CAR_Public/140814.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 14, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 161

                             Headlines


607 LINCOLN ROAD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
ABC COMPANIES: Recalls AH100 and AH85 Models
ABC KIDZ: Faces "Cook" Suit in Ohio Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALBION FISHERIES: Recalls Live Kumamoto Oysters
ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls AT248F, and AT37-G Models

AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $970.5-Mil.
AMERICAN INT'L: "Campbell" Suit Dismissal Upheld
ARIZONA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action v. Dep't of Corrections
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Faces "Burges" Suit Over Misleading Reports
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

BANK OF AMERICA: Enters Into Tentative Mortgage Settlement Deal
BARCLAYS PLC: Sued in California Over False Marketing Materials
BEST BUY: Continues to Sell 10 Recalled Products, CPSC Says
BEST WAREHOUSING: "Bryant" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus Due to Fuel Leakage

BRICKMAN GROUP: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
BROOKDALE FAMILY: "Dookhan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BUDGET CONTROL: Suit Seeks to Redress Unlawful Debt Collection
C MART: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3 in 1 Coffee Due to Undeclared Milk
CANDA SIX: Recalls Foodpro White Chocolate Lover

CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Strubel" Suit Over Credit Card Application
CLOVER TRADING: Recalls Flying Swallow White Pepper Powder
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Signature Whole Mixed Nuts
CPA GLOBAL: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over Failure to Paralegals Pay OT
D.A. STEIN CULINARY: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

DOW CORNING: Tissue Expanders Are Breast Implants, 6th Cir. Says
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued Over Misleading Company Reports
DUTCH MARKET: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Milk & Wheat
EARTH CIRCLE: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella
EDAP TMS S.A.: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Company Report

EI DU PONT: Appeal v. Settlement of Suit Over Imprelis Resolved
EI DU PONT: Faces 2,000+ Suits Over PFOA in Drinking Water
ELITE FLOWER: Faces "Vives" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FAMILY DOLLAR: Sued Over Dollar Tree Acquisition Agreement
FARM BOY: Recalls Chocolate Croissant Due to Undeclared Almonds

FGL SPORTS: Recalls Capix Evo & Jr Evo Bike & Skateboard Helmets
FIBCO INC: Faces "Fleck" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FIRST AMERICAN: August 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
FITBIT INC: Sued for Concealing Skin Allergies Due to Product Use
FRESH SPROUTS: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to E. Coli

GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Petha Cubes Due to Swollen Packages
GAP INC: Judge Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed
GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Wants Swift Trial in Asbestos Case
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Sesay" Suit Over Ignition Switches Defects
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Salaried Retirees' Class Action for $9MM

GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Recall Causes Shortage of Parts
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 22 Spark Cars Due to Defective Part
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Camaro, Cruze, Sonic and Verano
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 6,809 Malibu and Regal Cars
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 29,555 Vehicles in Canada

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 11,430 Vehicles Due to Incomplete Weld
GOOD CHOWS: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
HERTZ CORP: Wants Currency Conversion Fee Class Action Dismissed
HYUNDAI: Recalls 419,000 Vehicles in US Over Various Defects
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Violation of Securities Law

ITN FOOD: Recalls Shan Lemon Pickle Due to Undeclared Mustard
KINCAID INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Report
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
LINK SNACKS: Refused to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims

LONDON SILVER: Faces "Nalven" Suit Over Price-Fixing of Silver
METRORAIL: Lack of Funding Stalls Cosatu's Class Action Plan
MGM GRAND DETROIT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
NATIONAL BUSINESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Tower" Suit
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players' Concussion Deal Objection Nixed

NEBRASKA: Southwest Irrigators File Class Action Over Water Rights
NETFLIX INC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Seek to Amend Claims
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Cal. Over Breach of Securities Law
NEUROLOGICAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
OMNICON GROUP: Suit Over Publicis Merger Junked After Deal Fails

P2 LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
PAPAGINO'S INC: Faces "Similien" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PARADIES SHOPS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Background Checking
PENN WEST: Faces "Frechter" Suit Over Violation of Securities Law
PENN WEST: Faces "Spradlin" Suit Over Misleading Company Report

PENN WEST: Two Law Firms to Jointly File Securities Class Action
PETRILLO RESTAURANT: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PRICE CHOPPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
RED BEAN: Partial Bid to Dismiss "Bonilla" Action Denied
ROMACORP INC: Faces "Gittens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SAFEWAY INC: Agrees to Settle Delaware Suit Over Merger
SANIMAX: Faces Class Action Over Foul Odor at Brown County Plant
SEASALT AND PEPPER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Recorded Lawyer-Inmate Calls
SKYHOP GLOBAL: Faces "Stembridge" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

TACO BELL: Faces "Feldman" Suit in N.Y Over Violation of FLSA
TELETECH L.L.C.: Suit Seeks Damages Over FLSA Violations
TELIK INC: Agrees to Settle Suit by Stockholder in California
TODD LANDAU: Faces "Galvez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TOYS R US: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Consumer Report Procurement

UNITED DAIRY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
UNITED MORTGAGE: Faces "Hastie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITED STATES: Bid for Review of Class Cert. Ruling Denied
WALGREEN CO: Loses Bid to Sever Two Claims in Ear Remedy Suit
WASHINGTON DC: Bid for Rehearing En Banc in "Johnson" Suit Denied

WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Knox" Suit Says


                            *********


607 LINCOLN ROAD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Amilcar Garcia v. 607 Lincoln Road, LLC., d/b/a Cantinetta,
and Stefano Frittella, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22823 (S.D.
Fla., July 31, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

607 Lincoln Road, LLC owns a restaurant located in Miami Beach,
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew Ira Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      168 Franklin Corner Road, Building 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (305) 726-0060
      Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
      E-mail: Jaffe.glenn@me.com
              aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


ABC COMPANIES: Recalls AH100 and AH85 Models
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Equipment
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           7
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014309
TC ID number:             2014309
Manufacturer recall
number:                   CSN 598

On certain aerial devices installed on utility service vehicles
(to elevate personnel in order to facilitate working on overhead
service lines, for tree trimming, etc.), water ingress into the
lower boom fiberglass inserts could allow a conductivity path
through the boom from the boom elbow down to the chassis.  If the
boom elbow were to come in contact with, or in close proximity to,
an energized conductor while persons on the ground are touching or
in close proximity to the chassis, an increased risk of injury due
to electrocution would result.  Water ingress could also
compromise the fiberglass insert glue joint, potentially leading
to undesirable boom motion due to looseness of the joint, which
could increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property.

Altec will replace affected lower booms.  Owners may contact Altec
at 1-877-462-5832.

Affected products:

  Maker    Model     Model year(s) affected
  -----    -----     ----------------------
  ALTEC    AH85      2010, 2011, 2012
  ALTEC    AH100     2010, 2011, 2012


ABC KIDZ: Faces "Cook" Suit in Ohio Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Cook, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ABC Kidz Childcare, LLC, ABC & ME Childcare, LLC, I
Can Investments, LLC, and Takara L. Madkins, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01707 (N.D. Ohio, August 4, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate daycare business in Elyria, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      LAZZARO LAW FIRM
      920 Rockefeller Bldg., 614 Superior Avenue,
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


ALBION FISHERIES: Recalls Live Kumamoto Oysters
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Albion Fisheries Ltd. (Richmond)
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9106


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls AT248F, and AT37-G Models
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Equipment
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           29
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014318
TC ID number:             2014318
Manufacturer recall
number:                   CSN599

On certain aerial devices installed on Ford F450 and F550 vehicles
equipped with Stable Ride front torsion bars, improper welding
could cause the torsion bar to fail, affecting aerial device
stability in certain work positions, which could increase the risk
of injury and/or damage to property.

Owners will be given instructions on how to inspect sway bars for
improper welding and supplied with replacement sway bars as
necessary.  Owners may contact Altec at 1-877-462-5832.

Affected products: 2011, 2013, 2014, 2011, 2013, 2014 ALTEC AT37-G


AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $970.5-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., headquartered in Rochester, Michigan,
on Aug. 4 announced that historic $970.5 million settlements have
been reached on behalf of its client, the State of Michigan
Retirement Systems, in the American International Group, Inc. 2008
Securities Litigation class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Miller Law Firm, P.C. is a lead counsel for The State of
Michigan Retirement Systems, which served as the sole court-
appointed Lead Plaintiff in the case.

If approved by the Court, the total settlement amount will be
among the largest recoveries ever achieved in a securities fraud
class action stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. It would
release claims of the members of the putative class, which
consists of all persons and funds that purchased publicly issued
common stock, corporate units, bonds, subordinated debentures and
notes of AIG from March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and
were injured thereby.

E. Powell Miller stated that "This settlement represents an
outstanding result for the State of Michigan and other investors."

After the close of fact discovery in 2012, the parties agreed to
participate in several mediation sessions through Retired U.S.
District Judge Layn Phillips that culminated in the settlement
just one month after the Supreme Court's recent decision in Erica
P. John Fund v. Halliburton.

Assuming preliminary approval of the settlement, a Notice and the
Proof of Claim form will be sent to members of the class who can
be identified from AIG's records and will also be available
online. Proceeds from the settlement, if approved by the Court,
will go the State of Michigan Retirement Systems and a putative
class that consists of all persons and funds that purchased
publicly issued common stock, preferred stock, bonds and notes of
AIG from March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and were
injured thereby.

Miller Law attorneys E. Powell Miller, Marc L. Newman, Jayson E.
Blake, Justin B. Vandeputte and M. Ryan Jarnagin prosecuted the
action on behalf of the plaintiffs.

In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 1:08-cv-04772 (S.D.N.Y.)

The Miller Law Firm, P.C.
E. Powell Miller
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Tel: (248) 841-2200

MRS, as custodian of four state retirement systems, filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of AIG common
stock from March 16, 2006, to Sept. 16, 2008.

Timothy Raub, writing for LexisNexis, reports that MRS alleges
that AIG, subsidiary AIG Financial Products (AIGFP), former CEO
Martin J. Sullivan, Chief Financial Officer Steven J. Bensinger,
former AIGFP President Joseph Cassano, AIGFP Executive Vice
Presidents Andrew Forster and Alan Frost, AIG Principal Accounting
Officer David L. Herzog, Chief Risk Officer Robert Lewis, 34
underwriters of AIG stock offerings, 15 current and former outside
directors, board member Edmund S.W. Tse and outside accountant
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of misrepresentations
concealing AIG's exposure to the subprime mortgage lending crisis
through its securities lending program and its credit default
swaps portfolio.  This exposure, MRS contended, led to a liquidity
crisis at AIG that required a U.S. government bailout.

MRS is represented by Leonard Barrack -- lbarrack@barrack.com --
M. Richard Komins, Jeffrey W. Golan, Robert A. Hoffman, Lisa M.
Lamb and Julie B. Palley of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine in
Philadelphia and E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- Marc
L. Newman, David H. Fink, Jason E. Blake and Brian E. Etzel of The
Miller Law Firm in Rochester, Mich.

                           Defendants

AIG is represented by Joseph S. Allerhand --
joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- Robert F. Caranagelo, Paul Dutka and
Stacy Nettleton of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in New York.  Mr.
Bensinger is represented by Richard A. Spehr --
rspehr@mayerbrown.com -- Joseph De Simone, S. Christopher
Provenzano and Bradford Jealous III of Mayer Brown in New York.
Mr. Sullivan is represented by James A. Diehl --
jdiehl@akingump.com -- David M. Murphy -- DMMurphy@wlrk.com -- and
Richard B. Zabel of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in New York and
David M. Murphy and Meredith L. Turner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen
& Katz in New York.

Mr. Lewis is represented by Michael R. Young, Antonio Yanez Jr.,
Mei Lin Kwan-Gett and Brian R. Faerstein -- bfaerstein@orrick.com
-- of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher in New York.  Mr. Herzog is
represented by Allerhand of Weil Gotshal in New York.  Mr. Frost
is represented by Andrew E. Tomback, Dorothy Heyl and Tamieka
Spencer Bruce of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy in New York.  Mr.
Forster is represented by Richard D. Owens, David M. Brodsky and
Lillian E. Gutwein of New York.  Cassano is represented by Lee G.
Dunst -- ldunst@gibsondunn.com -- Jim Walden, Georgia K. Winston
and Julie I. Smith of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in New York.  The
underwriter defendants are represented by Richard A. Rosen --
rrosen@paulweiss.com -- and Brad S. Karp of Paul, Weiss --
cdavidow@paulweiss.com -- Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York
and Charles E. Davidow of Paul Weiss in Washington, D.C.  PwC is
represented by Thomas G. Rafferty -- trafferty@cravath.com --
Antony L. Ryan and Samira Shah of Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New
York.  Mr. Tse is represented by Allerhand, Caranagelo and
Nettleton of Weil Gotshal in New York.  The outside director
defendants are represented by James G. Gamble of Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett in New York.


AMERICAN INT'L: "Campbell" Suit Dismissal Upheld
------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Lynn Campbell contended that the American International
Group, Inc. (AIG) and its board of directors wrongfully reduced
the value of certain securities issued by AIG. The district court
dismissed Campbell's securities class action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, holding that the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) does not confer federal
jurisdiction over Campbell's state-law claims.

The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit,
in an opinion dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/ancJOCfrom Leagle.com, agreed with the district
court and held that SLUSA does not confer federal subject matter
jurisdiction in the case. The Appeals Court also considered Ms.
Campbell's remaining arguments in favor of federal jurisdiction
and found them to be without merit for the reasons explained by
the district court.

The district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, is, therefore, affirmed.

The case is KATHRYN LYNN CAMPBELL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
SIMILARLY SITUATED EQUITY UNITS HOLDERS OF AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., ET
AL., Appellees, NO. 13-7041.

