of her
suffering.

The eight law firms involved told plaintiffs they could ask for as
much as 35 percent to cover costs, leaving $123.5 million in an
interest-bearing account until each woman's claim is resolved.
That could add up to thousands of dollars to women whose private
parts might have ended up on the doctor's hard drives.

But it won't be divided equally.  Some women who also reported
being sexually abused by the doctor presumably would be entitled
to much more. Others who shook off their trauma might get nothing
at all.

"Every woman qualifies for the suit, but they have to have been
damaged," said the class-action's lead attorney, Jonathan
Schochor.  "If they suffered no damages, it's the same as driving
through a stop sign and not hitting anybody."

Levy worked at the Johns Hopkins-affiliated East Baltimore Medical
Center clinic until he was fired in February 2013, after a female
co-worker alerted hospital security to the tiny pen camera he wore
around his neck.  His suicide days later, and the revelation by
police that he kept a trove of images, made news.  Lawyers soon
competed for patients, and their claims eventually were combined
into the class action.

With the July 21 settlement filing, a notice was sent to his
patients explaining the next steps.  The women can speak publicly
at a "fairness hearing" on Sept. 19, where the judge, Sylvester B.
Cox, also could finalize the settlement and approve legal fees.

Thirty-five percent would be roughly $66.5 million.  Some experts
say that's high, but not unheard of. Cox recently awarded lawyers
40 percent of a $37 million settlement with 273 patients of a
cardiologist accused of performing unnecessary heart surgeries.

"The percentage typically declines as the amount goes up," said
Alan Morrison, a class action expert at George Washington
University Law School.  "A 30 percent fee on $100,000 is one
thing.  A 30 percent fee on $190 million is something else."

Each woman seeking money must fill out a questionnaire and be
interviewed by a team of forensic psychiatrists, post-traumatic
stress specialists and attorneys.  Their experiences, emotions and
circumstantial factors will determine their level of trauma for
the court, ranging from "severely negative experiences,
perceptions or symptoms" to "moderate," ''mild" or "no identified"
symptoms.

The women must describe how much time they spent with Dr. Levy,
whether a nurse was present, and any sexual, verbal or physical
abuse.  Emotions count, including physical manifestations of
stress such as nausea, anxiety and nightmares.  Circumstantial
factors include whether a woman has a history of sexual abuse or
violence, and whether her health care has suffered.

"It's going to be kind of messy, but we cope with it" in class
action settlements, said Geoffrey Hazard, an ethics expert at
Hastings School of Law in San Francisco who is not involved in the
case.  "I assume women will be told they should report as
truthfully as they can, and what their reactions were.  Some
people will have a fairly strong memory, some will be very
articulate, some will not.  It will be a mixture, but the law has
to deal with the complexities of people, and we do the best we
can."


KANGADIS FOOD: Class Reps Seek Chapter 11 Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Representatives in the class action against Kangadis Foods, Inc.
requested that the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
New York dismiss the Debtor's Chapter 11 case or grant them relief
from the automatic stay.  The class representatives contend that
the Debtor filed its Chapter 11 petition solely as a means to
stall the class action case.

Indeed, the Debtor's CEO, Themistoklis Kangadis, stated in a
declaration filed contemporaneously with the Debtor's Chapter 11
petition that the "Debtor has determined that it is in the best
interests of its creditors to file this Chapter 11 case in order
to stay the Class Action, estimate the claims of the class, and
propose a Chapter 11 plan which maximizes the value of the
Debtor's business for the benefit of all the Debtor's creditors,
including the members of the class."  Accordingly, the class
representatives contend that the Debtor's petition was filed in
bad faith in contradiction to the purposes of Chapter 11.  The
class representatives further contend that the Chapter 11 case
should be dismissed because the Debtor is completely solvent and
current on its financial obligations.

Alternatively, the class representatives argue that the facts of
this case warrant "cause" for relief from the automatic stay
pursuant to Sec. 362(d)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Class
representatives further point out that relief from the automatic
stay is warranted because of the existence of six of the twelve
factors cited by the court in Sonnax Indus. v. Tri Component
Prods. Corp. 907 F.2d 1280 (2d Cir. 1990):

  1) The Class Action is ready for the trial scheduled for
     September 3, 2014;

  2) Relief from the automatic stay promotes judicial economy;

  3) Relief from the automatic stay will not interfere with the
     administration of the bankruptcy case;

  4) Relief from the automatic stay will result in a complete
     resolution of the class claims;

  5) Relief from the automatic stay will not prejudice other
     creditors because the Class Action trial will only result in
     the entry, not enforcement, of a final judgment; and

  6) The balance of harms weighs heavily in favor of relief from
     the automatic stay because estate resources will be consumed
     by having to re-litigate the class claims.

The class representatives are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
at Bursor & Fisher, PA of New York, NY.

Formed in 2003, Kangadis Food Inc. is an importer of olives and
other European delicacies, and a leading distributor of olive oil.
The Debtor sells its products under the brand names "Capatriti,"
"Porto," "Olio Villa," "Zorba," and "Kivotos".  The company is
100% owned by the Kangadis family.  The company says that for the
past six years, the popularity of its olive oil product sold under
the brand name "Capatriti" has grown over time, and it is one of
the leading brands in the New York metropolitan area.


KBR INC: Solicitor General Briefs Wanted in Burn Pit Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order inviting the Solicitor
General to file briefs in the Burn Pit litigation against KBR,
Inc., according to the company's June 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

From November 2008 through March 2013, KBR was served with over 50
lawsuits in various states alleging exposure to toxic materials
resulting from the operation of burn pits in Iraq or Afghanistan
in connection with services provided by KBR under the LogCAP III
contract. Each lawsuit has multiple named plaintiffs and seeks
class certification. The lawsuits primarily allege negligence,
willful and wanton conduct, battery, intentional infliction of
emotional harm, personal injury and failure to warn of dangerous
and toxic exposures which has resulted in alleged illnesses for
contractors and soldiers living and working in the bases where the
pits were operated. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified
damages. All of the pending cases were removed to Federal Court
and have been consolidated for multi-district litigation treatment
before the U.S. Federal District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.

In February 2013, the Court dismissed the case against KBR,
accepting all of KBR's defense claims including the Political
Question Doctrine; the Combatant Activities Exception to the
Federal Tort Claims Act; and Derivative Sovereign Immunity. The
plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on
March 27, 2013. On March 6, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court vacated
the order of dismissal and remanded this multi-district litigation
for further action, including a ruling on state tort law and its
impact upon the "Contractor on the Battlefield" defenses. KBR has
filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Three
amicus briefs have been filed in support of KBR's legal arguments.
On June 16, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order inviting
the Solicitor General to file briefs in the burn pit litigation,
expressing the views of the United States as to KBR's pending
applications for writ of certiorari. The company anticipates these
briefs will not be filed until the fourth quarter of 2014. At this
time the company believes the likelihood that the company would
incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of March 31,
2014, no amounts have been accrued.


