CAR_Public/140818.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 163

                             Headlines


ACI DIRECT: Faces "Shields" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pursuant to FLSA
ADAM LANDSCAPING: "Meza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Hours
ADOBE SYSTEMS: $325-Mil. Settlement Offer Too Low, Court Ruled
ADVANCE PARTNERSHIP: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
AKOTA CORP: "Khan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

ALUMINUM & VINYL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Klimczak" Suit Says
AMERICAN CARGO: Faces "Hughes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICAN HOME: Chesley Liable for $42MM Judgment in Fen-Phen Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Securities Class Action for $970.5 Mil.
AMERICAN SIGNATURE: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

ANTHEM BLUE: Sued Over Alleged Failure to Send Insurance Card
ATC FITNESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages
AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Oakley Water Contamination
AUSTRALIA: Lex Wotton Leads Class Action Over Riots
BAROLO RISTORANTE: Faces "Chamorro" Suit over Violation of FLSA

BAY RIDGE: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
BROOKLYN FEDERAL: October 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BP PLC: Files Petition to Enforce Claimants to Prove Fin'l Harm
BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Judge Approves $6.8MM Class Action Settlement
BUFFA A LLC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages

BUFFALO BILLS: Cheerleaders' Wage Theft Class Action Can Proceed
CA LAW ENFORCEMENT: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Retirement Law Breach
CALIFORNIA: Fees May Be Paid to Counsel of Diabetic Students
CANADA: Court Approves RCMP Veterans Class Action Settlement
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act

COASTAL COURIER: "Awai" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DALLAS COWBOYS: Cannot Be Sued on Super Bowl XLV Seating Dispute
DCH AUTO GROUP: Doesn't Want to Pay Premium Wages, Action Claims
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

EDAP TMS: Faces "Haddad" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law
EDAP TMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
ELECTRONIC GAME: Discovery Stay Not Violated, 9th Cir. Says
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces "Davis" Suit in E.D. Wash Over SoftTest
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Data-Privacy Class Action in Austria

FACEBOOK INC: 17,000+ People Join Privacy Class Action
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated Conservatorship Litigation Chart
FORMIA MARBLE: Fails to Workers Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Says
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Adverse Facts
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Responds to Securities Class Action
GEORGE AVENUE: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Siriano" Suit Over Damaged Products
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Stalling Defect in Santa Fe Vehicles
IMAX CORP: Funds in Securities Suit Accord Distributed to Class

IMAX CORP: Settlement Order in Canadian Stock Lawsuit Stands
IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Krupp" Suit Claims
INDYMAC: Settles Securities Class Action for $340 Million
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Class Action
JADE RESTORATION: Faces "Cordova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy Victims Have Until Nov. 14 to Register
KODIAK OIL: Being Sold at Unfair Price, "Reiter" Suit Claims
L & K RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Misrepresented Company Facts
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Employees' 401(K) Class Action Approved for Trial

MACQUARIE GROUP: Class Action Lawyers Amid Compliance Breaches
MICHELINOS PIZZERIA: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Says
MODA HEALTH PLAN: Sued Over Exclusion of ABA Therapy Coverage
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: September 19 Concussion Settlement Hearing Set
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Retired Players' Concussion Suit Nears Settlement

NIPPON SEIKI: November 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NEIMAN MARCUS: Accused of Deceiving Consumers in California
NELNET BUSINESS: Got Prelim. OK of Deal in Collection Calls Suit
OLD WORLD BRICK: Faces "Solorzano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PARTS AUTHORITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Don" Suit Claims

PAWSITIVE SERVICE: Faces Fraud Class Action in California
PELLA CORPORATION: Sued Over Latent Defects in Clad Windows
PENN WEST: Sued in N.Y. Over Manipulation of Financial Report
PENN WEST: Wolf Popper Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
PENN WEST: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Patent Protection
QR ENERGY: Faces "Taylor" Action Over Sale to Brietburn Energy
ROYAL CARRIBEAN: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Labor Suit
SANDFORD OIL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over Lead in Paint

SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action v. EC Education Department Postponed
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations
STARDUST DINERS: "Rosa" Suit in Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces RICO Act Violation Suit in Wisconsin
SUPERVALU INC: Seeks Review of Judgment in Suit Over C&S Deal