Wendu Mekbib was on the briefs for appellant.

Robert F. Carangelo -- robert.carangelo@weil.com -- at  Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP; and Peter C. Thomas -- pthomas@stblaw.com --
and Paul C. Curnin -- pcurnin@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP were on the brief for appellees.


ARIZONA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action v. Dep't of Corrections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
blasting a class action critical of the care it gives inmates, the
Arizona Department of Corrections has criticized the lawsuit is
full of isolated anecdotes and exaggerated or outdated claims, and
said should be booted out of federal court.

The state's attorneys moved on July 29 for summary judgment in
Parsons v. Ryan in U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.  The lawsuit alleges life-threatening neglect of
prisoners' medical, dental and mental health needs, and demands
reforms.

Arizona's attorneys contend the American Civil Liberties Union-led
complaint is packed with allegations that have not been backed up
by named plaintiffs, and focuses on delays in care that have
already been rectified.  In some cases, the defense said, the
complaint protests a situation -- such as the prisons' failure to
provide televisions for inmates who can't afford them -- that
"borders the ridiculous," according to Arizona's motion.

The state cites depositions of several of the 13 named plaintiffs
that cast doubt on the reality of the problems the lawsuit
alleges.  In one case, an inmate alleged to be losing weight
because of insufficient food said his dropped pounds actually
stemmed from a strenuous exercise regime.  Another inmate was
cited as waiting months to get treatment for cancer; in fact, the
state alleges, she never had the disease.

The lawsuit gained support on June 5 when a three-judge panel of
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
unanimously affirmed the granting of class certification by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The state had argued that the claims of maltreatment of inmates in
a system holding 34,000 prisoners should be judged individually
rather than as a class.  But the panel said the defendants
exhibited a "fundamental misunderstanding of the law" and said the
case presents the very definition of a class: "Given that every
inmate in ADC custody is likely to require medical, mental health
and dental care, each of the named plaintiffs is similarly
positioned to all other ADC inmates . . . to a substantial risk of
serious harm resulting from exposure to the defendants' policies
and practices governing health care," Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen
Reinhardt wrote for himself and judges John Noonan and Paul
Watford.

Plaintiffs' counsel include David Fathi of the ACLU's National
Prison Project; Daniel Pochada of the ACLU Foundation of Arizona;
Donald Specter and Corene Kendrick of the Prison Law Office
Arizona; Jennifer Alewelt of the Arizona Center for Disability
Law; and attorneys with Perkins Coie LLP and Jones Day.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Faces "Burges" Suit Over Misleading Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Burges and Rose M. Burges, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bancorpsouth, Inc., James D.
Rollins III, and William L. Prater, Case No. 3:14-cv-01564 (M.D.
Tenn., July 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
procedures, systems and processes related to certain of its
compliance programs.

Bancorpsouth, Inc. operates as a financial holding company for
BancorpSouth Bank that provides commercial banking and financial
services to individuals and small-to-medium size businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
      Robert P. Bramlett, Esq.
      BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
      PO Box 150734
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 248-2828
      Facsimile: (615) 254-4116
      E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com
              robert@bramlettlawoffices.com


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 31 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against BancorpSouth, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, and
docketed under 14-cv-01564, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased BancorpSouth securities
between January 8, 2014 and July 21, 2014, inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased BancorpSouth securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 29, 2014 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

BancorpSouth operates as a financial holding company for
BancorpSouth Bank that provides commercial banking and financial
services to individuals and small-to-medium size businesses.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's procedures, systems and processes related to certain of
its lending and compliance programs.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) BancorpSouth's operations and credit practices violated
the Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") and federal anti-money-laundering
programs; (2) the Company's lending practices were not in
compliance with the regulations promulgated by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau; and as a result of the above, (3)
BancorpSouth's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times; and (4) regulatory scrutiny into
the Company's lending practices could severely jeopardize the
Company's ability to close recently announced mergers with Central
Community Corporation and Ouachita Bancshares Corp.

On July 21, 2014, after the market closed, BancorpSouth issued a
press release announcing financial results for the second quarter
ended June 30, 2014.  The press release also disclosed "The
Company has learned that federal bank regulators have identified
concerns during the course of routine supervisory activities
regarding the Company's procedures, systems and processes related
to certain of its compliance programs, including its Bank Secrecy
Act and anti-money-laundering programs."

On this news, shares of BancorpSouth fell $1.90, or over 8%, on
extremely heavy volume, to close at $21.51 on July 22, 2014.

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Enters Into Tentative Mortgage Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Taylor, Esq., in an article for Findlaw.com, reports that
Bank of America has reached a tentative $17 billion settlement
deal with the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve allegations
that it fraudulently marketed mortgage-backed securities.

The terms of the mortgage settlement were reached during a phone
conversation between Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan and
Attorney General Eric Holder, reports USA Today.  If approved, the
settlement would be the largest ever between the government and a
financial institution in the ongoing string of disputes involving
mortgage servicing and mortgage-backed securities.

What are the terms of the settlement and how does it compare to
past settlements between the government and financial
institutions?

Rumored Settlement Terms

The tentative deal is rumored to include about $9 billion in cash,
with the rest going toward consumer relief programs, reports The
Associated Press.

Bank of America had previously vowed to fight the Department of
Justice, arguing that it should not be liable for mortgages issued
by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide -- companies BofA acquired in
2008.  However, in a separate case last week, a federal judge in
New York found that Bank of America was liable for actions taken
for Countrywide before the companies merged, and hit BofA with
more than $1.2 billion in fines.

Previous Settlements

If approved, the $17 billion settlement would eclipse last year's
$13 billion settlement between JP Morgan and the Justice
Department stemming from similar mortgage-backed securities fraud
allegations.

Both JP Morgan and Bank of America were also part of a 2012
settlement in which the five largest U.S. mortgage-servicing
institutions -- BofA, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and
Ally -- agreed to pay $25 billion and make changes to the way the
institutions handled foreclosures and serviced mortgages.

Earlier this summer, the Justice Department settled its case with
SunTrust Banks over unlawful mortgage practices.  In that
settlement, the bank agreed to pay nearly $1 billion, including
$500 million to help borrowers at risk of foreclosure or
underwater on their mortgages.


BARCLAYS PLC: Sued in California Over False Marketing Materials
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great Pacific Securities, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Barclays PLC, Barclays Capital Inc, Does
1-5, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01210 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants falsified marketing material showing
the type of trading in its dark pool as part of a business
strategy to dramatically increase its market share.

Barclays PLC is a British multinational banking and financial
services firm with its principal place of business in London,
England.

Barclays Capital, Inc. is a securities brokerage and financial
advisory services firm incorporated under the laws of Connecticut,
and with its principal place of business in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      BOTTINI AND BOTTINI INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth T. Tran, Esq.
      Joseph Winters Cotchett, Esq.
      Kevin Patrick O'Brien, Esq.
      Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq.
      Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
      COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcom Road Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              kobrien@tingleylawgroup.com
              mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
              nnishimura@cpmlegal.com


BEST BUY: Continues to Sell 10 Recalled Products, CPSC Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kavita Kumar, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Best Buy Co.
continued to sell or resell 10 products after they had been
recalled, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.

On July 24, the agency put out an alert, in conjunction with the
Richfield-based retailer, warning customers to stop using the
products, which had been recalled in 2012 and 2013.

While it is illegal for a retailer to sell a recalled item, the
agency said the number of items Best Buy sold after they were
recalled was about 200.  But that number does not include an
undetermined number of recalled digital cameras that also were
sold.

"We regret that any products within the scope of a recall were not
removed entirely from our shelves and other sales channels,"
Best Buy spokesman Jeff Shelman said in a prepared statement.
"While the number of items accidentally sold was small, even one
is too many and we are taking steps to help prevent such issues
from reoccurring."

The 10 products were sold or resold by Best Buy or one of its
other properties, including Magnolia stores, as well as
liquidators Best Buy Private Auction, CowBoom and TechLiquidators.

The recalled items are: Canon EOS Rebel T4i digital camera, Coby
televisions, Definitive Technology SuperCube 2000 subwoofers, GE
dishwashers, Gree dehumidifiers, iSi North America Twist'n Sparkle
beverage carbonation systems, LG Electronics electric ranges, LG
Electronics gas dryers, Samsonite dual-wattage travel converters
and Sauder Woodworking Co. Gruga office chairs.

The commission said hazards from the products include fire, burn,
shock, expelled parts, falls and skin irritation. Consumers can
get a refund, replacement or repair for the items.

For more information, contact Best Buy's recall hot line at 1-800-
566-7498 or go to Safety Commission's website:
www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls


BEST WAREHOUSING: "Bryant" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenyata Bryant, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Best Warehousing and Transportation Center, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-02497 (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of
litigation, and attorneys' fees pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Best Warehousing and Transportation Center, Inc., is a corporation
formed under the laws of the State of Georgia that provides third
party logistics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus Due to Fuel Leakage
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           148
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014308
TC ID number:             2014308
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R14XJ

On certain propane-powered school buses, the fuel return line may
fatigue and crack, causing a fuel leak.  Fuel leakage, in the
presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire causing
injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace the return fuel lines and add additional
support clamps.

Affected products: 2013, 2014, 2015 Blue Bird Vision School Bus


BRICKMAN GROUP: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. The Brickman Group Ltd.
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05900 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Brickman Group Ltd. LLC provides landscaping and maintenance
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. State Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

         - and -

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


BROOKDALE FAMILY: "Dookhan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clement Dookhan, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Brookdale Family Care Centers, Inc, Joyce
Wynters, Trina Cornet, Susan Pennachio, Case No. 1:14-cv-04587
(E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
premium pay and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Brookdale Family Care Centers, Inc. is a health care facility
conducting business in Kings County, at Linden Boulevard at
Brookdale Plaza, Brooklyn, N.Y, 11212.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William C. Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


BUDGET CONTROL: Suit Seeks to Redress Unlawful Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Best, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Budget Control Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-04769 (D.N.J., July 31, 2014), seeks to redress for the
Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Budget Control Services, Inc. is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly collects debts alleged to
be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C MART: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3 in 1 Coffee Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           C Mart Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution:             Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9075


CANDA SIX: Recalls Foodpro White Chocolate Lover
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Canda Six Fortune Enterprise Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9073

Affected products: 160 g. Foodpro White Chocolate Lover (White
Chocolate Cookies with Almond)


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Strubel" Suit Over Credit Card Application
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Strubel individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-05998
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendant fails to
furnish accurate disclosures in connection with new credit card
account applications.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. is doing business in the State of New
York and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq.
      Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq.
      BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      26 Broadway, 21st fl
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 248-7906
      Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
      E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com
              jonathan@bromberglawoffice.com

         - and -

      Harley Jay Schnall, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL
      711 West End Ave
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 678-6546
      Facsimile: (212) 678-0322
      E-mail: schnall_law@hotmail.com


CLOVER TRADING: Recalls Flying Swallow White Pepper Powder
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Clover Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly
                          National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9113

Clover Trading Company Ltd. is recalling Flying Swallow brand
White Pepper Powder from the marketplace due to possible
Salmonella contamination.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick.  Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation,
which may lead to the recall of other products.  If other high-
risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through
updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 55 g. Flying Swallow White Pepper Powder


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Signature Whole Mixed Nuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
                          Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9067

Affected products: 1.13 kg. Kirkland Signature Whole Mixed Nuts
with best before date of 02 APR 2015


CPA GLOBAL: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over Failure to Paralegals Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachelle Bailey, on behalf of herself Case No. and all others
similarly situated and the Proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class v. CPA
Global Support Services, LLC, Case No. 0:14-cv-03091 (D. Minn.,
August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay its paralegals overtime pay due to its misclassification of
these individuals as exempt from the overtime laws.

CPA Global Support Services, LLC is the world's leading
intellectual property management and IP software specialist, and
international provider of outsourced legal services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander M. Baggio, Esq.
      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 S. 8th St. Ste 4600
      Mpls, MN 55402-2242
      Telephone: (612) 256-3295
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: abaggio@nka.com
              fisher@nka.com


D.A. STEIN CULINARY: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Efigenia Jimenez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. D.A. Stein Culinary Group, LLC, and Brett
Stein, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05969 (N.D. Ill., August 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

D.A. Stein Culinary Group, LLC is a restaurant owned and managed
by Brett Stein.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez , Esq.
      Consumer Law Group, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


DOW CORNING: Tissue Expanders Are Breast Implants, 6th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Corning Corporation lost an appeal when the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling over
the definition of "breast implants".

Dow Corning manufactures and distributes various medical devices,
including "breast implants" and "tissue expanders."  For purposes
of the dispute, "[b]reast [i]mplant[s]" are "all silicone gel and
saline-filled breast implants with silicone elastomer envelopes
manufactured and either sold or otherwise distributed by [Dow
Corning]."  "Tissue expanders" come in hundreds of varieties, but
three Dow Corning models are designed for implantation in the
breast, where they are filled with saline to stretch the patient's
skin before (typically) being removed after several weeks.

Not all of these products worked the way they should.  By 1995,
thousands of breast-implant patients had filed lawsuits against
Dow Corning stemming from their use of the company's devices. Dow
Corning eventually filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The
company agreed to a plan of reorganization that establishes a more
than $2 billion fund for patients willing to settle their claims.
The plan describes what claims are eligible for payment, how
claims will be paid, how much money claimants can receive, and so
on.  The plan empowers the district court "to resolve
controversies and disputes regarding interpretation and
implementation of th[e] Plan and the Plan Documents."

The parties asked the district court to determine whether the
plan's breast-implant coverage extended to tissue expanders. As
the trial court initially saw it, Dow Corning's three models of
breast-implanted tissue expanders met every element of the
reorganization plan's "[b]reast [i]mplant" definition. Each model
has a silicone envelope that is implanted in the breast and
gradually filled with saline solution. In the court's view,
"breast implants" thus unambiguously included "tissue expanders."