KBR INC: Still Faces Complaints in Tex. Court Over Restatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. continues to face complaints in the federal district
court for the Southern District of Texas in relation to its
restatement of 2013 annual financial statements, according to the
company's June 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Litigation and regulatory matters related to the Company's
restatement of its 2013 annual financial statements
After the Company announced it would be restate its 2013 annual
financial statements, two complaints were filed in the federal
district court for the Southern District of Texas seeking class
status for the company's shareholders and alleging damages on
their behalf arising from the matters giving rise to the
restatement. The named defendants are the Company, the company's
former chief executive officer and the company's current and
former chief financial officers. These matters are at a very early
stage, with non-specific allegations and with no lead plaintiff
yet chosen; therefore, the company is not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from these
matters.


KEEGO HARBOR, MI: Traffic Ticket Suit Obtains Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Turk, writing for The Oakland Press, reports that a
West Bloomfield man's lawsuit against the Keego Harbor Police
Department over officers' traffic ticketing policies has been
given class action status in Oakland County Circuit Court.  But
the attorneys representing the city argue that the driver brought
a potentially "unmanageable" case to court.

Filed four months ago in Judge Daniel P. O'Brien's court, the suit
stems from an impeding traffic ticket Timothy Kennedy got in
April 2013.  Instead of calling the district court, police told
Mr. Kennedy to pay a $100 ordinance violation fee at Keego's City
Hall.

The ordinance, enacted by the city in March 2010, allowed certain
traffic violations to be classified as municipal civil infraction
violations, which Mr. Kennedy and his Commerce Township-based
attorney, Jeffrey Hansche, argue is illegal under state law.

Municipal ordinance violations are usually written for local
issues, such as zoning or building code violations, animal
complaints, overgrown weeds, excessive noise, plumbing code
violations and more.  Michigan law now excludes state uniform
driving violations from being under ordinances dealing with
municipal issues, Mr. Hansche said.

The order, handed down week by Judge Daniel P. O'Brien, names the
class as anyone who received and paid municipal civil infractions
in Keego for the last four years, which could be around 1,800
motorists, according to the lawsuit.

When he filed for tickets written by Keego Harbor police that
included impeding traffic, Mr. Hansche said he found that in two
months in 2013, the city tallied $9,600 in paid tickets to the
city by those methods.  If it had been going on for three years,
Keego Harbor would've cleared $60,000 a year and would've pulled
in around $180,000 total, he said.

"They're turning traffic tickets into tickets paid to the city,"
Mr. Hansche has said, "and they're doing it for the money."

The case has gone from federal court to district, and back to
circuit court in the fourth months it's been in limbo.

A response filed by Keego Harbor's attorney, Farmington Hills-
based Anne McClorey McLaughlin, contended that Mr. Kennedy and his
attorney had no standing to argue for class action due to a number
of factors, including the fact that a normal traffic ticket costs
more than the tickets Keego Harbor officers were handing out.

"Unless (Kennedy) can demonstrate that 'a sizable number' of the
potential members of the class (action lawsuit) would have paid
less that $100 or would have challenged their citation and been
relieved of responsibility altogether, none of those potential
class members has sustained an actual injury," wrote McLaughlin in
the response.

Ms. McLaughlin added that if the allegations against city officers
are true, then political divisions such as the local 48th District
Court suffered in lost revenue, because the tickets given were
$100, when the lowest regular state traffic ticket costs $110.


KODIAK OIL: Being Sold to Whiting for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Goldsmith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corporation v. William J. Krysiak, Rodney D. Knutson, Herrick K.
Lidstone, Jr., Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, James P.
Henderson, Whiting Petroleum Corporation, and 1007695 B.C. Ltd.,
and Kodiak Oil & Gas Corporation, a Canadian Corporation, Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-02098-MEH (D. Colo., July 29, 2014)
arises from the proposed sale of Kodiak at an alleged potentially
unfair price through an unfair and self-serving process to
Whiting.

Kodiak is a publicly traded Canadian corporation based in Denver,
Colorado.  The Company is incorporated in the Yukon Territory,
Canada, and its principal executive offices are located in Denver,
Colorado.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.  Kodiak is an independent exploration and production
company engaged in the exploration, development, and production of
oil and natural gas in the U.S. Rocky Mountain region.

Whiting is a publicly traded Delaware corporation based in Denver,
Colorado.  1007695 B.C. Ltd. is a Canadian corporation organized
under the laws of British Columbia that is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Whiting.  Whiting is an independent exploration and
production company with a focus on oil asset base that acquires,
explores, develops, and produces crude oil, natural gas liquids,
and natural gas in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.-NEW YORK
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


LA PENTOLA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diogenes Sanchez Camacho, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. La Pentola Italian Pizzeria, Inc. d/b/a La
Pentola, Filippo Tortora and Vincent Santelia, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05844-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and minimum
wages, unpaid overtime and damages.

La Pentola, is a New York business corporation with a principal
place of business located in Bronx, New York.  The Individual
Defendants are owners or officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


LION PAVILION: Recalls Peach Slices Due to Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lion Pavilion Ltd. of Maspeth, NY is recalling Tasty Peach Slices
because it contains undeclared sulfites.  Consumers who have
severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

Tasty Peach Slices is sold in 3.87 ounce (110g), clear plastic jar
and was distributed nationwide.  It is a product of China.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of sulfites in the 110g package of Tasty Peach Slices
which were not declared on the label.  The consumption of 10
milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit
severe reactions in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could
occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites.  Analysis of the Tasty Peach
Slices revealed they contained 12.75 milligrams per serving.

No illnesses or allergic reactions involving this product have
been reported to date.  Consumers who have purchased 110g packages
of Tasty Peach Slices are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-718-326-7718.


M&N QUALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Lara, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. M & N Quality Cleaners, Inc. d/b/a M & N Cleaners and Sun Hyang
Hong, Case No. 1:14-cv-05836-JMF (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) alleges
that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid spread of hours premium and damages.

M & N Quality Cleaners, Inc., doing business as M & N Cleaners, is
a New York domestic business corporation located in New York City.
Sun Hyang Hong is an owner or officer of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


MAKINA VE KIMYA: Law Firm Can Withdraw From Gun Liability Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Morgan Lewis & Bockius was entitled to withdraw from
representing a Turkish arms manufacturer that still owes $25
million on a three-decades-old products liability and civil
contempt judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
has ruled.

Plaintiff Robert Ohntrup was shot through the hand when the pistol
he was loading malfunctioned.  The manufacturer, Makina ve Kimya
Endustrisi Kurumu (MKEK), and the gun's seller were found jointly
liable for $847,000.  MKEK is wholly owned by the Turkish
government and has not participated in post-judgment proceedings
for 25 years.

MKEK fired Morgan Lewis as counsel after the Third Circuit upheld
the judgment against the company in 1985, but the court did not
allow the law firm to withdraw until the client could retain
substitute counsel.

Due to the fact MKEK has not participated in proceedings for 25
years, that has left the law firm "merely a captive, uncompensated
process server," Judge Thomas Hardiman concluded, writing for
judges Thomas Ambro and D. Michael Fisher.

The panel said that U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania was not in error to let Morgan
Lewis withdraw from representing MKEK some 30 years after MKEK
fired the law firm.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs' lawyers had sought to execute the judgment
through discovery into a $16.2 million transaction in which
Minneapolis-based Alliant Techsystems Inc. agreed to sell
munitions-manufacturing components to MKEK.  The panel ruled that
Goldberg should not have denied additional discovery in aid of
execution of its judgment against MKEK.

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin Alliant from transferring property
owned by MKEK and to disclose information regarding its
transactions with MKEK.