SUPERVALU INC: Seeks Final Approval of FWW Suit Settlement
TEREX CORP: Motions to Dismiss Securities, ERISA Lawsuits Pending
TIRE SHOP: Faces "Ferrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TK RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Reyes" Suit Claims
TOLEDO MUDLOGGING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

TRANSNET: Pensioners' Class Action to Hit Expansion Program
TRULIA INC: Being Sold to Zillow for Too Little, Suit Claims
UNITED REFINING: Sued in Pa. Over Violation of Disabilities Act
UNITED STATES: Black Secret Service Agents' Bias Suit Can Proceed
VISA INC: Consumer Interchange Litigation Transferred to MDL 1720

VISA INC: Plaintiffs Pursue Bid to Amend U.S. ATM Access Fee Suit
VISA INC: Wants to Separate Data Breach Suit From Case v. Target
VISA INC: Provides Updates on Merchant Litigations in Canada
WCS SERVICES: "Hicks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over False Marketing of Yogurt

YELP INC: Faces "Curry" Suit Over Misleading Financial Report


                            *********


ACI DIRECT: Faces "Shields" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pursuant to FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Shields, on his own behalf and for all others similary
situated v. ACI Direct, Inc., (d/b/a Aero Communications, Inc.),
and Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01722 (N.D. Ohio,
August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provides services include installing and
maintaining cable equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Nealon, Esq.
      Michael L. Fine, Esq.
      OHIO CONSUMER LAWYER
      Ste. 1300, 55 Public Square
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 456-2486
      Facsimile: (216) 456-2487
      E-mail: djnealon@gmail.com
              mfine@ohioconsumerlawyer.com

         - and -

      Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq.
      Markus S. Lyytinen, Esq.
      ZIPKIN WHITING, LPA
      3637 South Green Road
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 514-6400 x 324
      Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
      E-mail: zfwlpa@aol.com
              mlyytinenzipkinwhiting@gmail.com


ADAM LANDSCAPING: "Meza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isac Meza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Adam Landscaping LLC d/b/a Adam Landscaping and Dennis M. Nardone,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06185 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Adam Landscaping LLC is a landscaping service company located at
143 Wilkins Avenue, Port Chester, NY 10573.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADOBE SYSTEMS: $325-Mil. Settlement Offer Too Low, Court Ruled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge on August 8, 2014, rejected a $325 million class action
settlement that accused Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel of
conspiring to restrict tech workers' wages, finding the offer too
low: outside "the range of reasonableness."

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied the plaintiffs' request for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Class representatives Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan and
Daniel Stover sought preliminary approval of the settlement in
April.  In May, a number of class members submitted letters
supporting and opposing the proposed amount.

Software engineers, on behalf of an estimated class of 64,000,
sued the tech giants, plus Intuit and Walt Disney subsidiaries
LucasFilm and Pixar, in 2010, over illegal "no cold-call
agreements" that restricted or eliminated competition for high-
tech employees, which "disrupted the normal price-setting
mechanism that apply in the labor setting."

The poaching ban, workers claimed, maintained internal salary
structures at the companies from 2005 to 2009, and involved
"gentleman's agreements" via CEO-to-CEO emails between the late
Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley CEOs.

Five cases underlying the consolidated action were filed in
California Superior Court and removed to Federal Court.

On August 8, 2014, Koh ruled that although "ample evidence" showed
an overarching conspiracy between the defendants, the proposed
settlement was "proportionally lower" -- per class member -- than
that of a separate $20 million settlement with Lucasfilm, Pixar
and Intuit, in 2013.

"Pursuant to the terms of the instant settlement, class members
who have not already opted out and who do not opt out will
relinquish their rights to file suit against the remaining
defendants for the claims at issue in this case," the 32-page
ruling states.  "In exchange, remaining defendants will pay a
total of $324.5 million, of which plaintiffs' counsel may seek up
to 25 percent (approximately $81 million) in attorneys' fees, $1.2
million in costs, and $80,000 per class representative in
incentive payments.  In addition, the settlement allows remaining
defendants a pro rata reduction in the total amount they must pay
if more than 4 percent of class members opt out after receiving
notice.  Class members would receive an average of approximately
$3,750 from the instant settlement if the court were to grant all
requested deductions and there were no further opt-outs."

Koh repeatedly said the proposed settlement fell "below the range
of reasonableness," and that the settlement at hand would need to
total $380 million to match the previous amount.