In a 2010 appeal, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the lower court,
in part.  After acknowledging that the court's resolution of the
"breast implant" question reasonably construed the reorganization
plan's words, the Sixth Circuit identified another, more technical
reading of "breast implant" that might exclude "tissue expanders"
from its scope.  On this basis, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that
the definition was ambiguous, vacated the district court's order,
and remanded the case to allow the court to consider other
evidence about the meaning of the phrase.

On remand, the district court considered the question anew. After
accounting for this other possibility, it still concluded that the
parties intended "[b]reast [i]mplant" to include "tissue
expanders."

Dow Corning again elevated the matter to the Sixth Circuit.  Dow
Corning insists that the district court erred because its second
ruling on the "breast implant" issue contradicts its first.  In
its first opinion on this topic, Dow Corning pointed out that the
district court said that "tissue expanders made by Dow Corning did
not trigger the 50% reduction in benefits as did breast implants,
lending credibility to [Dow Corning's] claim that even under the
[Revised Settlement Program] tissue expanders were not considered
`Breast Implants.'"  The district court's second opinion, Dow
Corning argues, treated this evidence differently.

A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit said this is an odd
argument for Dow Corning to make, as it sought a ruling from the
district court that was 180 degrees away from its first ruling.
That possibility was the whole point of the remand, the appeals
court said.

According to the Sixth Circuit, "At any rate, there is less
material tension here than Dow Corning suggests.  To say that some
evidence "lend[s] credibility" to an argument does not establish
that the district court found Dow Corning's argument conclusive or
even persuasive. The first time around, moreover, the statement
was dicta. The district court was careful to explain in its first
opinion that it did not "consider[] the [extrinsic] evidence
involving the [Revised Settlement Program]," because it believed
the parties' "[b]reast [i]mplant" definition to be unambiguous.
Only in its second opinion did the district court rely on (or make
any findings concerning) the Revised Settlement Program. On
remand, the district court fairly did what we asked and reasonably
construed the operative terms of the settlement agreement in the
process."

The case before the Sixth Circuit is, DOW CORNING CORPORATION,
Interested Party-Appellant, v. CLAIMANTS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
Interested Party-Appellee, No. 13-2456 (6th Cir.).  A copy of the
Sixth Circuit's July 31, 2014 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/r4vmt9from Leagle.com.   Judge Jeffrey Stuart Sutton
penned the decision.  Judges Richard Allen Griffin and Judge
Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation, are the other two
members of the panel.

                      About Dow Corning

Dow Corning Corp. -- http://www.dowcorning.com/-- produces and
supplies more than 7,000 silicon-based products and services to
more than 25,000 customers worldwide.  Dow Corning is equally
owned by The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on May 15, 1995
(Bankr. E.D. Mich. Case No. 95-20512) to resolve silicone implant-
related tort liability.  The Company owed its commercial creditors
more than $1 billion at that time.  A consensual Joint Plan of
Reorganization, amended on February 4, 1999, offering to pay
commercial creditors in full with post-petition interest,
establish a multi-billion-dollar settlement trust for tort claims,
and leave Dow Corning's shareholders unimpaired, took effect on
June 30, 2004.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued Over Misleading Company Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Paddock, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., Jeffrey
Katzenberg, and Lewis W. Coleman, Case No. 2:14-cv-06053 (C.D.
Cal., August 1, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and
performance.

DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. is a Delaware corporation engaged
in the development, production, and exploitation of animated films
and their associated characters worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              lglancy@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-661-1100
      Facsimile: 212-661-8665

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184


DUTCH MARKET: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Milk & Wheat
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           The Dutch Market Ltd.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Ontario
CFIA reference number:    9099

Affected products:

   -- 350 g. Calve Peanut Sauce with all codes where milk and
      wheat are not declared on the label; and

   -- 150 g. Dutch Bakery Butter Pretzel Cookies with all codes
      where milk is not declared on the label


EARTH CIRCLE: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 23, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Earth Circle Organics, (River Canyon
                          Retreat, Inc., dba), Harmonic Arts
                          Botanical Dispensary
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly
                          National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9098

Industry is recalling Earth Circle Organics and Harmonic Arts
Botanical Dispensary brand Organic Carob Powder from the
marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled products described.

The following products have been sold in British Columbia and
Alberta, and may have been sold in other provinces or through
Internet sales.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.  Consumers who are unsure whether they have the
affected products are advised to check with their retailer.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick.  Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by a recall in the United States.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


EDAP TMS S.A.: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Company Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin A. Eaton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v.  EDAP TMS S.A., Marc Oczachowski, and Eric
Soyer, Case No. 1:14-cv-06069 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, prospects and performance.

EDAP TMS S.A. is a French corporation that designs and
manufactures medical equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EI DU PONT: Appeal v. Settlement of Suit Over Imprelis Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by one class member against a settlement reached in a
lawsuit filed against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company over
Imprelis was resolved in the second quarter 2014, according to the
company's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The company has received claims and has been served with multiple
lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis herbicide caused damage
to certain trees. Sales of Imprelis were suspended in August 2011
and the product was last applied during the 2011 spring
application season. The lawsuits seeking class action status were
consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In February 2014, the court entered
the final order dismissing these lawsuits as a result of the class
action settlement. The appeal by one class member was resolved in
the second quarter 2014.

As part of the settlement, DuPont paid about $7 in plaintiffs'
attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is providing a
warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use of Imprelis
on class members' properties through May 2015. Certain class
members opted out of the settlement. The opt-outs have filed about
125 individual actions encompassing about 420 claims for property
and related damage in state court in various jurisdictions. DuPont
has removed most of these cases to federal court in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Once removed to federal court, the individual
actions remain stayed pending further action by the court.

The company has established review processes to verify and
evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact
the evaluation process including the number of trees on a
property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of
the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to
naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont
verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical
review of the property.

At June 30, 2014, DuPont had recorded charges of $1,175, within
other operating charges, to resolve these claims, which represents
the company's best estimate of the loss associated with resolving
these claims. The company did not take any charges related to this
matter during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. The
three and six months ended June 30, 2013 included charges of $80
and $115, respectively. At June 30, 2014, DuPont had accruals of
$364 related to these claims. The company has an applicable
insurance program with a deductible equal to the first $100 of
costs and expenses. The insurance program limits are $725 for
costs and expenses in excess of the $100. Insurance recoveries are
recognized when realized. DuPont has submitted and will continue
to submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs
associated with this matter. The company has begun to receive
payment from its insurance carriers and continues to seek recovery
although the timing and outcome remain uncertain. To date the
company has recognized and received insurance recoveries of $73.


EI DU PONT: Faces 2,000+ Suits Over PFOA in Drinking Water
----------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 2,290 lawsuits filed against E. I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company in various federal and state courts in
Ohio and West Virginia, alleging personal injury and wrongful
death from exposure to PFOA in drinking water, according to the
company's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel"). The studies
were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate
available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists,
as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA
and human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. The medical panel is expected to
address monitoring and may make additional recommendations in a
subsequent report.  The medical panel has not communicated its
anticipated schedule for completion. The company is obligated to
fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible
class members.  In January 2012, the company put $1 in an escrow
account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement
agreement.  The court has appointed the Director of Medical
Monitoring, who is in the process of setting up a program, to
implement the medical panel's recommendations.  Testing has not
yet begun and no money has been disbursed from the fund.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At June 30, 2014, there were
approximately 2,290 lawsuits filed in various federal and state
courts in Ohio and West Virginia of which about 400 had been
served on DuPont, an increase of about 1,000 in the number of
lawsuits filed and 300 in the number of lawsuits served,
respectively, over March 31, 2014. These lawsuits have been or
will be consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal
court ("MDL"). These lawsuits allege personal injury and 7 of them
allege wrongful death from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.
Based on comments from attorneys for the plaintiffs, DuPont
expects additional lawsuits may be filed. In the MDL a "discovery
pool" of 20 plaintiffs has been established from which individual
cases will be selected for the initial trials. The first trial is
scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November
2015. DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is
defending itself vigorously.


ELITE FLOWER: Faces "Vives" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Gloria Vives and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Elite Flower Services, Inc., Juan C. Madrinan, Case No.
1:14-cv-22832 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages.

Elite Flower Services, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


FAMILY DOLLAR: Sued Over Dollar Tree Acquisition Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Thomas, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports
that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Family Dollar
Stores Inc. and Dollar Tree Inc. tied to their acquisition plans.
The filing on July 31 in Delaware Chancery Court also names all
members of Family Dollar's board of directors as defendants.
It alleges that Family Dollar, Dollar Tree and the board have
violated their fiduciary duties at the expense of Family Dollar's
shareholders.

The Matthews-based discount retailer announced that it would be
acquired by Dollar Tree for $8.5 billion.  The cash and stock
agreement is valued at $74.50 per share -- a nearly 23 percent
premium over the stock's closing price on July 25, the last
trading day before the deal was announced.

The acquisition is slated to close in early 2015.

Family Dollar did not respond to a request for comment on Aug. 1.
Dollar Tree said it is unable to comment on pending litigation.
But in an interview with the Charlotte Business Journal, Family
Dollar CEO Howard Levine said: "Despite some of the external
publicity and critique, our board stayed steadfast on the right
thing, and that was determining what was the right thing for all
of our shareholders."

The lawsuit alleges the deal "offers unfair and inadequate
consideration that does not constitute a maximization of
stockholder value."  The filing states that analysts have
projected that the inherent value of the Family Dollar is worth at
least $79 per share.  Family Dollar's stock hit a high of $75.29
in the past year.

It cites the unfair price of $74.50 per share and "grossly unfair
and inadequate terms of the deal."

The lawsuit alleges that Family Dollar's board has breached
fiduciary duties owed to shareholders to take all necessary steps
to ensure shareholders receive maximum value.  It notes the deal
includes provisions that stand to benefit Dollar Tree.  Examples
given include a no-solicitation provision that prevents Family
Dollar from soliciting other potential buyers or continuing
discussions.  Dollar Tree has five days to match any competing
proposal and there is a $305 million termination fee tied to
ending the deal.

"These provisions essentially "lock up" the proposed transaction
and prevent the board from fulfilling its fiduciary duties to the
Company," the filing states.

It cites potential conflicts of interest with Mr. Levine being
Family Dollar's largest stockholder and a member of the Family
Dollar's board.  He is slated to receive about $130 million from
the sale of his stock.

Mr. Levine also will continue to work as CEO of Family Dollar,
reporting to Dollar Tree CEO Bob Sasser.

The lawsuit states that Family Dollar has taken strategic
initiatives to position the company for a positive turnaround.
That includes closing approximately 370 underperforming stores and
lowering prices to draw shoppers away from competitors.

"These events were designed to positively impact current earnings
and will lead to improved earnings in future years," it states.

The deal will make Dollar Tree the leading discount retailer in
North America.  It will have more than 13,000 stores in 48 states
and five Canadian provinces, with sales of more than $18 billion.
Family Dollar currently operates more than 8,100 stores in 46
states.  It has been a family-run operation since the first store
opened in Charlotte in November 1959.

The lawsuit was filed by Peter Andrews --
pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- with Andrews & Springer LLC in
Delaware.


FARM BOY: Recalls Chocolate Croissant Due to Undeclared Almonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Farm Boy 2012 Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9093

Affected products: 396 g. Farm Boy Chocolate Croissant with
0 210493 203998 code


FGL SPORTS: Recalls Capix Evo & Jr Evo Bike & Skateboard Helmets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 30, 2014
Posting date:             July 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40767

Affected products: Capix Evo and Capix Jr Evo Bike and Skateboard
Helmets

The voluntary recall involves the Capix Evo and Capix Jr Evo bike
and skateboard helmets.  The products are identified by Corporate
Style Numbers: 331473210, 331473212, 331473226, 331473231,
331473235 and 331473239 and Franchise Style Numbers: H24-EVO and
H24-EVOJR.

The helmets were made available in these colors:

Capix Jr Evo Helmets - Black/Green and White/Purple,
Capix Evo Helmets- Black, Blue, Red and White.

The voluntary recall is being initiated by FGL Sports Ltd. as a
precautionary measure due to a manufacturing defect which may
cause cracks to appear near the rivets securing the chinstrap,
posing a potential safety hazard to consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor FGL Sports Ltd. has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
helmets.

Approximately 8,684 units of the affected helmets were sold at
Sport Chek, Sports Experts, Intersport and S3 stores across
Canada.

The recalled helmets were manufactured in China and sold between
January 2014 and June 2014.

Companies:

   Importer      FGL Sports Ltd.
                 Calgary
                 Alberta
                 Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected helmets and
return them to their local local Sport Chek, Sports Experts,
Intersport and S3 stores for a refund or exchange.