The panel ordered additional proceedings regarding whether
Mr. Ohntrup can pursue discovery against Alliance in aid of
executing the judgment -- including whether MKEK's munitions
manufacturing components are immune from attachment under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

William Ford -- wford@lathropgage.com -- of Lathrop & Gage in
Kansas City, Mo., argued the case for intervenor Alliant.

Casey Green -- cg@greatlawyers.com -- of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green
in Philadelphia, Pa. argued for Beverly Ohntrup, administrator of
her husband's estate.

Thomas Sullivan Jr. -- tsullivan@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan
Lewis in Philadelphia argued for the law firm.


MARTIN MARIETTA: Has Agreement to Settle Lawsuit Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
The counsel for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to which it agreed to make
the disclosures concerning its merger in order to settle a
lawsuit, according to the company's regulatory filing on June 20,
2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 27, 2014, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., a North
Carolina corporation ("Martin Marietta"), Texas Industries, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation ("TXI"), and Project Holdings, Inc., a
North Carolina corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Martin
Marietta ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into TXI (the "Merger"), with TXI surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Martin Marietta.  On May
30, 2014, Martin Marietta and TXI each filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus") in connection with the Merger, which was
mailed to the shareholders of Martin Marietta and the stockholders
of TXI on or about June 2, 2014.  Martin Marietta is making this
filing in connection with the execution of a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of certain
litigation arising out of the announcement of the Merger
Agreement.

As disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Martin
Marietta on June 10, 2014, a purported stockholder of Martin
Marietta filed a putative class action lawsuit against Martin
Marietta and members of the Martin Marietta board, and against TXI
(collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York (the "Court"), captioned
City Trading Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. C. Howard Nye, et al., Index No. 651668/2014 (the
"City Trading Fund Action").  The plaintiff in the City Trading
Fund Action (the "Plaintiff") alleges that Martin Marietta and its
board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
disclose material information in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, and that TXI aided and abetted such breach.
The plaintiff in the City Trading Fund Action seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining TXI and Martin Marietta from
proceeding with the Merger absent additional disclosures, damages
and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On June 20, 2014, counsel for the Defendants entered into the MOU
with counsel for the Plaintiff pursuant to which Martin Marietta
and TXI have agreed to make the disclosures concerning the Merger.
The MOU also provides that, solely for purposes of settlement, the
Court will certify a class consisting of all persons who were
record or beneficial shareholders of Martin Marietta at any time
between March 25, 2013 and the consummation of the Merger (the
"Class").  In addition, the MOU provides that, subject to approval
by the Court after notice to the members of the Class (the "Class
Members"), the City Trading Fund Action will be dismissed with
prejudice and all claims, including derivative claims, that the
Class Members may possess with regard to the Merger will be
released.  In connection with the settlement, the Plaintiff's
counsel has expressed its intention to seek an award by the Court
of attorneys' fees and expenses.  The amount of the award to the
Plaintiff's counsel will ultimately be determined by the Court.
This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to
be received by any TXI stockholder in the Merger.  There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive
settlement agreement or that the Court will approve the
settlement.  In the absence of either event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.


MEDEXPRESS URGENT: Violates Disabilities Act, Pa. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MedExpress Urgent Care, P.C., Pennsylvania, and Urgent
Care MSO, LLC d/b/a Medexpress, collectively, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01015-DSC (W.D. Pa., July 29, 2014) alleges violations of The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park, Suite 210
          115 Federal Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David B. White, Esq.
          Lyle D. Washowich, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          106 Isabella Street
          Four Northshore Center
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212-3001
          Telephone: (412) 995-3210
          Facsimile: (412) 995-3305
          E-mail: dbwhite@burnswhite.com
                  ldwashowich@burnswhite.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Suit Over Sprint Fidelis in Pre-Trial Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial proceedings are underway in a lawsuit filed against
Medtronic, Inc. over Sprint Fidelis Product Liability Matters,
according to the company's June 20, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 25, 2014.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.


MEDTRONIC INC: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Minn. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. continues to face a shareholder lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota that alleges it
made false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE
Bone Graft product, according to the company's June 20, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 25, 2014.

On March 12, 2012, Charlotte Kokocinski filed a shareholder
derivative action against both the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and members of the Board of Directors
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, setting
forth certain allegations, including a claim that defendants
violated various purported duties in connection with the INFUSE
bone graft product and otherwise. On March 25, 2013, the Court
dismissed the case without prejudice. In May 2012, Daniel Himmel
and the Saratoga Advantage Trust commenced two other separate
shareholder derivative actions in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
District Court against the same defendants, making allegations
similar to those in the Kokocinski case.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3,
2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against
Medtronic and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone
Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August
3, 2011.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Bruins Ex-Defenseman Sue Over Brain Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rohloff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. National Hockey League, Case No. 0:14-cv-03038-DWF-LIB
(D. Minn., July 29, 2014) arises from the alleged effects of brain
injuries caused by concussive and sub-concussive impacts suffered
by former NHL players while in the NHL.

The action seeks medical monitoring, injunctive relief, and
financial compensation related to the chronic injuries, medical
costs, financial losses, and intangible losses suffered, and to be
suffered, by the Plaintiff and the members of the Class as a
result of the NHL's tortious and fraudulent misconduct.

Jon Rohloff is a resident of Cohasset, Minnesota.  He was a
defenseman for the Boston Bruins from 1994-1997.  He told the
Court that he suffered multiple head traumas during his NHL career
that were improperly diagnosed and treated by the NHL.  He alleges
that he was never warned by the NHL of the negative health effects
of head trauma.

The National Hockey League is an unincorporated association with
its headquarters and principal place of business located in New
York City.  The NHL is engaged in interstate commerce in the
business of, among other things, operating the major professional
hockey league in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
          Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
          Shawn D. Stuckey, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL &MASON LLP
          500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 339-2020
          Facsimile: (612) 336-9100
          E-mail: rhagstrom@zelle.com
                  mcashman@zelle.com
                  sstuckey@zelle.com

               - and -

          Lewis A. Remele, Esq.
          J. Scott Andresen, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klobucar, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE
          33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-3000
          Facsimile: (612) 333-8829
          E-mail: lremele@bassford.com
                  sandresen@bassford.com
                  jklobucar@bassford.com


ORIYA ORGANICS: Recalls Superfood Protein Medley Due to Chia Seeds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oriya Organics, LLC is voluntarily recalling Oriya Organics
Superfood Protein Medley which contain Organic Sprouted Chia Seed
Powder due to possible health risks related to Salmonella
contamination.  Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e. infected aneurysms).

Oriya Organics has taken immediate action to voluntarily recall
Superfood Protein Medley in order to ensure the safety of its
customers.

Products were sold in retailers in Texas and Louisiana.  Products
were sold directly to customers through the internet in Texas,
Arkansas, Illinois, Florida, New York, Louisiana, and Virginia.

The products in this voluntary recall include:

Oriya Organics Superfood Protein Medley, 21.2 oz, UPC
Code:85370100401, with Lot #: A14314 and an expiration date of
05/23/2015. Lot codes and expiration dates are located on the
bottom of the container.

No other Oriya Organics products are affected by this recall and
no illnesses have been reported to date.  The recall has been
initiated as a precautionary measure due to a contaminated
ingredient from one of our suppliers.