"This court has lived with this case for nearly three years, and
during that time, the court has reviewed a significant number of
documents in adjudicating not only the substantive motions, but
also the voluminous sealing requests," Koh wrote.  "Having done
so, the court cannot conclude that the instant settlement falls
within the range of reasonableness."

Koh said ample evidence pointed to an overarching conspiracy
between the defendants that led to "a class-wide depression of
wages."

"As this court stated in its summary judgment order, there is
ample evidence of an overarching conspiracy between the seven
defendants, including '[t]he similarities in the various
agreements, the small number of intertwining high-level executives
who entered into and enforced the agreements, defendants'
knowledge about the other agreements, the sharing and benchmarking
of confidential compensation information among defendants and even
between firms that did not have bilateral anti-solicitation
agreements, along with defendants' expansion and attempted
expansion of the anti-solicitation agreements,'" the ruling
states.

"The evidence of defendants' rigid wage structures and internal
equity concerns, along with statements from defendants' own
executives, are likely to prove compelling in establishing the
impact of the anti-solicitation agreements: a class-wide
depression of wages."

Koh said she was "troubled" that the proposed $324.5 million
settlement, reached "a mere month" before" trial, was
"proportionally lower" than settlements with the settled
defendants.

"This concern is magnified by the fact that the case evolved in
plaintiffs' favor since those settlements.  At the time those
settlements were reached, defendants still could have defeated
class certification before this court, defendants still could have
successfully sought appellate review and reversal of any class
certification, defendants still could have prevailed on summary
judgment, or defendants still could have succeeded in their
attempt to exclude plaintiffs' principal expert," Koh wrote.  "In
contrast, the instant settlement was reached a mere month before
trial was set to commence and after these opportunities for
defendants had evaporated.  While the unpredictable nature of
trial would have undoubtedly posed challenges for plaintiffs, the
exposure for defendants was even more substantial, both in terms
of the potential of more than $9 billion in damages and in terms
of other collateral consequences, including the spotlight that
would have been placed on the evidence discussed in this order and
other evidence and testimony that would have been brought to
light.  The procedural history and proximity to trial should have
increased, not decreased, plaintiffs' leverage from the time the
settlements with the settled defendants were reached a year ago."

Koh credited class counsel for acting as "zealous advocates" for
clients against their "extraordinarily well-resourced
adversaries."

"The court acknowledges that class counsel have been zealous
advocates for the class and have funded this litigation themselves
against extraordinarily well-resourced adversaries.  Moreover,
there very well may be weaknesses and challenges in plaintiffs'
case that counsel cannot reveal to this court," the ruling states.
"Nonetheless, the court concludes that the remaining defendants
should, at a minimum, pay their fair share as compared to the
settled defendants, who resolved their case with plaintiffs at a
stage of the litigation where defendants had much more leverage
over plaintiffs."

A case management conference is scheduled for September 10.

The consolidated case is captioned In Re: High-Tech Employee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division.


ADVANCE PARTNERSHIP: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Rawad Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Bright House
Networks, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-01885 (M.D. Fla., August 5, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wages
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Advance/Newhouse Partnership provides cable, internet, and
telephone subscriptions and services in the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christine M. Jalbert, Esq.
      Sam Jones Smith, Esq.
      Burr & Smith, LLP
      Suite 300, 442 W Kennedy Blvd
      Tampa, FL 33606
      Telephone: (813) 253-2010
      Facsimile: (813) 254-8391
      E-mail: cjalbert@burrandsmithlaw.com
              ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com

         - and -

      Eric Dirks, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com


AKOTA CORP: "Khan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Sunjary Khan, MD Abdur Rashid, MD Mollik Shamim Reza, MD Rasel
Miah, Abu Taher, Khaleda Taher, MD Zakir Hossain, and other
similarly situated past and present employees v. Akota Corp. d/b/a
Subway, Akota One Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Two Corp. d/b/a
Subway, Akota Corp. 3 d/b/a Subway, Akota Four Corp. d/b/a Subway,
Akota Five Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Six Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota
Corp 6. d/b/a Subway, Akota Seven Corp. d/b/a Subway, Akota Eight
Corp. d/b/a Subway and Mohammed Z. Matin, Case No. 1:14-cv-06201
(S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum
wages, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operated as the well-established franchise Subways,
which is engaged in the service of the sale of sandwiches and
other foods to the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andreas George Geroulakis, Esq.
      ROBERT J. RENNA, P.C.
      26 Court Street, Suite 303
      Brooklyn, NY 11242
      Telephone: (718) 422-1003
      Facsimile: (718) 422-1156
      E-mail: ageroulakis@gmail.com