FIBCO INC: Faces "Fleck" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
John Fleck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  Fibco, Inc., and Donald Braddy, Jr., Case No. 5:14-
cv-00177 (N.D. Fla., July 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act

Fibco, Inc. is a communications contractor that contracts with,
among others, the federal government to install fiber optic cable.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Clark Davis, Esq.
      JOHN C. DAVIS PA
      623 Beard St.
      Tallahassee, FL 32303
      Telephone: (850) 222-4770
      Facsimile: (850) 222-3119
      E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net


FIRST AMERICAN: August 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION REGARDING FIRST AMERICAN MONETARY
CONSULTANTS, INC., INFORMATION RADIO NETWORK, INC., LARRY BATES,
BARBARA BATES, ROBERT BATES, CHARLES E. BATES, KINSEY BROWN BATES
and CECILIA STANDLEY

ORLOWSKI, et al v. FIRST AMERICAN MONETARY CONSULTANTS, INC.,
INFORMATION RADIO NETWORK, INC., LARRY BATES, BARBARA BATES,
ROBERT BATES, CHARLES E. BATES, KINSEY BROWN BATES and CECILIA
STANDLEY

Case No. 2:11-cv-01396, U.S. District Court, Western Dist. of
Tenn., Western Section

* This notice has been authorized by a federal Court -- This is
NOT a solicitation from a lawyer*

ATTENTION ALL PURCHASERS OR SELLERS OF PRECIOUS METALS DOING
BUSINESS WITH FIRST AMERICAN MONETARY CONSULTANTS, INC.,
INFORMATION RADIO NETWORK, INC., LARRY BATES, BARBARA BATES,
ROBERT BATES, CHARLES E. BATES, KINSEY BROWN BATES and CECILIA
STANDLEY:

If you transacted business with First American Monetary
Consultants, Inc., Information Radio Network, Inc., Larry Bates,
Barbara Bates, Robert Bates, Charles E. Bates, Kinsey Brown Bates,
or Cecilia Standley for the purchase/sale/trade of precious metals
or coins, on or before January 1, 2006, or if, at any time, you
transacted business with the above persons/entities for the
purchase of precious metals with the understanding that metals
would be stored on your behalf indefinitely, you may be a member
of this class action lawsuit.  Your damages may include:
incomplete metals orders, inferior substituted metals, delays in
fulfillment of your order, the inability to locate your stored
metals, or other damages.

What This Lawsuit is About In December 2012, customers of First
American Monetary Consultants, Inc., Information Radio Network,
Inc., Larry Bates, Barbara Bates, Robert Bates, Charles E. Bates,
Kinsey Brown Bates, or Cecilia Standley filed a class action
lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons, against the above individuals/entities alleging damages
caused by the actions of First American Monetary Consultants,
Inc., Information Radio Network, Inc., Larry Bates, Barbara Bates,
Robert Bates, Charles E. Bates, Kinsey Brown Bates, or Cecilia
Standley in breaching duties owed and conducting a fraud to
deprive individuals of their metals, money or assets.

Relief Sought The Plaintiff Class is seeking: monetary
compensation for damages; treble damages; costs; attorneys' fees;
exemplary/punitive damages; injunctive relief; accounting,
constructive trust.  The court may grant all, part, or none of the
relief that the Plaintiff Class seeks.

Your Right to Be Excluded You may choose to exclude yourself from
or "opt out" of the Plaintiff Class or intervene in this lawsuit.
If you choose to be excluded from the Plaintiff Class, follow the
directions regarding Exclusion contained in the full version of
the Notice of Class Action, and submit your Request no later than
Thursday, August 21, 2014.

Possible Financial Consequences If you remain a member of the
Plaintiff Class, you will be able to share in the recovery or
benefit to Class Members that may be awarded by the court or paid
in settlement of this lawsuit, less costs and attorney fees, and
you will be bound by the judgment of the court in this lawsuit,
favorable or not.  If you choose to exclude yourself from the
Plaintiff Class, you will not be able to share in any recovery or
benefit to Class Members that may be awarded by the court or paid
in settlement of this lawsuit, and you will not be bound by the
judgment of the court in this lawsuit, favorable or not.

What You Should Do If you believe that you are a member of this
Class, please contact Class Counsel immediately to obtain the full
version of the Notice of Class Action and so that you may be added
to the Class list:

J. Houston Gordon, Esq.
Amber Griffin Shaw
LAW OFFICE OF J. HOUSTON GORDON, PLLC
114 W. Liberty Ave, Suite 300
Covington, TN 38019
Telephone: (901) 476-7100
Fax: (901) 476-3537
E-mail: cvandiver@lawjhg.com

Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
David Honigman, Esq.
MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN & WILLIAMSON P.C.
1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
Troy, MI 48083
Telephone: (248) 457-9200
Fax: (248)457-9201
E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
        dhonigman@manteselaw.com


FITBIT INC: Sued for Concealing Skin Allergies Due to Product Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Casar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Fitbit Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01679 (N.D. Ohio, July 31, 2014),
alleges that the Defendant did not warn potential customers, or
the general public, that the Fitbit ForceTM could cause skin
irritation, allergic dermatitis, allergic reactions, or other
physical injuries, resulting in redness, rashes, blistering, or
related symptoms, where an individual's skin came into contact
with the it.

Fitbit Inc. is a manufacturer of wireless activity-tracking
wristbands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald S. Weiss, Esq.
      OHIO LEMON AUTO
      Ste. 600, 7035 Orchard Lake Road
      West Bloomfield, MI 48322
      Telephone: (248) 737-8000
      Facsimile: (248) 737-8003
      E-mail: rweiss@ohiolemonauto.com

          - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
      5550 Glades Rd, Ste. 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com


FRESH SPROUTS: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to E. Coli
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage), Microbiological -
                          Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fresh Sprout International Ltd.
Distribution:             Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick,
                          Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,
                          Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9104

Affected products: 454 g. Fresh Sprouts Fresh Bean Sprouts with 8
27468 00100 0 UPC


GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Petha Cubes Due to Swollen Packages
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Gagan Foods International Limited
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9040

Affected products: 3.8 kg. Gagan Petha Cubes with 75620 11686 7
UPC


GAP INC: Judge Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the defendant in a proposed overtime pay lawsuit alleging various
affronts to California employment statutes tried to quash the
proceedings.  But while the judge extended a few small olive
branches to The Gap Inc., the ruling overall went in favor of the
plaintiffs.

To wit, the judge left more than just a gap for the lead plaintiff
to wiggle through.  There's lots of space to work with.

The unpaid overtime lawsuit is Tiffany Ino v. The Gap Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00292, in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California.  According to court records, lead
plaintiff Ino in the proposed nationwide class action accuses The
Gap of requiring employees to work off the clock and stiffing them
from overtime pay, which is governed under California overtime
law.

Ms. Ino filed her overtime pay lawsuit in January of this year and
seeks to represent any and all current or former employees, who
worked for The Gap nationwide for a three-year period immediately
preceding the filing of Ms. Ino's lawsuit in January 2014.

The judge, in his ruling, sided with The Gap with regard to
Ms. Ino's claim that employees should be compensated for locating
and opening company lockers, putting away their belongings at the
end of the day, and time spent reviewing schedules.

However, the Court allowed for the remainder of Ms. Ino's
allegations to stand -- including claims by Ms. Ino that Gap
employees were required to remain on call without overtime pay or
compensation, as well as for time spent undergoing bag checks for
security, and assisting customers with various activities while
employees were off the clock.

"Ino alleges specific examples of The Gap's practices denying
overtime compensation and minimum wage, including requiring
employees to submit to bag checks and assist customers off the
clock," said US District Judge Vince Chhabria, in his ruling.
"These allegations do not merely parrot the statutory language and
nakedly assert that the defendant has violated the law.  They
identify specific ways in which The Gap allegedly deprives workers
of the minimum wage and overtime pay, and they specify that
Ms. Ino herself has suffered these deprivations.

"This is enough to state a claim and to put The Gap on notice of
the specific unlawful conduct of which it is accused," the ruling
said.

The Gap had also pursued a stay of the litigation until after the
US Supreme Court delivered a ruling in a case that is expected to
determine whether or not time spent by employees in security
screenings is compensable.  Judge Chhabria denied the request for
a stay based on the fact that Mr. Ino is pursuing her claims on
her own behalf and those of the representative class - claims that
will not be resolved or satisfied by the pending Supreme Court
decision.

Thus, the overtime laws case involving a major US retailer will
continue in California.


GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Wants Swift Trial in Asbestos Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a bankruptcy judge, recently reversed on closing to
the public a trial on a gasketmaker's liability to asbestos
plaintiffs, said he has gotten the message that public access
should be provided quickly.

The closed trial was held last year to estimate the liability of
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, which is undergoing in
bankruptcy.  The company, facing asbestos claims, is restructuring
and discharging liability by setting up a trust for claimants, as
provided for under federal bankruptcy law.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of
Carolina closed the trial and sealed evidence upon which he made
his decision regarding how to measure Garlock's liability to
asbestos plaintiffs.  In that decision, Judge Hodges concluded
that past settlements Garlock had entered into were not a reliable
way to estimate the company's liability because of alleged
misrepresentations by plaintiffs' lawyers.

On July 31, Judge Hodges said the U.S. District Court's quick
decision regarding the appeal to closing the trial and sealing
evidence was "some message on their part that we should get on
with it."

He set a 30-day deadline for any objectors to state why they think
an evidentiary seal is still warranted.  He set replies to the
objector's arguments at 21 days.

The sealed evidence revolves around evidence that led Judge Hodges
to conclude there was a pattern of misrepresentation by
plaintiff's lawyers in cases in which Garlock was a defendant.
The judge found that the plaintiffs' counsel allegedly indicated
their clients were exposed to certain sources of asbestos at issue
in tort cases.

Then, according to Hodges, the plaintiffs counsel indicated their
clients were exposed to other sources of asbestos when seeking
compensation from the trusts formed out of the bankruptcy of
companies that made products containing asbestos.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. of the Western
District of North Carolina remanded the case back to Judge Hodges'
courtroom in order for the lower court to conduct fact-finding
about the public's right of access because of the common law or
because of the First Amendment.  Other asbestos defendants,
insurance companies or media outlets have been seeking access to
the Garlock evidence.

Judge Hodges said it was clear from Judge Cogburn's ruling that he
needs to determine on a document-by-document basis whether any
should be sealed and kept out of the public eye.  He said the
proposed order should require that parties state their basis for
making their claims of access.

"My general feeling is we should move on this quickly as we
could," Judge Hodges said.

K. Elizabeth Sieg -- bsieg@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuire Woods
LLP in Richmond, Va., said that non-parties like her client Ford
Motor Company want to reserve the right to object to sealing
orders.  Ford and the other non-parties want to be able to have
their attorneys review the materials or conduct discovery to get
more specificity on what is being sealed.

"We're the only ones who can't see any of this stuff," Ms. Sieg
said.  "We're litigating with our hands tied behind our backs in
some respect."

While Judge Hodges's order does reserve right for anyone to
challenge sealing orders, he said during the hearing he hopes "we
don't end up with satellite litigation to the satellite
litigation."  He was apparently referencing that the fight over
the access to the alleged evidence that was misrepresented by
plaintiffs is ancillary to Garlock's restructuring through
bankruptcy.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Sesay" Suit Over Ignition Switches Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ishmail Sesay, and Joanne Yearwood, for themselves, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Delphi
Automotive PLC, and DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems,
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06018 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to disclose risks related to the
ignition switches defects in GM vehicles.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Detroit, Michigan. On October 19, 2009, it
began conducting the business of designing, manufacturing,
constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing,
selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles.

Delphi Automotive PLC designs, manufactures, and supplies GM with
motor vehicle components.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Peller, Esq.
      GARY PELLER
      600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20781
      Telephone: (202) 662-9122
      Facsimile: (202) 662-9680
      E-mail: peller@law.georgetown.edu


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Salaried Retirees' Class Action for $9MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Macaluso, writing for The Windsor Star, reports that General
Motors Canada has reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with
salaried retirees, who launched a class-action lawsuit after the
automaker slashed health care and insurance benefits.

The $9-million settlement is "excellent news," for the more than
3,200 retirees and their families, including between 300 and 400
in Windsor and Essex County, said Jim Onslow, a Windsor-based GM
retiree.

"We are very pleased," said Mr. Onslow, a 68-year-old Windsor
resident who spent 35 years with the automaker before retiring as
a logistics manager at the former Trim plant.

The settlement ends a legal battle that started in early 2010
after the automaker imposed a number of changes including the
elimination of semi-private hospital coverage, a reduction in the
annual maximum coverage for dental and orthodontic benefits, an
increase in the amount members would have to pay for prescription
drugs and decrease in out-of-province health coverage from six
months to two months.  In some cases, former workers saw their
basic life insurance benefit cut from more than $100,000 to
$20,000.

In July, 2013, Ontario Superior Court Judge Edward Belobaba ruled
that GM violated an agreement with some of its retired workers.
GM, which signaled its intention to appeal, had argued that a
clause allowing it to make the changes was included in a benefits
package booklet that had been handed out to employees.  But,
Judge Belobaba said GM was vague about its right to reduce or
eliminate benefits.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said many of the retirees were unable
to purchase life insurance or health benefits elsewhere due to
their age.

"We were told that our benefits were there for the rest of our
life," said Mr. Onslow.

Under the agreement, the first priority will be to resolve any
life insurance claims for retirees who've died since the class
action was launched.

Mr. Onslow said the retirees are "very satisfied with General
Motors and plan to continue our support as we always have.  We
want to continue buying their products."


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Recall Causes Shortage of Parts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hudson, writing for CBS Minnesota, reports that in the
service bays of Mauer Chevrolet, auto mechanics are busy swapping
out the small parts that caused a huge problem.

"We get a half dozen to a dozen every day," operations director,
Norm Kordell, said.

General Motors announced a nation-wide recall of 2.59 million
vehicles after it was discovered that the ignition switch assembly
was tied to fatal accidents involving certain GM vehicles.  Safety
engineers determined that the faulty switches could disengage from
the run position and shut an engine off unexpectedly.  When that
happens while driving on the highway, it has caused drivers to
lose control of the vehicle.  Added to the danger is the
malfunction of air bags, which failed to deploy.

So, GM dealerships like Mauer are doing the fix as fast as parts
come in.  And that's not so easy, since the massive recall is
swamping the part supplier, Delphi, with orders.  Because all the
parts are different, depending on the make, model and year of the
vehicle, Delphi has had to ramp up production by taking some
machines out of storage.

"When the parts come in we call the customer and schedule the
repairs be made.  It's taking an hour to two hours per vehicle,"
Mr. Kordell said.