Consumers that have purchased any of these products with the above
stated lot number and expiration dates are asked not to consume
the product and discard it or return the product to the original
point of purchase.

Consumers with questions may contact Oriya Organics at 512-992-
5100, Monday - Friday from 9am - 5pm CST.

Oriya Organics is working closely with the FDA on this matter.
Oriya Organics is committed to providing the highest quality,
organic products and the safety of the customers is the company's
number one priority.


PFIZER INC: Lawyers Resolve Dispute Over Fees in HRT Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that lead lawyers in the litigation over hormone
replacement therapy drugs have agreed to resolve their dispute
involving $62.3 million in fees for work performed for the
plaintiffs' common benefit.

U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson, of the Eastern District of
Arkansas, must approve the settlement, reached after a 16-hour
mediation.

Zoe Littlepage and Rainey Booth, who won some of the biggest cases
against Pfizer Inc. over its Prempro HRT drug, will be entitled to
35 percent of the common benefit fund, or $22.1 million.

Both lawyers, who harnessed their separate law firms in a joint
venture for purposes of the HRT litigation, objected to the
initial plan on how to allocate the common benefit fees.
As a result of the settlement, Erik Walker, of Hissey Kientz in
Austin, will be entitled to 11.433 percent, or $7.1 million, of
the common benefit fund.

"There is little question that Ms. Littlepage, Mr. Booth and
Mr. Walker were three of the most important and dedicated lawyers
in the litigation," according to a letter Ms. Littlepage signed.
"Mr. Walker was responsible for the vast majority of the pleadings
filed and took the laboring oar at hearings before the court,
Mr. Booth led the charge on case specific causation issues and
Ms. Littlepage handled lead counsel responsibilities of written
discovery as well as organizing document review, depositions,
meetings of the MDL counsel, coordinating the development of the
liability package for the litigation and supervising all work done
in the litigation."

A total of 32 firms will divide $62.3 million.

All of the lawyers have agreed to a holdback fund of $4 million,
which, among other things, will pay for any further fees incurred
by the retired federal judge who mediated the fee dispute and
other costs.

In a later development, the common benefit fee committee voted 6-1
to pay $2 million out of the holdback fund to Mr. Walker's law
firm.  Ms. Littlepage dissented, according to Mr. Walker's court
filing on July 23.

Mr. Walker said in court papers that receiving a high portion of
the holdback fund would reflect the work his firm and he did on
the HRT litigation.

"I was told that [being given] the highest multiplier at the end
would be my compensation for work on nearly all the early
bellwether trials.  No fee interest.  Sometimes, not even
reimbursement of expenses.  But a promise of the maximum at the
end," Mr. Walker wrote.


PURITAN FOODS: Recalls Boneless Turkey Breasts Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Puritan Foods Co., Inc., a Boston, Mass., establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,476 pounds of raw boneless turkey
breasts due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.  The product contains milk, a known allergen,
which is not declared on the product label.

The following product is subject to recall:

   -- Raw Boneless Turkey Breasts (various weights) with pack
      dates of June 11 and July 18, 2014

The product was produced on June 11, 2014, and July 18, 2014, and
bears the establishment number "P-5933" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.  The product was distributed to a local distributor,
which sold the product to hotels, restaurants and institutions in
the New England area.

FSIS personnel discovered the problem while checking product
labels.  The source materials typically used by the firm do not
contain milk.  On the two dates in question, the source materials
used declared they were "butter basted," which was not carried
over to the finished product label.  Milk is a sub-ingredient in
butter and must be noted on the label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:

                 http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Christopher Mendez at (617) 596-4917.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


ROASTING PLANT: Fails to Remove Barriers Under ADA, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Roasting Plant, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
d/b/a Roasting Plant, and 75 & 81 Orchard Associates LLC, a New
York limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-05871-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to
remove architectural barriers at their facility pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Hirsch is a double amputee and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Roasting Plant, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, doing business as
Roasting Plant.  The Company is the lessee and operator of a real
property and the owner of the improvements where the subject
facility is located in New York City.  The facility is commonly
referred to as Roasting Plant.  75 & 81 Orchard Associates LLC, a
New York limited liability company, is the owner, lessor or
operator of the real property where the facility is located.

The facility is a place of public accommodation in that it is an
establishment, which provides goods and services to the public,
Mr. Hirsch says.  He contends that the Defendants have
discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against him and
others who are similarly situated by denying full and equal access
to goods, services and accommodations at the Defendants' property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUSSIA: British Lawyers Mull Class Suit v. Putin Over MH17 Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Mendick, Ben Farmer and Tim Ross, writing for The Sunday
Telegraph, report that Vladimir Putin is facing a multi-million-
pound legal action for his alleged role in the shooting down of a
Malaysia Airlines passenger jet over eastern Ukraine.

British lawyers are preparing a class action against the Russian
president through the American courts.  Senior Russian military
commanders and politicians close to Mr. Putin are also likely to
become embroiled in the legal claim.

The case would further damage relations between Mr. Putin and the
West, but politicians would be powerless to prevent it.

Lawyers from McCue & Partners, the London law firm, flew to
Ukraine for discussions about how to bring the case and where it
should be filed.  Victims' families will be invited to join the
action.  The case will inevitably highlight the role allegedly
played by Russia in stoking conflict in eastern Ukraine.

The announcement of a potential lawsuit against the Russian
government came as:

   * Australian and Dutch officials held talks on the deployment
of an international force of police and soldiers to secure the
crash site.  Four Australians and four Dutch investigators are
already in the rebel-held city of Donetsk, but there are growing
calls for a larger multinational force from a "coalition of the
grieving" to take control of the area where Flight MH17 came down;

     * An exclusive ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll found wide support
for stepping up the West's trade war with Russia, with 45 per cent
backing tougher European Union sanctions, including a full arms
embargo;

     * EU politicians prepared to draw up a further list of
Mr. Putin's "cronies" who will face sanctions.  Negotiations over
the individuals to be included in the latest ban will start
tomorrow, ahead of wider economic sanctions due to be discussed in
the weeks ahead;

     * It emerged that Malaysia Airlines, which also suffered the
disappearance of Flight MH370 in March, is drawing up plans to
change its name and carry out a radical restructuring of its
business.  Writing in The Sunday Telegraph on July 26, the
airline's commercial director, Hugh Dunleavy, says the business
will eventually "emerge stronger", despite the "tragic" deaths;

     * Labour called on football's world governing body, Fifa, to
draw up contingency plans to allow Russia to be stripped of the
2018 World Cup.

There is overwhelming, but largely circumstantial, evidence that
Russian-backed rebels mistakenly brought down the Boeing 777,
killing all 298 people on board, having mistaken it for a
Ukrainian military aircraft.

It is almost certain the aircraft was brought down by a Russian-
made SA-11 missile fired from a Buk mobile launcher that appeared
to have crossed into Ukraine from Russia.

A spokesman for McCue & Partners said in a statement: "There has
been talk of civil suits against Malaysia Airlines, but those
immediately responsible are not only the separatists who are
alleged to have fired the rocket at Flight MH17, causing the death
of hundreds of innocent victims, but those, be they states,
individuals or other entities, who provided them with financial
and material support and the means to do so.

"Our team is presently liaising and working with partners in
Ukraine and the US on whether, apart from civil suits against the
airline, legal action can be brought against the perpetrators on
the victims' behalf."