ALUMINUM & VINYL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Klimczak" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zdzislaw Klimczak, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Aluminum & Vinyl Product
Inc., d/b/a RK Windows, and/or Mark Klich; and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by Aluminum & Vinyl Product
Inc., d/b/a RK Windows, and Mark Klich, v. Aluminum & Vinyl
Product Inc., d/b/a Rk Windows, and Mark Klich, and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by Aluminum & Vinyl Product
Inc., d/b/a RK Windows, and Mark Klich, Case No. 1:14-cv-04675
(E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Aluminum & Vinyl Product Inc. is New York a corporation, with its
principal place of business at 215 Norman Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York, 11222, and is engaged in the construction business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alison Lee Genova, Esq.
      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
      111 Broadway, Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: agenova@vandallp.com
              lambinder@vandallp.com


AMERICAN CARGO: Faces "Hughes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hughes and Ismael Alvarado, both individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated persons v. Henry Osorno and
Douglas Beaton, Case No. 2:14-cv-01783 (E.D. La., August 5, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Henry Osorno is the President of American Cargo Assurance, Inc., a
Louisiana corporation headquartered in Kenner, Louisiana, which
provides inspection, sampling, and inventory control for petroleum
and petrochemical products.

Douglas Beaton is the Director of Operations of American Cargo
Assurance, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      BOHRER LAW FIRM
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: 225-231-7000
      E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com


AMERICAN HOME: Chesley Liable for $42MM Judgment in Fen-Phen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Kentucky
judge has ruled that a once-prominent plaintiffs attorney should
also be liable for the $42 million judgment against the attorneys
who scammed their clients during fen-phen litigation.

Boone County Circuit Court Judge James R. Schrand entered an order
on July 29 that holds Stanley Chesley jointly and severally liable
for the $42 million judgment entered years ago against three
Lexington, Ky.-area lawyers -- Shirley Cunningham, William Gallion
and Melbourne Mills Jr.

Mr. Chesley, who is married to a federal judge and was once a
major donor to Democratic candidates, was disbarred by the
Kentucky Supreme Court, suspended by the U.S. Supreme Court for 40
days and ordered to show cause why he shouldn't be disbarred by
the high court.

Ms. Cunningham and Mr. Gallion were sentenced to 20 years in
federal prison for their actions.  In 2013, Mr. Chesley retired
from the practice of law.

During the fen-phen class action litigation, Mr. Chesley received
$20.5 million of a $200 million settlement.

"Chesley signed on as co-counsel representing the Plaintiffs in
the Guard matter when he entered into his fee-division contract
with Gallion, Cunningham and Mills," Judge Schrand wrote.

"Chesley shared the common purpose to be carried with Gallion,
Cunningham and Mills.  They agreed on how they would share the
work and how they would share the profits.  Chesley maintained a
voice in the managerial control of the enterprise.

"The Court therefore finds that . . . Chesley is jointly and
severally liable with Gallion, Cunningham and Mills for the
damages the Plaintiffs suffered."

The lawsuit at issue is Darla Guard, et al or Jonetta Moore, et al
v. A.H. Robins Company, et al.

The suit, filed in Boone Circuit Court in 1998, sought damages for
injuries from the diet drug known as fen-phen.

Mr. Chesley was one of the four attorneys involved in the 2001
settlement with American Home Products, the manufacturer of the
drug.  The others were Ms. Cunningham, Mr. Gallion and Mr. Mills.

The lawyers received roughly 50 percent of the $200 million
settlement.  Their 431 clients received the rest.  Mr. Chesley,
himself, collected a $20.5 million fee for negotiating the
settlement.

The clients later sued the lawyers for allegedly breaching their
duties by diverting most of the settlement money to themselves.
They were awarded $42 million.

In 2009, Ms. Cunningham and Mr. Gallion were sentenced to 20 years
in federal prison for their roles in stealing the settlement
money.  Mr. Mills was acquitted of all charges.  All three have
lost their law licenses.

Judge Joseph F. Bamberger, a senior status special judge who
approved the settlement, later resigned when it was revealed he
was paid $5,000 a month as a director of a phony charitable
entity, The Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, which was funded by
the settlement and allegedly directed by the lawyers.