Already, this one lone dealership has completed, or will perform,
the work for more than one-thousand customers.  Other GM
dealership express handling similar volumes of customers.

General Motors CEO, Mary Barra, testified before Congress about
the mistakes made years ago when the defective part was first
revealed.  In response to both criticism and lawsuits, Ms. Barra
accepted blame on behalf of the company and announced a nearly
half-billion dollar victim's compensation fund.

"I got my Cobalt in 2012 after I graduated college," GM car owner,
Jennifer Palmer, said.

She's among the many GM customers who have received recall notices
and are anxious to get the repair work performed.  But the problem
is many are learning scheduling recall repairs is taking longer
than they would like.

The massive recall is causing a parts shortage -- meaning
Jennifer Palmer's car won't get fixed for a month or two.  So in
the meantime, she'll avoid driving her two-year-old daughter
around in the car and will plan another way to work.

"I'm going to try not driving this vehicle as much as possible and
my husband and I can car pool to work.  So we'll take our other
vehicle," Ms. Palmer said.

"We anticipate it's going to take a few more months to get them
all done," Mr. Kordell said.

The vehicles affected by GM's safety recall are: 2003-07 Saturn
Ion, 2005-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2007-10
Pontiac G5, 2007-10 Saturn Sky, 2006-11 Chevrolet HHR
More information is available on the company's recall website:
www.GMIgnitionupdate.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 22 Spark Cars Due to Defective Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           22
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014304
TC ID number:             2014304

On certain vehicles, bolts securing the front lower control arm
ball joint to the steering knuckle may not have been tightened to
specification and could loosen.  This could result in the lower
control arm separating from the steering knuckle while driving,
resulting in a loss of steering control and increasing the risk of
crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will inspect bolts and tighten to specification as
necessary.

Affected products: 2014 Chevrolet


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Camaro, Cruze, Sonic and Verano
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           3985S
ource of recall:          Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014306
TC ID number:             2014306
Manufacturer recall
number:                   12261B

On certain vehicles, the primary stage of the driver's airbag may
not deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted).
Failure of an airbag to deploy correctly could increase the risk
of personal injury to the seat occupant.

Dealers will replace the steering wheel airbag coil.  Note: This
is an expansion of recall 2012368.

Affected products:

  Maker         Model      Model Year(s) Affected
  -----         -----      ----------------------
  CHEVROLET     CAMARO     2012
  CHEVROLET     CRUZE      2012
  CHEVROLET     SONIC      2012
  BUICK         VERANO     2012


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 6,809 Malibu and Regal Cars
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 23, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           6809
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014310
TC ID number:             2014310
Manufacturer recall
number:                   12212

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and
Retroreflective Devices.  If one of the two front turn signal
bulbs burn out in either front turn signal lamp, no indication
would be provided to the driver, which is contrary to the
requirements of the standard.

Dealers will update vehicle software.

   Maker        Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----        -----       ----------------------
   BUICK        REGAL       2011, 2012, 2013
   CHEVROLET    MALIBU      2013


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 29,555 Vehicles in Canada
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 23, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats And Restraints
Units affected:           29555
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014311
TC ID number:             2014311
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14271

On certain vehicles equipped with power height adjustable front
seats, a bolt securing the adjuster mechanism may loosen and fall
out.  This would cause the seat to drop to the lowest vertical
adjustment position, which could affect the driver's ability to
safety operate vehicle controls as well as cause reduced driver
visibility.  These issues could increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the bolt.

Affected products

   Maker          Model          Model year(s) Affected
   -----          -----          ----------------------
   BUICK          REGAL          2011, 2012
   CHEVROLET      CAMARO         2011, 2012
   CADILLAC       SRX            2010, 2011, 2012
   CHEVROLET      EQUINOX        2010, 2011, 2012
   GMC            TERRAIN        2010, 2011, 2012
   BUICK          LACROSSE       2011, 2012


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 11,430 Vehicles Due to Incomplete Weld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats And Restraints
Units affected:           11430
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014315
TC ID number:             2014315
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14340

On certain vehicles, the hook bracket assembly for either front
seat may have been manufactured with an incomplete weld.  If the
weld is incomplete and the assembly is exposed to a high load
condition, the hook may separate from the seat track.  This could
increase the risk of occupant injury during a crash.

Dealers will inspect the weld, and if necessary, replace the lower
seat track.

Affected products:

   Maker          Model          Model year(s) affected
   -----          -----          ----------------------
   GMC            SIERRA         2014
   CHEVROLET      SILVERADO      2014
   CADILLAC       CTS            2014
   CADILLAC       ATS            2013, 2014
   BUICK          ENCORE         2013, 2014
   CHEVROLET      TRAX           2013, 2014


GOOD CHOWS: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ya Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Good Chows Inc. d/b/a "Land of Plenty", Chen
Tao Li, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05960
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wage, and overtime compensation.

Good Chows Inc. is a restaurant located at 204 East 58th St., New
York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      Kevin Edison Vorhis, Esq.
      HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
              kevin.vswlaw@gmail.com


HERTZ CORP: Wants Currency Conversion Fee Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that The Hertz Corp.
asked a New Jersey federal judge on Aug. 1 to toss a proposed
class action alleging the company failed to disclose currency
conversion fees to customers who rent cars from the company
abroad, claiming the Hertz units involved are foreign subsidiaries
not subject to the court's jurisdiction.

In a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, Hertz asks U.S.
District Judge William J. Martini to enter an order dismissing the
case, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint involves allegations
against Hertz Italiana and Hertz UK, and that under the federal
rules of civil procedure the lawsuit must be dismissed without
their presence.

"Plaintiff's case should be dismissed because Hertz Italiana,
Hertz UK and all other Hertz foreign subsidiaries are not subject
to personal jurisdiction in this court, and this case cannot in
equity and justice proceed without them," Hertz's motion states.

Lead plaintiff Daniel Margulis filed suit in February, claiming
Hertz failed to inform customers who rent cars from the company in
foreign countries that it intends to add a currency conversion fee
to their bills.  Although many companies allow consumers to choose
which currencies they'd like to be charged in, Hertz automatically
converts its bills to a cardholder's native currency at an
inflated exchange rate, the complaint claimed.

Hertz claims that despite being the parent company of the two
foreign subsidiaries, it played no role in generating the bills
disputed in the complaint.  Hertz admits in its filing it does
business in New Jersey, but cites a Third Circuit precedent saying
a parent company's jurisdictional contacts are not attributable to
a foreign subsidiary.

"Though it is the parent company, Hertz cannot adequately protect
Hertz Italiana and Hertz UK's interests in this matter because it
is a separate and distinct corporate entity and Hertz is not a
party to the rental contracts signed by plaintiff at the time of
pickup, nor did Hertz impose the currency conversion charges about
which plaintiff complains," the motion states.

Mr. Margulis, who is a U.S. citizen, said he noticed the fees
after renting cars from Hertz in Italy and England in 2013.  He
claimed that when Hertz presented bills for the rental cars, the
company automatically converted its charges into U.S. dollars at a
rate that was approximately 4.5 percent higher than the exchange
rates between the U.S. and the European countries, effectively
levying a 4.5 percent fee.

Mr. Margulis claimed Hertz employees in Italy and England refused
to convert his bills to euros and pounds, saying it was Hertz's
policy to charge U.S. cards in dollars.  The employees also
contended that Mr. Margulis had been given a choice about which
currency to pay in, a choice linked to which credit card he used,
according to the complaint.

The suit alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and
consumer protection claims.  Mr. Margulis argued that Hertz
violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by misrepresenting the
true cost of its car rentals by hiding its currency conversion
fees in its quotes, and by failing to give consumers a choice
about which currencies they wanted to use.

Hertz raised concerns in its motion that any judgment for the
plaintiff would necessarily call for changes in the way Hertz
Italiana and Hertz UK conduct their business and could lead to the
foreign subsidiaries being subject to additional litigation.

"The court cannot shape its relief to enjoin customers outside of
the United States, who are not involved with this lawsuit, from
bringing future suits," Hertz's motion states.

Daniel Margulis is represented by James E.Cecchi of Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC.

Hertz is represented by Ross B. Bricker -- rbricker@jenner.com --
John F. Ward -- jward@jenner.com -- and Laura C. Bishop --
lbishop@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block LLP and by Kevin H. Marino
-- kmarino@khmarino.com -- and John D. Tortorella --
jtortorella@khmarino.com -- of Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC.

The case is Daniel Margulis v. The Hertz Corporation, case number
2:14-cv-01209 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


HYUNDAI: Recalls 419,000 Vehicles in US Over Various Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Menchie Mendoza, writing for Tech Times reports that according to
US safety regulators, the recall will cover three models which
displayed unique issues in the US.  The issues, which range from
electrical, brake, and suspension malfunctions, were posted at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's website.

Out of the three recalls, the biggest involved 225,000 Santa Fe
SUVs that are manufactured from 2001-2006.  The vehicle needed a
replacement of its front coil springs which are found to be
susceptible to rusting and cracking when driven in states that
have cold weather.  The springs can suffer from a fracture and can
cause the car to crash if a contact is made with the car tire.

The Santa Fe SUVs was sold in cold places where the roadways are
filled with clear snow and ice.  Clearing the roads would need the
use of salt.  It should be noted that road salt can cause the coil
spring to rust.  The coil spring with rust could fracture and
puncture the vehicle's tire which increases its risk to commit a
crash.

Apart from Washington DC, the 20 states where the recall is
rolling out would include Wisconsin, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New
York, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, Indiana,
Delaware, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Ohio, New Jersey, Missouri,
Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Illinois, and Connecticut.

The second type of vehicle that is being recalled is the Veracruz
crossover which covers the model years of 2007 to 2012.  The
recall, which will affect a total number of 61,000 vehicles, will
deal with an oil leak problem.  If not treated, the problem can
lead to damaging the vehicle's alternator and charging system that
could result to a total loss of power, hence, placing the
occupants at the risk of a crash.

The third set of recall involves the mid-size Sonata sedans from
the model years of 2011 to 2014.  Around 133,000 of these vehicles
showed issues of a leaking brake fluid while 883,000 had displayed
a potentially defective transmission shift cable.

Hyundai will notify the owners of affected vehicles by the end of
September.  They can go to the nearest dealer and have their
vehicle's coil springs replaced for free.  Other free services
would include hose replacement and repair or replacement of the
car's alternator and front valve cover gasket.

So far, the company already received 1,200 claims on the product's
warranty wherein 90 cases had claimed that the car springs came in
contact with a tire.  There were no reported cases of crashes or
injuries prior to the recall.


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Violation of Securities Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Battle Construction Co., Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp.
and Frank Reynolds, Case No. 1:14-cv-13180 (D. Mass., July 31,
2014), is a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased the common stock of InVivo
Therapeutics Holdings Corp from April 5, 2013 through August 26,
2013, inclusive seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of federal securities laws.

InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. is a biotechnology company in
the business of developing treatments to improve function in
individuals paralyzed from traumatic spinal cord injuries. It is
developing a biopolymer scaffold product for individuals with
acute spinal cord injuries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Two Seaport Lane, 6th Flr.
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com


ITN FOOD: Recalls Shan Lemon Pickle Due to Undeclared Mustard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           ITN Food Corporation
Distribution:             Ontario, Possibly National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9109

The food recall warning issued on July 4, 2014 has been updated to
include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

ITN Food Corporation is recalling Shan brand Lemon Pickle from the
marketplace because it contains mustard which is not declared on
the label.  People with an allergy to mustard should not consume
the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by CFIA inspection activities.  The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


KINCAID INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Griceldo Leonides-Buenaventura and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Kincaid, Inc., Campuzano Cedar Hill,
L.L.C., Pam Cleveland a/k/a Pamela Kincaid, Case No. 3:14-cv-02741
(N.D. Tex., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant in Dallas
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J H ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zubair Patel, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., Michael T.
Strianese, and Ralph G. D'Ambrosio, Case No. 1:14-cv-06038
(S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
matters.

L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. is prime contractor in aerospace
systems and national security solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-6038, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased L-3 securities between April 25, 2013 and
July 30, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased L-3 securities during the
Class Period, you have until September 30, 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.

L-3 is a prime contractor in aerospace systems and national
security solutions.  L-3 is also a leading provider of a broad
range of communication and electronic systems and products used on
military and commercial platforms.  Through its subsidiary, L-3
Communications Corporation, L-3 provides command, control,
communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
systems; aircraft modernization and maintenance; and national
security solutions in the United States and internationally.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's Aerospace Systems segment.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) L-3's financial statements contained errors related to
the improper deferral of cost overruns on a fixed-price
maintenance and logistics support contract resulting in
overstatement of operating income; (2) net sales with respect to
the fixed-price maintenance and logistics support contract were
overstated; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2014, before the markets opened for trading, L-3
announced preliminary results due to the disclosure of a
concurrent internal accounting review into matters at the
Company's Aerospace Systems segment.  As a result of its
preliminary review, which is still ongoing, the Company announced
that it expects to incur an aggregate pre-tax charge of $84
million against operating income and a related reduction in net
sales of approximately $43 million.

On this news, shares of L-3 fell $14.68, or more than 12%, on
extremely heavy volume, to close at $104.96 on July 31, 2014.

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


LINK SNACKS: Refused to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Ann Truesdell and Darvin A. Heider, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Link Snacks, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00551 (W.D. Ky., August 1, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants refused to properly pay overtime wages for all hours
they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Link Snacks, Inc. produces and distributes meat snacks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew G. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW G. JONES
      10401 North Meridian Street, Suite 300
      Indianapolis, IN 46290
      Telephone: (317) 616-3671
      E-mail: ajones@andrewgjoneslaw.com


LONDON SILVER: Faces "Nalven" Suit Over Price-Fixing of Silver
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Nalven, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd.; Deutsche Bank
AG; HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A; and The Bank of Nova Scotia, Case No.
1:14-cv-04591 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants fixed and manipulated the price of silver and COMEX
Silver Futures.