The official investigation into the atrocity, led by the Dutch,
who suffered the greatest loss of life, is being hampered by armed
rebels who have control of the crash site.

A civil legal case brought by the victims could embarrass
Mr. Putin in a way that the official inquiry may be unable to do.
Simon Smith, the British ambassador to Ukraine, told The Sunday
Telegraph of his grave concern that the crash site had been
"compromised" and that families of victims might have to wait
years for proper answers to what happened, including who ordered
the attack and who supplied the weaponry and training on the
missile system.

Mr. Smith said: "There's a fair amount of evidence building up
that a lot of evidence has been compromised.  It's been moved,
it's not where it lay immediately after the crash happened, and
that's very regrettable."  He said that while it might only take
"a surprisingly short time" to determine what missile knocked the
airliner out of the sky, he warned that "there may be some lines
of inquiry that take an immensely long time to work through".
He said air crash investigators were being pragmatic.  "We will
work with what evidence we find," he said, adding: "The fact that
a piece of evidence has been moved does not mean it has lost all
its value."

Hopes of finally securing the crash site, protecting it from
looters and militia trying to cover up their involvement, have
been dealt a blow by the turmoil engulfing the Ukrainian
parliament.

Ukraine was locked in political limbo on July 25 after parliament
adjourned for a fortnight following the shock resignation of
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the prime minister.  That may delay
ratification of an international agreement giving Holland powers
to secure the site.

Nine days after the crash, in which 10 Britons died, investigators
have still not been able to begin collecting forensic evidence.
Experts have told The Sunday Telegraph that the inquiry, hampered
on the ground, could now take years to complete and for the truth
to be reached.

Reed Foster, the head of the armed forces capabilities team at the
intelligence and security analysts IHS Jane's Defence, said: "It
will be almost impossible to say who pushed the button.  The
evidence at the crash site will not tell you if it was a Ukraine
or Russian operator of the Buk launcher.

"It is very easy for the Russians to maintain plausible
deniability."

Chris Yates, an independent aviation analyst who has worked as a
consultant on a number of air crashes, said: "I am afraid this is
going to go on for years for the simple reason the crash site is
now substantially contaminated.  People have been trampling all
over it; debris has been shifted, cut up and removed."

A legal source close to the planned class action said the burden
of proof in a civil case was lower than in a criminal
investigation, meaning that senior Kremlin politicians, including
Mr. Putin, could be held to account through the civil courts, even
if they escape criticism in the official inquiry.

The case against Mr. Putin could be worth hundreds of millions of
pounds, possibly more, in potential damages.  The action is likely
to be brought through the US courts and could -- if held liable --
eventually see assets of Mr. Putin and those closest to him frozen
if any resulting compensation is not paid.

McCue and Partners have previously brought claims in the US courts
against the former Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi for
sponsoring IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and on the British
mainland.

On July 25, the European Union announced a further 15 individuals,
including Russia's two most senior intelligence chiefs, would be
added to its list of figures hit by sanctions.


SARA LEE: Recalls Sausage Product Due to Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------
A facility doing business as Sara Lee Foodservice in New London,
Wis., is recalling approximately 82,440 pounds of smoked sausage
due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.  The product was formulated with an ingredient
containing hydrolyzed soy protein, a known allergen, which is not
declared on the product label.

The product subject to recall is:

   -- Cases of "Smoked Sausage Rope" in 10-lb. cases containing
      two 5-lb packages with case code SKU 46218

The product, which bears the establishment number "Est. 2435"
inside the USDA mark of inspection, was produced from Jan. 1, 2014
through June 6, 2014 and was sent to distribution centers for
further shipment to institutional users across the United States.
The product is not available in grocery stores or sold directly to
consumers.

During a routine label review, the company discovered that one of
the product flavoring ingredients contains hydrolyzed soy and that
the soy is not declared on the product label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Eric
Birkhaug, Director of Customer Service at (312) 614-8283.  Media
with questions should contact Mike Cummins, Director of
Communications at (312) 614-8412.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at:

               http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nava Laniado, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
consumers v. Schachter Portnoy, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-04715-PGS-
DEA (D.N.J., July 29, 2014) arises out of the Defendant and their
collection agents' alleged illegal efforts to collect a consumer
debt from the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Based in Princeton, New Jersey, Schachter Portnoy LLC is a debt
collection law firm and New Jersey business entity engaged in the
business of collecting consumer debts in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Matthew Milner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALLISON POLESKY, P.C.
          33 S. Service Road
          Jericho, NJ 11753-1036
          Telephone: (516) 321-4220
          Facsimile: (914) 610-3770
          E-mail: emilner@simonmilner.com


SELIMA SALAUN: Violates Disabilities Act, New York Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Hirsch v. Selima Salaun, Inc., a New York corporation,
d/b/a Selima Optique, and 59 Wooster St. Corp., a New York
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05867-PKC (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014)
alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York City Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights
Law.

Mr. Hirsch is a double amputee and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Selima Salaun, Inc., is a New York corporation doing business as
Selima Optique.  The Company is the lessee and operator of a real
property and the owner of the improvements where the subject
facility is located in New York City.  The facility is commonly
referred to as Selima Optique.  59 Wooster St. Corp. is a New York
corporation and is the owner, lessor or operator of the real
property where the facility is located.

The facility is a place of public accommodation in that it is an
establishment, which provides goods and services to the public,
Mr. Hirsch says.  He contends that the Defendants have
discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against him and
others, who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal
access to goods, services and accommodations at the Defendants'
property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant
to the ADA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Inks Agreement to Settle Lawsuit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Texas Industries, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding pursuant to which it agreed to make the disclosures
concerning its merger in order to settle the suit, according to
the company's June 20, 2014, regulatory filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 27, 2014, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., a North
Carolina corporation ("Martin Marietta"), Texas Industries, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation ("TXI"), and Project Holdings, Inc., a
North Carolina corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Martin
Marietta ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into TXI (the "Merger"), with TXI surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Martin Marietta. On May 30,
2014, Martin Marietta and TXI each filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus") in connection with the Merger, which was
mailed to the shareholders of Martin Marietta and the stockholders
of TXI on or about June 2, 2014. TXI is making this filing in
connection with the execution of a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU") regarding the settlement of certain litigation arising
out of the announcement of the Merger Agreement.

As disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Martin
Marietta on June 10, 2014, a purported stockholder of Martin
Marietta filed a putative class action lawsuit against Martin
Marietta and members of the Martin Marietta board, and against TXI
(collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York (the "Court"), captioned
City Trading Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. C. Howard Nye, et al., Index No. 651668/2014 (the
"City Trading Fund Action"). The plaintiff in the City Trading
Fund Action (the "Plaintiff") alleges that Martin Marietta and its
board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
disclose material information in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, and that TXI aided and abetted such breach.
The plaintiff in the City Trading Fund Action seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining TXI and Martin Marietta from
proceeding with the Merger absent additional disclosures, damages
and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On June 20, 2014, counsel for the Defendants entered into the MOU
with counsel for the Plaintiff pursuant to which Martin Marietta
and TXI have agreed to make the disclosures concerning the Merger.
The MOU also provides that, solely for purposes of settlement, the
Court will certify a class consisting of all persons who were
record or beneficial shareholders of Martin Marietta at any time
between March 25, 2013 and the consummation of the Merger (the
"Class"). In addition, the MOU provides that, subject to approval
by the Court after notice to the members of the Class (the "Class
Members"), the City Trading Fund Action will be dismissed with
prejudice and all claims, including derivative claims, that the
Class Members may possess with regard to the Merger will be
released. In connection with the settlement, the Plaintiff's
counsel has expressed its intention to seek an award by the Court
of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The amount of the award to the Plaintiff's counsel will ultimately
be determined by the Court. This payment will not affect the
amount of merger consideration to be received by any TXI
stockholder in the Merger. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a definitive settlement
agreement or that the Court will approve the settlement. In the
absence of either event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the MOU may be terminated.