Mr. Chesley, never charged in the criminal case, has maintained he
was not co-counsel for the plaintiffs and was not aware that the
other attorneys were deceiving their clients.  He simply was
brought in to negotiate the settlement, he has said.

However, the Kentucky Supreme Court disbarred him in March 2013
and called his $20.5 million fee "unreasonable."  Attorneys
received half of the $200 million settlement.

"He has shown nothing to demonstrate that he expended a great deal
of time and labor on the case," Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr.
wrote for the court.

"The issues of liability were not particularly difficult or novel,
and even if they were, Respondent did not do the heavy-lifting on
that aspect of the case."

In August 2013, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the $42
million judgment against the attorneys for which Mr. Chesley is
now jointly and severally liable. Punitive damages could also be
added.


AMERICAN INT'L: Settles Securities Class Action for $970.5 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, a lead counsel 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, on Aug. 4 disclosed that settlements
totaling $970.5 million have been reached in the case.  The
recovery was achieved by BR&B client, the State of Michigan
Retirement Systems, as the Court-appointed lead plaintiff, after
six years of intense litigation, which included the completion of
all fact witness discovery and full briefing, an evidentiary
hearing, and argument on lead plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The settlements were reached through negotiations
spanning over two years, with the assistance of mediator
Layn Phillips, a former U.S. District Court Judge.

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.

Leonard Barrack -- lbarrack@barrack.com -- the senior partner of
Barrack Rodos & Bacine, stated: "We brought this case to protect
the interests of investors.  We are very pleased that we were able
to achieve this recovery, and look forward to presenting the
settlements to the Court for its consideration."

Jeffrey Golan, who served as the firm's primary counsel in the
case, added: "We are honored to have served as a lead counsel for
this case and to have achieved this recovery for the class.  We
also congratulate Michigan's State Treasurer, Attorney General and
the State of Michigan Retirement Systems, who stepped up to the
plate to oversee the prosecution of this important case, and
encourage all members of the class to retain their records showing
their purchases, sales and holdings of AIG stock and other
securities within the class period, pending the Court's
consideration of the settlements."

According to BR&B partner, Robert Hoffman, "the proposed
securities class action settlement is one of the largest ever
achieved in the absence of a criminal indictment or an SEC
enforcement action, and demonstrates the importance of private
securities litigation as a means of recovery for injured
investors."

Persons with questions concerning the settlement or the case in
general may contact Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce
Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 963-
0600, www.barrack.com


AMERICAN SIGNATURE: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrick Davis and other similarly situated individuals v. American
Signature, Inc., a Foreign Profit Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-22881
(S.D. Fla., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American Signature, Inc. is a privately owned furniture company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


ANTHEM BLUE: Sued Over Alleged Failure to Send Insurance Card
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cristin Severance, writing for ABC10News, reports that a woman
called Team 10 after fighting for months to get repaid thousands
of dollars by her insurance company.

Laura Schove of Carlsbad said she paid out-of-pocket for a
procedure to help her continue to walk and function because she
was never given an insurance card.  Ms. Schove has had multiple
sclerosis for 20 years.  She just started to need a cane to walk
after what she called an episode nine months ago.  She said her
neurologist recommended getting a five-day infusion treatment.

Ms. Schove had signed up for Anthem Blue Cross in December.  They
had not sent her an ID card.

"I had the entire neurology office, staff, MS assistant . . .
everyone was working to call the insurance company to get
answers," said Mr. Schove.

She said Anthem Blue Cross could not tell her what was covered or
who was in-network.

"The patient is left with a difficult choice: Do I pay out of
pocket or do I wait?" said Jerry Flanagan, an attorney at Consumer
Watchdog.

The consumer advocacy group just filed a class-action lawsuit
against Anthem Blue Cross claiming the company did not send ID
cards and gave incorrect information about coverage.

Ms. Schove paid the biofusion company $2,000 for the procedure.
She said she tried for seven months to get reimbursed.

"I never got to anybody that knew anything," said Ms. Schove.

She finally got a letter that said they would pay $350 out of
$2,000.

"I mean, it got the Irish up in me," Ms. Schove said.  "I was
angry.  How could they do this?"

Mr. Flanagan is hoping to get Ms. Schove and others reimbursed
through the class-action lawsuit.