The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd. is a British private company
with its principal place of business located at One Silk Street,
London EC2Y 8HQ, United Kingdom. It is the umbrella entity that
administers and sets the silver rate.

Deutsche Bank AG is a German bank with its principal place of
business located at Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany.

HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A. is a federally chartered banking
corporation with its principal place of business located at 1800
Tysons Boulevard, McLean, Virginia 22102.

The Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian public company with its
principle place of business located at 44 King Street West,
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1H1.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: pbarile@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue, 29th floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com


METRORAIL: Lack of Funding Stalls Cosatu's Class Action Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Bekezela Phakathi, writing for BusinessDay, reports that failure
to raise funding has stalled plans by the Congress of South
African Trade Unions (Cosatu) to file a class action lawsuit
against Metrorail.

Cosatu had intended pursuing the class action in June, accusing
the state-owned rail operator of effecting "unfair" increases in
passenger rail fares.  This came after Metrorail announced a fare
increase despite objections from the labor federation, which asked
for a delay until services "visibly" improved.

Rail is seen as the backbone of public transport in Cape Town.
However, the service has been dogged by so many breakdowns, delays
and cancellations that last month Metrorail began giving commuters
letters to explain to their employers why they were late for work.

"There have been complications with the planned class action,"
said Cosatu Western Cape secretary Tony Ehrenreich on July 31.

"We have not been able to raise the money for the class action
lawsuit or to find lawyers that can take on the case pro bono
. . . lawyers are expensive these days but we still want to take
the case forward," Mr. Ehrenreich said.  But he did not divulge
how much money the union required to pursue the case.

"It is really a sad day for workers who are made to suffer by
Metrorail . . . we have always said that justice in this country
seems to be for the rich," Mr. Ehrenreich said.

Jackie Dugard, a senior researcher from the Socio-Economic Right's
Institute of South Africa and an associate professor at the
University of the Witwatersrand's school of law, said on July 31
it was difficult to quantify the cost of a class action lawsuit,
"but it is very expensive".

She also said driving up the cost was the fact that South Africa
has a split bar, which meant that the attorney and advocate both
had to be paid. Civil litigation also had no right to legal
representation at the state's expense.

Metrorail said last month that Cosatu's demand that the state-
owned rail company should only increase its fares after it had
completed infrastructure improvements was "unrealistic".

According to the company delaying the fare increase could lead to
a reduction of services or even force some train services to be
cut in the Western Cape.  The increases had imposed an extra
burden on commuters who, after buying a weekly ticket, often had
to pay for taxis and buses one or two days a week due to
cancellations and breakdowns, Cosatu said.

Metrorail increased the price of a single-trip ticket by 50c,
return-trip tickets by R1, weekly tickets by between R3 and R7 and
monthly tickets by between R7 and R30.

Meanwhile, Cosatu on July 31 condemned vandalism on the railway
lines in Cape Town.  Cables were cut at various points in
Khayelitsha which disrupted the rail services.

The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa has spent R382 million
over the past three years as a result of theft and vandalism.

Mr. Ehrenreich said Metrorail had to start "an urgent program to
move the cables above ground and out of reach of criminals in
order to ameliorate this problem".

"The situation has been ongoing for years and is now reaching
crisis proportion and no coherent plan is emerging from Metrorail
to respond to the threat that exists to the system," Mr.
Ehrenreich said.


MGM GRAND DETROIT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Applebaum, Warren Black, Anita Matlock, Patrick Ridgeway,
and William Sly, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC., Case No. 2:14-cv-
13005 (E.D. Mich., August 1, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

MGM Grand Detroit, LLC is engaged in dining and gaming business
with its principal place of business in Detroit, Wayne County,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Megan Bonanni, Esq.
     Robert W. Palmer, Esq.
     PITT McGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
     117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804
     Telephone: (248) 398-9800
     E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com


NATIONAL BUSINESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Tower" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
BUSINESS CAPITAL, INC. and 3081 MAIN STREET, LLC d/b/a NEW ENGLAND
WINE AND SPIRITS, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 155786/2012, 2014 NY Slip
Op 31985(U), Tower moved for summary judgment declaring that it
has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant National Business
Capital, Inc. ("NBC") in the underlying action, a proposed class
action, entitled 3081 Main Street, LLC d/b/a New England Wine and
Spirits v. National Business Capital, Inc., pending in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, under Docket
Number 3:12-cv-00531 (AWT); and dismissing NBC's counterclaims
against it.

NBC opposed the motion and cross moved for summary judgment on its
first counterclaim for breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, on its second counterclaim for a declaratory
judgment that NBC has a right to a defense by independent counsel,
on its third counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that Tower
has an obligation to defend and indemnify NBC, and on its fourth
counterclaim for attorneys' fees.  3081 also opposed Tower's
motion, and cross moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration
that Tower is obligated to defend and indemnify NBC.

"Tower is obligated to defend and indemnify NBC in the underlying
action except that it is not required to indemnify NBC for any
damages that are punitive in nature," Judge Joan A. Madden of the
Supreme Court, New York County, stated in a ruling dated July 28,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/O4lwqxfrom
Leagle.com.

Judge Madden ruled that Tower's motion for summary judgment is
granted to the extent of declaring that it is not required to
indemnify NBC for any punitive damages in connection with the
underlying action and to the extent of dismissing the first and
second counterclaims.

NBC's cross motion is granted on its third counterclaim. 3081's
cross motion is granted.

NBC's cross motion is granted as to liability on its fourth
counterclaim for attorneys' fees incurred by it in connection with
this action, and the fourth counterclaim is severed and an
assessment will be held to determine the reasonable amount of the
fees.

Judge Madden added that on or before August 28, 2014, NBC must
file a note of issue and statement of readiness and the court will
place the matter on the calendar for an assessment of reasonable
attorneys' fees. NBC's failure to comply will result in the
dismissal of the fourth counterclaim.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players' Concussion Deal Objection Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has rejected an
attempt by seven former professional football players to intervene
in a tentative class action settlement of concussion claims that
would cost the NFL at least $765 million.

Senior U.S. District Judge Anita Brody issued an order in
Philadelphia on July 29 denying the NFL retirees' motion to
intervene in the case.

The players object to the settlement, calling it a "lousy deal"
for ex-players whose symptoms don't qualify them for compensation.
Judge Brody's order said that players who object to the deal can
raise their concerns at a fairness hearing scheduled for Nov. 19,
or opt out of the settlement.

Judge Brody gave preliminary approval to the settlement earlier in
July.

The group includes 2008 Pro Bowl player Sean Morey, now Princeton
University's sprint football coach.


NEBRASKA: Southwest Irrigators File Class Action Over Water Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------
McCook Gazette reports that four southwest Nebraska irrigators
filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of Nebraska and the
Department of Natural Resources for damages to their 2013, crops.
Greg Hill of Furnas County, Brent Coffey of Harlan County, James
Uerling of Red Willow County, and Warren Schaffert of Hitchcock
County, filed the case in Furnas County District Court on July
31st.

The suit is filed on behalf of the four named farmers and a group
of persons similarly situated, all of whom are water users of
Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation District who have consented to be
members of the Class.  The 19-page Complaint asserts that the
irrigators each have a right to use water taken from them, and
that those rights are superior to the rights of the State to take
water for the purpose of passing it to Kansas to comply with the
State's Republican River Compact obligations.

The irrigators contend their crops were damaged because they were
denied by state action water that otherwise would have reached
them through FCID canals and ditches in 2013.  Damaged crops
identified in the complaint include corn, soybeans, wheat and
alfalfa.  The Complaint alleges that each irrigator in the Class
was entitled to receive 18 acre inches of water from FCID.  It
contends the farmers were denied the water because the State
caused it to bypass in the flow locations to reclamation dams and
canals required to supply water to FCID and, in turn, get water to
the farmers.  The suit does not contend the state lacked authority
to divert the water.  Instead, it claims the State must pay for
the crop losses caused when water was diverted because the State
decided to take this action.

Trial by jury is requested.


NETFLIX INC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Seek to Amend Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:12-cv-00225-SC are appealing a decision preventing them from
filing an amended complaint, to the Unites States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's July 22, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging
substantially similar claims.  These lawsuits were consolidated
into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs. On June 26,
2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which alleged
violations of the federal securities laws. The Court dismissed the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend on February 13, 2013.
Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on
March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the first amended consolidated
complaint with prejudice on August 20, 2013, and judgment was
entered on September 27, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment and requested leave to file a second
amended complaint on October 25, 2013. On January 17, 2014, the
Court denied that motion. On February 18, 2014, plaintiffs
appealed that decision to the Unites States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Cal. Over Breach of Securities Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Paulovits, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Netsol Technologies, Inc., Najeeb Ghauri,
Naeem Ghaur, and Salim Ghauri, Case No. 2:14-cv-06084 (C.D. Cal.,
August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Securities Exchange Act.

Netsol Technologies, Inc. designs, develops, markets, and exports
software products primarily to the automobile finance and leasing,
banking, healthcare, and financial services industries worldwide.
It also provides system integration, consulting, and IT products
and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, California 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
              lglancy@glancylaw.com
              mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com


NEUROLOGICAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Raquel Martinez, on her own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Neurological Services of Orlando, PA a Florida corporation and
Daniel H. Jacobs, individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-01261 (M.D. Fla.,
August 4, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Neurological Services of Orlando, PA provides diagnostic,
treatment, and rehabilitative services to patients throughout
Central Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


OMNICON GROUP: Suit Over Publicis Merger Junked After Deal Fails
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated case against Omnicom Group Inc. over its merger
with Publicis Groupe S.A. was dismissed after the proposed deal
was terminated, according to Omnicon's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In August 2013, several putative class actions challenging the
proposed merger of Omnicom and Publicis were filed on behalf of
Omnicom shareholders and named as defendants Omnicom and its board
of directors, as well as Publicis and Publicis Omnicom Group. The
suits alleged that the members of the Omnicom board breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving a merger that
was purportedly detrimental to Omnicom's shareholders. The actions
also alleged that Publicis aided and abetted the Omnicom board's
breach of their fiduciary duties. In October 2013, all the actions
were consolidated with each other into one case. On May 8, 2014,
the proposed merger of Omnicom and Publicis was terminated. On May
22, 2014, a stipulation of voluntary discontinuance was submitted
to the Court.  The Court so-ordered the stipulation and dismissed
the case on May 23, 2014.


P2 LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Aguirre, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. P2 Landscaping, Inc.,
D/B/A The Yard Crew, and Patrick Jones, Individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-05899 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

P2 Landscaping, Inc. provides landscaping and maintenance
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. State Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

         - and -

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


PAPAGINO'S INC: Faces "Similien" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Maxime Similien and Jay A. Jenks, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Papagino's, Inc., Papa Gino's
Holdings Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-13192 (D. Mass., August 1, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Papagino's, Inc. and Papa Gino's Holdings Corp. own Papa Gino's
restaurants throughout Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq.
      FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN
      100 Wells Avenue
      Newton, MA 02459
      Telephone: (617) 559-1530
      E-mail: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com


PARADIES SHOPS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Background Checking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mikel Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly)
situated v. The Paradies Shops, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00551 (W.D.
Ky., August 1, 2014), arises based on a criminal background check
report procured for employment purposes without first providing a
pre-adverse action disclosure that included a copy of consumer
report, a description in writing of rights under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and a pre-adverse action opportunity to dispute the
accuracy of the reported information.

The Paradies Shops, LLC operates stores and other retail
businesses at airports throughout the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
      Three First National Plaza
      70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 580-0100


PENN WEST: Faces "Frechter" Suit Over Violation of Securities Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Frechter, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., Murray R. Nunns, David E.
Roberts, and Todd H. Takeyasu, Case No. 1:14-cv-06046 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Securities Exchange Act.

The Defendants are one of the largest conventional oil and natural
gas producers in Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
      Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
      Robert S. Plosky, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
      E-mai:l fqian@wolfpopper.com
              pavery@wolfpopper.com
              rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
              rplosky@wolfpopper.com


PENN WEST: Faces "Spradlin" Suit Over Misleading Company Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert G. Spradlin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., David E. Roberts,
Murray R. Nunns, and Todd H. Takeyasu, Case No. 1:14-cv-06068
(S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.

Penn West Petroleum Ltd. is one of the largest conventional oil
and natural gas producers in Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMJERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              fmcconville@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


PENN WEST: Two Law Firms to Jointly File Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Morgan, writing for Alberta Oil, reports that two
Toronto-based firms specializing in class action lawsuits
announced on July 31 that they would jointly file a statement of
claim against Penn West Petroleum Ltd.

Koskie Minsky LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP announced that they
would commence a $400-million securities class action suit against
Penn West, and asked anyone who bought shares in the energy
company between March 2011 and July 2014 to contact their firms
and join the suit.

The legal announcement comes two days after a Penn West press
release said the company was beginning an internal review of its
accounting practices and that "certain of the company's historical
financial statements and related management's discussion and
analysis must be restated."  It also said that this review may
delay the release of its second quarter financial results and that
the senior finance and accounting staff at the company who were
originally responsible for the improper financial reporting had
been dismissed.

The company's share price dropped roughly 15 per cent when the
markets opened on July 30 to the news that the company's finance
teams had improperly classified operating expenses, royalty
expenses and property plant and equipment expenses between 2011
and 2013.

In a research note published on July 30, FirstEnergy Capital Corp.
analyst Katrina Karkkainen said, "While we have elected to wait
until further information is available to update our estimates,
given the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate financial impact of
this review we have reduced our target price to $10.00 per share
and maintain our market perform rating."