TJX COMPANIES: Recalls "Ecoato" Sweet Paprika Powder
----------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc. announced it is recalling "ecoato" Sweet
Paprika Powder products as they have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella.  Upon learning of the potential risk
from the Food and Drug Administration, the company took rapid
action to alert its stores to remove the product from store
shelves immediately and has put in place additional measures to
prevent sales of the product.

The specific product being recalled comes in a 160 gram, light
green tin package and is marked as lot #8147, with an expiration
date of Oct. 2015.

The Company estimates that approximately 150 units were sold
between June 2014 and July 2014 at its T.J. Maxx, Marshalls and
HomeGoods stores in the following 19 states/regions:

Alabama, Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, South
Carolina, District of Columbia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida,
New Hampshire, Texas, Georgia, New York, Virginia, Illinois, North
Carolina, Louisiana, Puerto Rico

While no illnesses have been reported to date in connection with
this issue, consumers who have purchased a product under this lot
of "ecoato" Sweet Paprika Powder are urged to return it to any
T.J. Maxx, Marshalls or HomeGoods store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions should contact the Company at 1-800-926-
6299.

In addition to actions taken to remove the product from store
shelves, further sale of the product has been suspended while the
Food and Drug Administration and the Company continue their
investigation as to the source of the problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after spot testing by
the Food and Drug Administration revealed the presence of
Salmonella in some samples of the product.  Salmonella is an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.  Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The TJX Companies, Inc. is an off-price retailer of apparel and
home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide.  As of May 3, 2014, the
end of the Company's first quarter, the company operated a total
of 3,256 stores in six countries, the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, and Poland, and three e-commerce
sites.


TOWER GROUP: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an order consolidating three securities complaints
against Tower Group International, Ltd., according to the
company's June 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 20, 2013, Robert P. Lang, a purported shareholder of
Tower Group International Ltd. ("Tower"), filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Lang Complaint") against Tower and certain
of its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The Lang Complaint
purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased Tower stock between July 30, 2012 and August 8, 2013.
The Lang Complaint alleges that Tower and certain of its current
and former officers violated federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages.

On September 3, 2013, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed by Dennis Feighay, another purported Tower
shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set forth in
the Lang Complaint (the "Feighay Complaint"). The Feighay
Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased Tower stock between May 9, 2011 and August 7, 2013.

On October 4, 2013, a third complaint was filed by Sanju Sharma
(the "Sharma Complaint"). The Sharma Complaint names as defendants
Tower and certain of its current and former officers, and purports
to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Tower
stock between May 10, 2011 and September 17, 2013. On October 18,
2013, an amended complaint was filed in the Sharma case (the
"Sharma Amended Complaint"). The Sharma Amended Complaint alleges
additional false and misleading statements, and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Tower stock
between March 1, 2011 and October 7, 2013.

On October 21, 2013, a number of motions were filed seeking to
consolidate the shareholder class actions into one matter and for
appointment of a lead plaintiff.  On June 17, 2014, the United
States District Court for the Sout

hern District of New York issued an order consolidating the Lang,
Feighay, and Sharma actions (hereinafter the "Consolidated
Securities Action") and appointing Adar Enhanced Investment Fund,
Ltd. and Adar Investment Fund, Ltd. (the "Adar Funds") and
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, and the Kansas City, Missouri
Employees' Retirement System (the "Public Pension Funds") as co-
lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action and
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Saxena White P.A., and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel.


TOWER GROUP: "Bekkerman" Case Related to Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York accepted the designation of the Bekkerman securities
complaint as related to the consolidated federal securities
complaint pending in the same court, according to the company's
June 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On January 14, 2014, Derek Wilson, a purported shareholder of
Tower, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Wilson
Complaint") against Tower, certain of its current and former
directors, ACP Re Ltd. ("ACP Re"), London Acquisition Company
Limited ("Merger Sub"), and AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.
("AmTrust") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Wilson Complaint alleges that the
members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of Tower under Bermuda
law by approving Tower's entry into the ACP Re Merger Agreement
and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Tower to its
public shareholders, and that Tower, ACP Re, Merger Sub, and
AmTrust aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Wilson Complaint also alleges, among other things, that the
proposed transaction undervalues Tower, that the process leading
up to the ACP Re Merger Agreement was flawed, and that certain
provisions of the ACP Re Merger Agreement improperly favor ACP Re
and discourage competing offers for the Company. The Wilson
Complaint further alleges oppressive conduct by the directors
against Tower's shareholders in violation of Bermuda law. The
Wilson Complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches,
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the
proposed transaction, rescission of the ACP Re Merger Agreement to
the extent already implemented, and other forms of equitable
relief.

On February 27, 2014, the same purported shareholder filed an
amended complaint alleging, in addition, that the Company and the
directors disseminated a materially false and misleading
preliminary proxy statement regarding the ACP Re Merger Agreement
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder (the "Wilson Amended
Complaint").

On March 3, 2014, another purported shareholder filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, ACP Re, Merger Sub, and
AmTrust, also in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Raul Complaint"). The Raul Complaint
alleges that the defendants disseminated a materially false and
misleading preliminary proxy statement regarding the ACP Re Merger
Agreement in violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9.

On May 12, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order consolidating the Wilson and
Raul actions (hereinafter the "Consolidated Federal Action"). On
May 22, 2014, the Court issued an order appointing Wilson and
George Strum, another purported shareholder of the Company, as co-
lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Action and appointing
Robbins Arroyo LLP and WeissLaw LLP as co-lead counsel.

On March 24, 2014, two purported shareholders of the Company filed
a purported class action and shareholder derivative complaint
against the Company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and Tower Group, Inc., in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York (the "Bekkerman Complaint"
and, together with the Wilson Amended Complaint and the Raul
Complaint, the "Merger Complaints").

The Bekkerman Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of the Company by
failing to exercise appropriate oversight over the conduct of the
Company's business, awarding Michael Lee excessive compensation,
approving the Company's entry into the ACP Re Merger Agreement,
failing to take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its
public shareholders, and misrepresenting or omitting material
information in connection with the proposed transaction, and that
the Company and Tower Group, Inc. aided and abetted such breaches
of fiduciary duties.

The Bekkerman Complaint also alleges, among other things, that Lee
was unjustly enriched as a result of the compensation he received
while allegedly breaching his fiduciary duties and by selling
stock while in the possession of material, adverse, non-public
information. The Bekkerman Complaint seeks, among other things, an
award of money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the proposed
transaction, rescission of the ACP Re Merger Agreement to the
extent already implemented, and other forms of equitable relief.
On May 16, 2014, the defendants removed the Bekkerman action to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and requested that it be designated as related to the
Consolidated Federal Action.