Other analysts say they are trying to figure out if the accounting
irregularities resulted from a deliberate attempt to deceive the
market, or if they were simply being flexible with their
classifications of capital and operating costs.

In its announcement, Penn West showed that for the fiscal year
2013, roughly $70 million in operating expenses were reclassified
as property, plant and equipment and as capital expenditures.  In
2012, $111 million were "reclassified" in the same way.

Over those two years, a further $100 million in operating expenses
"were incorrectly reclassified as royalty expenses."

As a result, the class action suit against Penn West alleges the
company "made a misrepresentation in its public disclosure between
2010 and 2014."  In announcing their lawsuit, the firms said that
Penn West "improperly stated to the public that its financial
statements followed Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
[GAAP] and International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS]."

The Canadian Accounting Standards Board decided in 2007 that,
beginning in 2011, "publicly accountable enterprises" would be
required to switch from GAAP to IFRS accounting practices.
Penn West's accounting irregularities seem to have begun in 2011,
at about the time that the new accounting standards came into
effect.

In the same press release announcing its "management-initiated"
accounting review Penn West board chair Rick George said, "We have
acted quickly and effectively to review our accounting practices.
We will take the steps necessary to correct our historical and
financial statements and we will take the appropriate steps to
ensure that we avoid a similar situation in the future."


PETRILLO RESTAURANT: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Najera, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Petrillo Restaurant Inc. (d/b/a Pinochio Ristorante),
and Mark Petrillo, Case No. 1:14-cv-06032 (S.D.N.Y., August 1,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Petrillo Restaurant Inc. is an Italian restaurant owned by Mark
Petrillo, located at 1748 First Avenue, New York, New York 10128.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200


PRICE CHOPPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
WRGB CBS 6 reports that supermarket chain Price Chopper is facing
a federal class action lawsuit.  The suit, filed on July 30,
claims that Price Chopper was trying to cut labor costs by telling
department managers that they do not qualify for overtime, even
though they were allegedly required to work more than 40 hours a
week and performed the same tasks as employees who accrue
overtime.

The lawsuit names one plaintiff, Shelly Davine.  She worked as a
department team leader and a department manager in three price
chopper stores in North Adams, Lenox and Lee, Massachusetts from
1983 through June 2014.

"What we allege is that in order to keep labor costs low, Price
Chopper used team leaders and other to work lots of hours getting
the work done in their departments, but without paying them the
overtime they deserved," explained Rachel Bien, who represents
Ms. Devine and is heading up the class-action lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Price Chopper has released a statement about
the suit: "At this time, we haven't been served with the
complaint, so we have not had the opportunity to review the
allegations.  With regard to compliance with wage and hour laws,
we are very familiar with their requirements and the analysis that
must be done to make sure that employees are paid accordingly.  We
take our obligations to our employees seriously and take the
necessary steps to ensure that we comply with the law."


RED BEAN: Partial Bid to Dismiss "Bonilla" Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beryl A. Howell denied a partial motion to dismiss
the collective action captioned EDWIN BONILLA, Plaintiff, v. RED
BEAN SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-342
(BAH), (D.D.C.).

Mr. Bonilla brings this suit as a proposed collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that the Defendants failed
to pay him and other similarly situated employees the overtime to
which they were statutorily required. Defendants filed a partial
motion to dismiss the collective action allegations.

Judge Howell held that the plaintiff has identified the Proposed
Collective as consisting of (1) food prep and kitchen staff, (2)
employed in the District of Columbia and Maryland, (3) between
March 2011 and the present, (4) who were "suffered or permitted to
work by Defendants," and (5) were not paid overtime wages as a
result of the Defendants' policy. This is adequate at the motion
to dismiss stage to identify who the similarly situated employees
may be and why they are similarly situated.

"The Court is not ruling today on conditional certification since
there is no motion before it for such a ruling," held Judge
Howell.  "The defendants are free to dispute any motion for
conditional certification of the Proposed Collective at the
appropriate time, but for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the
plaintiff has met his burden."

The parties, by August 17, 2014, must comply with the requirements
of the Court's Standing Order by filing jointly a Meet and Confer
Report pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3(b), Judge Howell added.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2014 memorandum opinion
is available at http://is.gd/UOnN0gfrom Leagle.com.

EDWIN BONILLA, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg Cohen Greenberg --
ggreenberg@zagfirm.com -- ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.

RED BEAN SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, represented by Michael Ruxton
Strong -- mstrong@stronglawfirm.com -- THE STRONG LAW FIRM.

OY CHANGSIRLA, Defendant, represented by Michael Ruxton Strong,
THE STRONG LAW FIRM.


ROMACORP INC: Faces "Gittens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lavon Gittens, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Romacorp, Inc., Roma Franchise Corporation, and
Atlantic Yards Plaza LLC, d/b/a "Tony Roma's", Case No. . 1:14-cv-
04589 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Romacorp, Inc., Roma Franchise Corporation, and Atlantic Yards
Plaza LLC own "Tony Roma's" food and beverage establishment
located at 673 Atlantic Avenue, New York, New York, 11217.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SAFEWAY INC: Agrees to Settle Delaware Suit Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in In Re Safeway Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL reached an agreement-in-principle providing
for a settlement of all of the claims in the suit, according to
the company's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

Since the announcement of the Merger, 14 purported class action
complaints were filed by alleged stockholders of the Company
against the Company, the individual directors of the Company, and
against Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., AB Acquisition,
Albertsons Holdings, Albertson's LLC and/or Merger Sub. Seven
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
Barnhard v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9445-VCL (March 13,
2014); Morales v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9455-VCL (March
18, 2014); Ogurkiewicz v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9454-VCL
(March 18, 2014); Pipefitters Local 636 Defined Benefit Fund and
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Safeway
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9461-VCL (March 20, 2014); Cleveland Bakers
and Teamsters Pension and Health & Welfare Funds v. Safeway Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 9466-VCL (March 24, 2014); KBC Asset Management
NV, Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, and Bristol County
Retirement System v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9492-VCL
(March 31, 2014); and The City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9495-VCL (April 1, 2014),
which have been consolidated by order of the Court as In Re
Safeway Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL (the
"Delaware Action").

Four other lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Alameda, and are captioned Lopez v.
Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. HG14716651 (March 7, 2014); Groen
v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. RG14716641 (March 7, 2014);
Ettinger v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. RG14716842 (March 11,
2014); and Brockton Ret. Board v. Edwards, et. al., Case No. RG
14720450 (April 7, 2014), which were consolidated by order of the
court (the "Consolidated California State Action"). On May 7,
2014, an amended complaint was filed in the Consolidated
California State Action. On May 14, 2014, the court in the actions
entered an order dismissing the Consolidated California State
Action, finding that the plaintiffs were contractually obligated
to bring their claims against defendants in the Delaware Court of
Chancery in light of the forum selection clause in the Company's
By-Laws.

Three other lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and are captioned
Steamfitters Local 449 Pensions Fund v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:14-cv-01670 (April 10, 2014); Romaneck v. Safeway Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-02015 (May 1, 2014); and Templeton v.
Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02412 (May 23, 20214)
(collectively, the "Federal Court Actions"). An amended complaint
was filed in the Steamfitters action on May 15, 2014.

Each of the cases is purportedly brought on behalf of the Company
stockholder class. Collectively, the actions generally allege that
the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger because, among other things, the Merger
involves an unfair price, a flawed sales process and preclusive
deal protection devices. The actions allege that the Company and
various combinations of the Albertsons entities aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint in
the dismissed Consolidated California State Action further alleged
that the proxy statement for the Company's Annual Meeting of
Stockholders fails to disclose material information relating to,
among other things, the fairness opinions of Goldman, Sachs and
Co. and Greenhill & Co., LLC, the Company's financial projections,
analyses concerning the intrinsic value of Blackhawk, and the
background of the proposed transaction. The Federal Court Actions
also allege that the defendants violated Sections 14 and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act because the proxy statement fails to disclose
material information relating to, among other things, the
background of the proposed transaction, the fairness opinions of
Goldman Sachs and Greenhill and the Company's financial
projections. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the
Merger, or in the event that an injunction is not entered and the
Merger closes, rescission of the Merger or unspecified money
damages, costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.

On June 13, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for a settlement of all of the claims in the Delaware
Action on the terms and conditions set forth in a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding"). Pursuant to the
Memorandum of Understanding:

     (a) the Board amended the Merger Agreement (which such
amendments are incorporated into Amendment No. 2 to the Merger
Agreement) to (i) change the terms of the PDC CVR Agreement so
that, among other things, the holders would, instead of not
receiving any value for any PDC assets that remain unsold at the
end of the PDC Sale Deadline (as defined in the Merger Agreement),
be entitled to the fair market value of the unsold PDC assets,
after the payment of certain fees, expenses and debt repayments,
and net of certain assumed taxes (based on a 39.25% rate) and (ii)
change the terms of the Casa Ley CVR Agreement to, among other
things, (A) reduce the Casa Ley Sale Deadline (as defined in the
Merger Agreement) from four years to three years and (B) provide
that in the event that any equity interests of Casa Ley owned by
the Company remain unsold as of the Casa Ley Sale Deadline, the
fair market value determination to be made either mutually by the
Company and the Shareholder Representative (as defined in the
Merger Agreement) or by an independent investment banking firm
shall exclude any minority, liquidity or similar discount
regarding such equity interests relative to the value of Casa Ley
in its entirety;

     (b) the Board adopted an amendment to the Company's
Shareholder Rights Plan to accelerate the expiration date; and

     (c) the Company made certain changes to the Proxy Statement
for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The plaintiffs in the Federal Court Actions have reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action whereby they
will participate in the settlement, and the parties in the Federal
Court Actions have entered into stipulations staying the Federal
Court Actions pending resolution of the Delaware Action. On July
14, 2014, the parties presented a negotiated stipulation of
settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery. The settlement will
be subject to the approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery. The
Company believes these claims are entirely without merit, and in
the event the settlement does not resolve them, the Company
intends to vigorously defend these actions.

The Company has received a subpoena from the Drug Enforcement
Administration ("DEA") concerning the Company's record keeping,
reporting and related practices associated with the loss or theft
of controlled substances. The Company is cooperating with the DEA
on this matter.


SANIMAX: Faces Class Action Over Foul Odor at Brown County Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC 2 WBAY reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of people living near Sanimax, who claim the smell from the
company's rendering plant in Brown County has made them "shut-ins"
in their homes.

There are 5 Brown County residents seeking to represent their
neighbors within a 2-mile radius of the facility, which creates
products from animal carcasses.  The lawsuit claims foul odors
from the plant are negatively impacting the quality of life for
residents and lowering property values.  They want the stink to
stop, and they want to be financially compensated for enduring it.

"For instance on a bad day, you can't go outside and sit on your
porch and have a cocktail at 5 o'clock 'cause you can't stand the
odor," said attorney Victor Harding of Warshafsky Law Firm, one of
two firms that filed suit in Dane County.
He may be reached at:

     Victor Harding, Esq.
     WARSHAFSKY LAW FIRM
     6250 Nesbitt Road, Suite 500
     Madison, WI 53719
     Tel: 608-535-1153

This isn't the first time Sanimax was accused of emitting a foul
odor.  As Action 2 News reported in February, the health
department's pile of complaints about Sanimax's odor grew from 12
in 2011 to 75 in 2013.

A company attorney sent us a statement from the company, saying in
part, "We have invested almost $3 million over the past several
years for odor-reduction improvements to our Green Bay facility
. . . we have gone 65 days without a verified odor complaint.  We
will continue to work cooperatively with Brown County on odor
reduction efforts."

The company says it's "odor profile" went down 61 percent between
2012 and 2013.

Mr. Harding isn't buying it.

"It's a nice opinion, but it doesn't hold water with our clients
who say it's worse and getting worse," he said.  "They throw a few
things at it and they say 'Oh, we're doing all these great things'
but aren't getting any results.  So something is wrong. They're
either not doing it (or) their volume has increased beyond the
capacity of whatever the scrubber is they're using."

That attorney says they've heard from several hundred residents
asking to be included in the suit against Sanimax.

The Sanimax attorney says the lawsuit is being drive by "out-of-
state lawyers, and was not even filed in Brown County is
inconsistent with the cooperative effort that has been taking
place."

Sanimax has 45 days to respond to the lawsuit. It says it will
"defend itself vigorously."


SEASALT AND PEPPER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Gutierrez on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Seasalt and Pepper, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Carlos Miranda, individually, and  Stephane
Dupoux, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22852 (S.D. Fla., August 4,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The defendants own and operate a seafood restaurant located in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda Elizabeth Kayfus, Esq.
      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan PA
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
      E-mail: akayfus@forthepeople.com
              afrisch@forthepeople.com


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Recorded Lawyer-Inmate Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Morris, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that in a case
that alleges that calls between criminal defense lawyers and their
inmate-clients are being recorded and shared with prosecutors, the
plaintiffs now claim that judges tried to stop the alleged
conduct, to no avail, and that the matter is reducing attorneys'
incomes.

Aside from the fact that the clients' Sixth Amendment rights are
in "serious jeopardy," the plaintiffs also allege that a lawyer
has a "choice of using an insecure phone line or devoting
significant time to visiting the detainee in person," said the
July 23 amended class action complaint in Austin Lawyers Guild v.
Securus Technologies.

"Attorneys' incomes are reduced if they are forced to rely
exclusively on visitation rather than the phone," the plaintiffs
allege.  If the lawyer charges a flat fee, the increased time
commitment cuts into his income; if the lawyer charges by the
hour, fewer clients can afford the cost of representation.

Three of the defendants -- Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton,
County Attorney David Escamilla and District Attorney Rosemary
Lehmberg -- all deny the allegations, said their attorney,
Tony Nelson, an assistant county attorney in the Travis County
Attorney's Office.  He said he would file "responsive pleadings to
address it."