On June 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York accepted the designation of the Bekkerman
Complaint as related to the Consolidated Federal Action.


UNILEVER US: Court OKs $10.25MM Hair Loss Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra S. Dunne, Esq., Laurie A. Henry, Esq., and Madeleine
McDonough, Esq., of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that an Illinois federal court has reportedly
approved a $10.25-million settlement agreement between Unilever
PLC and a class of consumers who alleged that one of Unilever's
Suave hair products caused hair loss. Reid v. Unilever U.S., No.
12-6058 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill., order entered July 9, 2014).
The lawsuit alleged that Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-
Day Smoothing Kit, which sold in the United States for about five
months in 2012, contained a dangerous chemical that caused scalp
damage and hair loss, apparently leading to consumer injuries.
The settlement -- including a $10-million fund to cover injury
claims and $250,000 to reimburse purchasers -- was approved by the
court despite objections that some of the injuries were
potentially more severe than the $25,000 cap on injury awards.


UNIQUE PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Sterile Drug Preparations
---------------------------------------------------------
Unique Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., announced a voluntary nationwide
recall of all sterile drug preparations compounded by the
outsourcing facility that have not reached the expiration date
listed on the products.  Unique is initiating the recall due to
FDA's concerns associated with Unique's compounding facilities and
compounding processes that FDA contends present a lack of
sterility assurance and were observed during recent FDA
inspections.

In the event a sterile product is compromised, patients are at
risk for serious and possible life-threatening infections.  To
date, Unique has received no reports of injury or illness
associated with the use of its sterile preparations.  Patient
safety is Unique's highest priority, and Unique has proceeded with
this voluntary action out of an abundance of caution.

The recall includes all sterile compounded preparations that
Unique has supplied to its customers within expiry.  Non-sterile
preparations are not affected by this recall.  The affected
products were distributed in syringes, vials, and bags.

The preparations covered by this recall were distributed
nationwide.  Until further notice, health care providers should
stop using all lots of sterile products prepared by Unique that
are within their expiry period and return them to the Company.

Unique will be notifying customers by phone, fax, mail, or
personal visits to return the products to the Company.

Consumers or health care providers with questions regarding this
recall may contact Unique by phone at [888-339-0874] from the
hours of 9 a.m to 5 p.m. CST Central Time, Monday through Friday,
or at the following e-mail address: recall@upisolutions.com

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
any Unique's preparations may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch
Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail, or
by fax.

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Challenge Motion to Dismiss NSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the National Security
Agency and other government entities for allegedly spying on
American citizens have filed an opposition to the defendants'
motion to dismiss.

"Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court deny the
Government defendants' motion to dismiss because plaintiffs do not
lack standing to assert any of their claims, plaintiffs have
stated more than enough legally sufficient facts to survive a
motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs have not engaged in any
so-called 'claim-splitting,'" the opposition filed on July 23
states.

While the motions for extension were pending until the plaintiffs
gave notice that they were no longer going to pursue the class
actions in the two other lawsuits against the defendants, known as
"Klayman I" and "Klayman II," the plaintiffs informed this court
that they would streamline the case for them and the American
people, and that they would file this class action to ultimately
get issues before the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible.

"Due to extreme constitutional importance of this case, plaintiffs
claims cannot be dismissed," the opposition states.

The plaintiffs do not lack standing to assert any of their claims,
and the plaintiffs have stated more than enough legally sufficient
facts to survive a motion to dismiss, they say.

"The constitutional issues that have been raised in these cases,
as this court has stated, are 'at the pinnacle of public national
interest,'" the opposition states.

In further recognizing the importance of these issues, this court
has expressed that it "cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and
'arbitrary invasion' than [the] systematic and high-tech
collection and retention of personal data on virtually every
single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without
prior judicial approval," the opposition claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plaintiffs claim to date, the defendants have not issued
substantive and meaningful explanations to the American people
describing what has occurred.  Such intrusive and illegal
surveillance has directly impacted each and every plaintiff,
according to the suit.  The defendants violated the plaintiffs'
First, Fourth and Fifth amendment rights and caused them damages,
according to the suit.

"PRISM" was an internal government computer system, authorized by
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  It
collected records from all communications companies, including
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Skype, YouTube,
AOL, Apple and PalTalk.

"PRISM" began after the passing of the Protect America Act in
2007.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was filed June 2.

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

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

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

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


WAWONA PACKING: Recalls Certain Lots of Whole Peaches, Nectarines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wawona Packing Company of Cutler, Calif is voluntarily recalling
certain lots of whole peaches (white and yellow), nectarines
(white and yellow), plums and pluots packed between June 1, 2014
through July 12,2014 due to the potential of the products being
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.  Wawona Packing has
notified retailers of the specific lots being recalled.  No other
products are impacted by this recall.  No illnesses have been
linked to this recall to date.

Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled products were shipped directly to retailers and
wholesalers who resell the products.  Because Wawona do not know
the locations of the companies that purchased the products from
its direct customers, the company is issuing a nationwide recall.
Consumers can identify the recalled products by the information
provided in the attached list and photographs.  Anyone who has the
recalled products in their possession should not consume them and
should discard them.  Consumers with questions may contact Wawona
Packing at 1-888-232-9912, M-F, 8am-5pm ET.

Wawona Packing has already notified its business customers and
requested that they remove the recalled products from commerce.
Wawona Packing is voluntarily recalling these products in
consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The recall was initiated based on internal company testing.  The
company shut down the implicated packing lines, retrofitted
equipment, sanitized the facility and retested. Subsequent daily
test results have been negative.

"We are aware of no illnesses related to the consumption of these
products" said Brent Smittcamp, President of Wawona Packing Co. "
By taking the precautionary step of recalling product, we will
minimize even the slightest risk to public health, and that is our
priority."


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls In-Store Baked Desserts With Fresh Fruits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling several in-
store baked desserts that may contain fresh peaches, nectarines,
and/or plums.  The fruit was supplied by California-based Wawona
Packing Company, which issued a voluntary recall when routine
testing by the company showed potential contamination with
Listeria monocytogenes.  No illnesses associated with the recall
have been reported to Wawona or to Wegmans.

L. monocytogenes is a bacterium that can contaminate foods and
cause a mild non-invasive illness (called listerial
gastroenteritis) or a severe, sometimes life-threatening, illness
(called invasive listeriosis).  Persons who have the greatest risk
of experiencing listeriosis after consuming foods contaminated
with L. monocytogenes are fetuses and neonates who are infected
after the mother is exposed to L. monocytogenes during pregnancy,
the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems.  Customers
who have experienced these symptoms should contact their
physician.

The following recalled products may contain the affected Wawona-
packed fruits.  The products are labeled with a store-printed
scale label that will identify the product and UPC.

Recalled Cakes and Pies

Peach Melba Whipped Cream, 34 oz. UPC 7789033104
Fruit-Topped Short Cake, 1/4 sheet, 49 oz. UPC 7789032772
Genoise Cake,1/4 sheet, 64 oz. UPC 7789027385
Fruit-Topped Cheese Cake, large, 54 oz. UPC 7789026438
Fruit-Topped Cheese Cake, small, 18 oz. UPC 7789026441
Fruit-Topped Cream Cheese Pie 40 oz. UPC 7789018953

Recalled Tarts and Other Pastries

Vanilla Trifle, 8 oz. UPC 7789080600
Peach Melba Tart, 26 oz. UPC 7789098553
Rectangular Fruit Tart, 37 oz. UPC 20823800000
Mixed Fruit Tart, 30 oz. UPC 20819500000
Square Fruit Tart, 48 oz. UPC 20823700000
Lg. Fruit Strip (Puff Pastry), 11 oz. UPC 20829200000
Sm. Fruit Strip (Puff Pastry), 3 oz. UPC 20829100000
Frangipane (tart), 30 oz. UPC 7789091064
Lg. Fruit Crostata, 21 oz. UPC 20829300000
Sm. Fruit Crostata, 7 oz. UPC 20829900000
Lg. Nectarine Crostata, 21 oz. UPC 20823100000
Sm. Nectarine Crostata, 6 oz. UPC 20832600000

Customers who purchased the recalled products from Wegmans between
June 1 and July 20 should discard the product at home and visit
the service desk and identify the product for a full refund.

Wegmans will place automated phone calls to customers who
purchased the recalled products using their Shoppers club card.
Consumers with questions may contact Wegmans consumer affairs
department toll free at 1-855-934-3663 Monday through Friday,
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.


WHITE & BLUE: Recalls Tattoo Inks & Needles Due to Pathogens
------------------------------------------------------------
White & Blue Lion, Inc. in the City of Industry, CA is recalling
all lots of tattoo Inks and tattoo needles due to pathogenic
bacterial contamination.  Use of these products may cause
bacterial infection and can lead to sepsis, a potentially life-
threatening complication of an infection.  As of an extra
precaution, the company is also recalling all tubes and ink cups
as well.  The recall includes all tattoo ink, tattoo needles,
tubes, ink cups and kits distributed by White & Blue Lion.

The inks and needles are sold in tattoo kits and the inks are also
sold separately by 8Decades and White & Blue Lion, Inc. through
amazon and ebay.

There was a report of one illness as of date.

FDA Laboratory testing has found microbial bacterial contamination
in both the inks and needles.

From the tattoo kits (ink and needles) a variety of potentially
pathogenic organisms were isolated and identified including: Gram
negative bacteria, Gram positive rods and cocci, which when
identified to the genus and species levels included: Bacilllus
spp. Sphingomonas paucimobilis, Micrococcus lutes, Corynebacterium
spp., Clostridium botulinum and other Clostridium spp. No
Mycobacteria were isolated.

From the ink sets a variety of potentially pathogenic organisms
were isolated and identified including: Gram negative bacteria,
Gram positive rods and cocci, which when identified to the genus
and species levels included: Bacillus spp, Acinetobacter spp.,
Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Sphingomonas paucimobilis. No
Mycobacteria were isolated.

The recall is being made with the knowledge of the US Food and
Drug Administration.

Consumers with any questions should contact us at 1-626-586-3485
from Monday to Friday between the hours of 9am to 6pm PST.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Made-In-Store Items Prepared with Stone Fruit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market has recalled made-in-store items prepared with
organic and conventional stone fruit, including peaches,
nectarines, and plums from Wawona Packing Co. because of possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes.

While no illnesses have been reported to-date, Listeria
monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

Made-in-store items that contained one or more fruits subject to
the Wawona Packing Co. recall were sold between June 1st and July
21st. Not all items or all products were sold in all store
locations. Affected made-in-store items such as cakes, tarts,
salsas, and prepared salads were sold in Whole Foods Market stores
using Whole Foods Market scale labels in all states where Whole
Foods Market stores are located except Florida, Washington and
Oregon. Additionally, Whole Foods Market pulled and destroyed the
recalled stone fruit sold in all regions where it was available,
which may have been labeled with a "Sweet 2 Eat" sticker.  For a
list of made-in-store items that have been affected by state,
please check this web page.

Whole Foods Market was notified by Wawona Packing Co. that the
various stone fruits were recalled due to a positive test result
for Listeria monocytogenes.

Signage is posted in Whole Foods Market stores to notify customers
of this recall.  Customers who have purchased recalled product
from Whole Foods Market should discard it, and may bring in their
receipt for a full refund. Consumers with questions may call 512-
477-5566, extension 20060, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Chewies Cookies Due to Walnuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling "Chocolate Chewies" produced and
sold in the Hyannis, Massachusetts location due to an undeclared
tree nut allergen.  The product was sold in the store between
Sunday, July 13, 2014 and Friday, July 18, 2014 in clear,
clamshell packaging and has a Use By date of: 7/18/14.

The chewies contain walnuts as an ingredient.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to tree nuts run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
Hyannis may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call
617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Mini Caesar & Mini Mesclun Goat Cheese Salad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling mini 4oz. containers of pre-
packaged Caesar salad and Mesclun Goat Cheese salad sold in stores
on July 8,, 2014 throughout New York, New Jersey (Excluding
Princeton, Cherry Hill and Marlton) and Connecticut (Excluding
Glastonbury, West Hartford and Bishop's Corner) due to mislabeling
and a resulting undeclared allergen of fish and egg (Caesar) and
tree nuts (Mesclun Goat Cheese).  The product has a Sell by date
of: 7/11/14.

The salad labels were erroneously swapped and therefore the Caesar
Salad packages contain tree nuts and the Mesclun Goat Cheese
packages contain a Caesar dressing containing fish and egg as an
ingredient.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
any of these ingredients run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Signage is posted in affected Whole Foods Market stores to notify
customers of this recall, and all affected product has been
removed from shelves.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions should contact their local store or call 201-567-
2090 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST.


WORLD WRESTLING: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that it
has filed a federal securities class action lawsuit on July 25,
2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. securities between October 31, 2013
and May 16, 2014, inclusive, against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors for, among other things, violations of
section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint seeks relief on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all other similarly situated shareholders of WWE
during the Class Period.  The named plaintiffs are represented by
Robbins Arroyo LLP.

WWE Is Accused of Making False and Misleading Statements
Concerning the Company's Ability to Double the Value of Its U.S.
Television License Agreement

The complaint arises out of false and misleading statements
regarding the ability of the Company to transform its earning
profile through, among other things, the negotiation of a
lucrative long-term television deal.  The complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, certain of WWE's officers issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
ability to command a premium fee in upcoming negotiations to renew
its television license agreement.  Specifically, defendants caused
WWE to issue false and misleading statements in public filings,
press releases, and conference calls where they publicized their
ability to renew their television license agreement at double the
value in upcoming negotiations.  These statements downplayed the
fact that advertisers pay less to reach WWE viewers than
traditional sports or other shows on the USA Network and the
negative impact on the television license negotiations resulting
from the Company's launch of its WWE Network.

WWE's Stock Price Drops on News of the New Television License
Agreement Value

On May 15, 2014, after the market closed, the Company issued a
press release that it had reached a multi-year deal with
NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment increasing the value of the U.S.
television license agreement by $57 million, or 50%.  Upon this
announcement, on May 16, 2014, WWE stock dropped over 43%, from
$19.93 to close at $11.27.  The omitted and/or misrepresented
information is believed to be material to potential WWE
shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to
purchase WWE stock.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired WWE stock during the Class
Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than sixty days from July 25, 2014.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
its practice in the area of shareholder rights litigation.  The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
securities class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative
actions.


                              *********

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  * * *