"We certainly don't believe that there's a basis for their claim,
but I would need to confer with my clients to see if we want to
comment beyond what we will be asserting in our pleadings,"
Mr. Nelson said.

S. Cass Weiland, the lawyer for defendant Securus Technologies
Inc., didn't return a call seeking comment before deadline.
Brian McGivern, attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project,
represents the plaintiffs: attorneys Carl Gossett,
David Grassbaugh, Mark Sampson and Francis Williams and advocacy
groups the Austin Lawyers Guild and the Prison Justice League.
Mr. McGivern said the amended complaint responds to allegations
that the defendants raised in motions to dismiss.  Among other
things, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs didn't have
standing to bring their constitutional claims, because none of
them were inmates.

Mr. McGivern said the Prison Justice League does have standing to
bring claims on behalf of inmates, because inmates are members of
the group and it advocates for their interests.  He said the new
allegations in the amended complaint also show that the lawyer-
plaintiffs have standing.

"They are suffering a consequential injury in terms of their
incomes," explained Mr. McGivern.  "You can establish third-party
standing. . .  I think the attorneys in question here have
standing to assert these inmates' rights."

                       Judges Intervene

The plaintiffs allege in the amended complaint that senior county
and district prosecutors have been aware that "confidential
conversations were being recorded.

"Attorneys and investigators with the county and district
attorney's offices, from top to bottom, have had direct access to
the Securus Technologies database of recorded attorney calls for
years," alleges the amended complaint.

Criminal defense lawyers in early 2013 contacted policymakers with
evidence, the plaintiffs allege, but the defendants "did nothing
to fix it."  Then, in late 2013, criminal defense lawyers talked
with county and district judges, who contacted the county and
district attorneys.

"This sparked another round of discussion among defendants'
policymakers.  But again, nothing was done," according to the
class action.

In an interview, Mr. McGivern declined to give the names of the
judges who attempted to stop the conduct.  "It's a sensitive issue
for them," he said.  "I think they acted very reasonably and as
much as they could within the scope of their authority to try to
deal with the issue."

Leaders of the criminal defense community proposed that all the
judges sign a protective order that would apply to future cases to
prevent the alleged conduct, he said.  But the judges wanted
prosecutors "to be on board with the solution," said Mr. McGivern.
Defense lawyers tried negotiating with the prosecutors' offices,
but it "went nowhere," he said.

"It's gone on long enough.  We decided it was absolutely necessary
to pursue this litigation," said Mr. McGivern.


SKYHOP GLOBAL: Faces "Stembridge" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Stembridge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Skyhop Global, LLC., Allied Skyhop, Inc. and Allied
Airbus, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-03084 (D. Minn., August 4, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide airport shuttle services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 S 8th St Ste 4600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: lukas@nka.com


TACO BELL: Faces "Feldman" Suit in N.Y Over Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Feldman, Nereida Aguilera, Maira Henriquez, Jacquilene
Abreu, individually and on behalf of those individuals similarly
situated v. Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, LLC and Yum!
Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04600 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2014),
seeks to recover monetary damages, declaratory relief and
affirmative relief based upon Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate fast food restaurants with its
principal place of business located at 1 Glen Bell Way, Irvine,
California, 92618.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Telephone: (631) 589-7242
      Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


TELETECH L.L.C.: Suit Seeks Damages Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Tina Atkinson, Richard Hall, and Shelly Primus, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Teletech, L.L.C.,
Teletech@Home, Inc. and Kenneth Tuchman, Case No. 3:14-cv-00253
(S.D. Ohio, August 1, 2014), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees as a result of willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide customer management, business-process and
database-marketing solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      Robert E. DeRose II, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
              bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
         - and -

      Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Email: mturner@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com

        - and -

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


TELIK INC: Agrees to Settle Suit by Stockholder in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Telik, Inc. agrees to settle suit filed by Cadillac Partners in
the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
Santa Clara, according to Telik's July 22, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 30, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the complaint)
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in the
County of Santa Clara, captioned Cadillac Partners, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Michael M. Wick, et
al.  The complaint asserts claims concerning the private placement
of the Company's Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (the PIPE
transaction) and transactions contemplated by that certain
Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among the Company, MabVax
Therapeutics, Inc. (MabVax) and Tacoma Acquisition Corp. (the
merger agreement), each of which were entered into on May 12,
2014, and is brought against the Company, MabVax, past and current
members of the Company's board, and the investors participating in
the PIPE transaction. The details of the litigation are more fully
described on pages 43-44 of the definitive proxy statement under
the heading "Legal Proceedings" which was filed with the SEC on
June 3, 2014.

On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the
litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will
settle the litigation (the proposed settlement). Among many other
terms, under the proposed settlement the Company agreed to provide
the supplemental disclosure filed as definitive additional
materials to the definitive proxy on June 30, 3014, and the
Company and all defendants will receive a broad release of any and
all claims pertaining to the PIPE transaction, the merger, the
prior disclosure and a wide variety of other matters.

The proposed settlement also calls for the parties to ask the
court to, among other things, enter orders enjoining other
shareholders from bringing similar actions, certifying the
putative settlement class, and approving the proposed settlement
as a fair, final, and binding resolution of the litigation. Under
the proposed settlement, the Company and the other defendants have
expressly denied the allegations of the complaint and denied
engaging in any other misconduct, nor will any of them make any
payment or in any respect amend the negotiated terms of the since-
consummated PIPE transaction and merger. Finally, under the
proposed settlement, the Company and the other defendants have not
agreed to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly
incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the
Company expects that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any
such disputed claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for
resolution.

The proposed settlement remains contingent upon a number of future
events, including, without limitation, court certification of the
putative class and entry of a final, non-appealable order and
final judgment approving the settlement (including the broad
releases and other terms set forth therein).


TODD LANDAU: Faces "Galvez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Galvez and other similarly situated individuals v. Todd
Landau, P.A., a Florida corporation, and Todd Landau, an
individual, Case No. 0:14-cv-61745 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2014),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Todd Landau, P.A. is a law firm, having their main place of
business in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
      Julisse Jimenez, P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Blvd Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      E-mail: julissejimenez@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


TOYS R US: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Consumer Report Procurement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yasmijn Esposito, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Toys R US-Delaware, Inc.
a Delaware corporation and Toys R US, Inc. a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 0:14-cv-61762 (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2014), alleges that
the Defendants fails to provide proper disclosure to job
applicants and employees regarding their procurement of consumer
reports and fails to obtain the required authorization to obtain
such consumer reports prior to doing so.

The Defendants operate stores under the Babies "R" Us brand name,
the F.A.O. Schwartz brand name, the K.B. Toys brand name.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jefferey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      E-mail: NYJG@aol.com


UNITED DAIRY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
a man has filed a putative class action lawsuit, alleging a
failure to timely pay employees after they were terminated.

Shawn R. Carter filed suit July 15 in Kanawha Circuit Court
against United Dairy Inc.

According to the complaint, United Dairy failed to pay its
discharged employees all due wages within the time constraints
mandated by West Virginia law.  Mr. Carter was involuntarily
terminated Dec. 17, but was not paid all wages owed to him until
after Dec. 27, according to the complaint.

Mr. Carter alleges United Dairy violated the Wage Payment and
Collection Act.  Mr. Carter is seeking an unspecified judgment,
plus general compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and other relief the
court deems just.

He is being represented by attorneys Todd S. Bailess and Joy B.
Mega of Bailess Law in Charleston and Rodney A. Smith and Jonathan
R. Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- of Bailey and
Glasser in Charleston.  The case has been assigned to Circuit
Judge Jennifer F. Bailey.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 14-C-1256


UNITED MORTGAGE: Faces "Hastie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Hastie, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. United Mortgage Corp., AK Marketing Group Inc., The
Lead Zone Inc., Mark Rosenbloom, Ira Zimmerman, Anthony Franzese,
and John Does #1-5, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 2:14-cv-04578
(E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in mortgage loan business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Bid for Review of Class Cert. Ruling Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Eight African-American Secret Service agents who were denied
promotions to the GS-14 or GS-15 level, allegedly because of their
race, were certified by the district court to sue the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of a class
comprising all similarly situated agents, of whom there are
approximately 120. The Government argued the plaintiffs are not
eligible to proceed as a class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 because they do not meet the requirements of Rule
23(a) that there be "questions of law or fact common to the class"
and that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class," nor the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3) that "questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The
Government asked the United States Court of Appeals, District of
Columbia Circuit to exercise its discretion under Rule 23(f) to
grant interlocutory review of the class certification order on the
ground either that the decision is "manifestly erroneous" or that
it presents "an unsettled and fundamental issue of law relating to
class actions . . . that is likely to evade end-of-the-case
review."

The Court of Appeals denied the U.S. Government's petition in an
opinion dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/KrMkXefrom Leagle.com.

The Appeals Court said it recognizes there are unsettled questions
of law relating to class actions at issue in the case, but now is
not the appropriate time to resolve them. None of the district
court's rulings in support of its order certifying the plaintiff
class is foreclosed by controlling precedent and the unsettled
questions are not likely to evade end-of-the-case review, said the
ruling.

The case is IN RE: JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Petitioner, NO. 13-8002.

Marina Utgoff Braswell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause
for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Stuart F. Delery,
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Douglas N.
Letter, Director; Marleigh D. Dover and Charles W. Scarborough,
Attorneys; Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney; and R. Craig
Lawrence, Benton G. Peterson, and Peter C. Pfaffenroth, Assistant
U.S. Attorneys.

Catherine E. Stetson argued the cause for respondents. With her on
the brief were E. Desmond Hogan -- desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
-- Erica Knievel Songer -- erica.songer@hoganlovells.com -- at
Hogan Lovells; and Jennifer I. Klar -- jklar@relmanlaw.com -- John
P. Relman -- jrelman@relmanlaw.com -- and Megan Cacace --
mcacace@relmanlaw.com -- at relman Dane & Colfax PLLC.


WALGREEN CO: Loses Bid to Sever Two Claims in Ear Remedy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
two claims involving ear treatment products sold by Walgreen Co.
Inc., will remain joined in a proposed class action filed by
California consumers who allege the retailer is falsely
advertising the products, according to a ruling by a California
federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Barry Moskowitz of the Northern District of
California on July 24 denied Walgreen's motion to sever
plaintiffs' claims involving Walgreen's homeopathic Ear Pain
Relief and Ear Ache Drops, ruling against the company's argument
that the products are made by different manufacturers.

Judge Moskowitz also found no merit in Walgreen's contentions, in
Demison v. Walgreen, that because the ingredients differed in the
two products, and the circumstances of the plaintiffs' purchases
were disparate, the claims should be severed.

"[A]llowing the suit to move forward will serve the ends of
judicial economy and prevent the needless repetition created by
two suits which raise similar facts and issues," Judge Moskowitz
wrote.

Plaintiffs Denielle Demison and Teri Spano alleged in their
complaint, filed in 2013, that Walgreen knowingly misrepresented
the products on their labels as effective in relieving pain or
itching and in stimulating the body's natural ability to calm
pain.  They contend the amount of active homeopathic ingredients
in the products is so small that no such effects would occur.

The ear ailment case is one in a series of class complaints
Walgreen has battled this year against claims that the company
mislabels or misrepresents the benefits of some of its pharmacy
products.  In April, Walgreen, along with CVS Caremark Corp. and
other retailers, reached a $14 million settlement with plaintiffs
over false advertising claims involving Hydroxycut weight loss
supplements.

On July 16, Walgreen and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. reached a
preliminary $2.8 million settlement of allegations the companies
misled consumers about the joint-healing power of glucosamine and
chondroitin supplements.

Representing Walgreen are Bridget Moorhead -- BAMoorhead@Mintz.com
-- Daniel Silverman, Michelle Gillette -- MGillette@mintz.com --
and Daniel Herling -- DJHerling@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo.  Plaintiffs' counsel are Ronald
Marron and Beatrice Resendez of the Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marro.


WASHINGTON DC: Bid for Rehearing En Banc in "Johnson" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In DIANNA JOHNSON, ET AL., APPELLEES, RUBBIYA MUHAMMED, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND TODD
DILLARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND OFFICIALLY, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, D.C.
SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLEES, NO. 11-5115, Appellants' petition for
rehearing en banc and the responses thereto were circulated to the
full court, and a vote was requested. A majority of the judges
eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition.

Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals, District of
Columbia Circuit ruled that the petition is denied.

This case was brought by a plaintiff class of approximately 1,600
women arrested between 1999 and 2003 in the District of Columbia
for non-violent, non-drug minor offenses (such as traffic stops)
who were held briefly at the D.C. Superior Court cellblock. Each
of these women was subject to a visual body-cavity strip search
pending her appearance before a judge or magistrate. The
plaintiffs have sought a rehearing en banc of the panel decision
dismissing their Fourth Amendment Bivens claims. Those claims
challenge the practice of the former U.S. Marshal for the D.C.
Superior Court of conducting pre-arraignment body-cavity searches
of women, but not men, without any warrant or even individualized
suspicion that the women were carrying contraband in their body
cavities.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 1, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/CKrNwyfrom Leagle.com.


WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, "Knox" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey M. Knox on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-13185 (D.
Mass., August 1, 2014), arises as a result of the Defendant's
materially false statements concerning the sugar content in the
Yogurt

Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt expressly states
on the label that it contains 2 grams of sugar per serving.

Whole Foods Market, Inc., is incorporated in Texas and maintains
it principal executive offices at 550 Bowie Street in Austin,
Texas. As of September 29, 2013, it operates 347 stores in 40
states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Matthew E. Miller, Esq.
      William H. Anderson, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813

         - and -

      Jon Herskowitz, Esq.
      BARON & HERSKOWITZ
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 670-0101
      Facsimile: (305) 670-2393


                              *********

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  * * *