Anthem Blue Cross gave Team 10 this statement:

"This member purchased an EPO plan, which has no out-of-network
benefits.  While the member saw an out-of-network provider, and as
a courtesy, Anthem agreed to pay the claim as in network at the
maximum allowed rate.  As you know, there is great variability in
what providers charge for the same treatment to different people.
Unfortunately, it appears that the provider may have charged the
member an amount exceeding what insurers usually pay for the same
procedure."


ATC FITNESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Vogenberger, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. ATC Fitness Cape Coral, LLC, ATC Fitness Fort
Myers, LLC, ATC Fitness Fort Myers 2, LLC, and 3F Management, LLC,
a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00436 (M.D. Fla.,
August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants own, maintain, and run health and fitness club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Oakley Water Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Burgess, writing for ABC News, reports that a law firm is
gauging interest in a class action against the Australian Defence
Force (ADF) over possible water contamination near a base on the
Darling Downs.

The ADF is investigating the possibility that chemicals used in
firefighting at its Oakey Army Aviation Base entered groundwater.

Peter Shannon from Shine Lawyers says although there is no
evidence of harm yet, affected landholders need to consider all
the legal safeguards open to them.

"It's the most immediate reaction that most people have -- what
are my rights, how do I go about protecting myself and what
compensation am I entitled to if in fact I've suffered damage?" he
said.

"So it is the first thing that in our society people think of when
they've been wronged civilly."

Mr. Shannon says he would prefer to avoid litigation altogether.

"We've got a long way to go here," he said.


AUSTRALIA: Lex Wotton Leads Class Action Over Riots
---------------------------------------------------
National Indigenous Times reports that Palm Islander Lex Wotton
has launched a racial discrimination class action in the Federal
Court against the State of Queensland and the Queensland Police
Commissioner over the actions of the police leading up to and
during the Palm Island riots.

Mr. Wotton, who served a jail term and became the first Australian
to have a gag order placed upon him, has always maintained he was
targeted by police.


BAROLO RISTORANTE: Faces "Chamorro" Suit over Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Chamorro, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Barolo Ristorante, LLC, Case No. 9:14-cv-81019 (S.D.
Fla., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Barolo Ristorante, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located in
Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      3191 Grand Ave., #1531
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
      E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com


BAY RIDGE: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald A. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bay Ridge Nissan, Inc., Bram Auto Group, Ignazio
Iacono, John Iacono, and Manny Lacitra, Case No. 1:14-cv-04647
(E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay required minimum wage and overtime rate and made
improper deductions from their pay pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate numerous automobile dealerships.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karl J. Stoecker, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KARL J. STOECKER
      22 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (646) 761-8692
      Facsimile: (212) 818-9055
      E-mail: kjs@kjslawfirm.com


BROOKLYN FEDERAL: October 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Investors Bank,
notifies all public record and beneficial holders of common stock
of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. at any time from August 17, 2011
(the date its merger into the Company was publicly announced) to
and including January 6, 2012 (the effective date of consummation
of the merger), but excluding all defendants in the consolidated
action pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Kings, encaptioned Joseph Underwood and Russ Bastin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Daniel O. Reich, Angelo J. Di Lorenzo, Gregg J. Wagner, Arthur R.
Williams, Rebecca Northey, Mark Hughes, Richard A. Kielty,
Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal
Savings Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC, and
Investors Savings Bank, Index No. 500690/2011 and any person,
trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with
any of them and their successors in interest.

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the pendency of the
Action, which was brought by Brooklyn Federal Bancorp stockholders
for themselves and on behalf of the Class against Brooklyn Federal
Bancorp, the members of the Board of Directors of Brooklyn Federal
Bancorp, BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank,
Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC, and Investors
Savings Bank.

The Action has now been settled pursuant to a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release dated March 6,
2013, and is subject to the approval of the Court.  IF YOU ARE A
MEMBER OF THE CLASS, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WILL AFFECT YOUR
RIGHTS.

Your interests are being represented in the Action by counsel for
the Plaintiffs who are Brian Kerr, Esq., Brower Piven, a
Professional Corporation, 475 Park Avenue South, 33(rd) Floor,
New York, New York 10016 and Evan J. Smith, Brodsky & Smith, LLC,
240 Mineola Boulevard, Mineola, New York 11501.

This notice is only a summary of the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing being provided
to members of the Class with respect to the Action.  If you are a
member of the Class and have not received the Notice, you may
obtain one by contacting Registrar and Transfer Company, 10
Commerce Drive, Cranford, New Jersey 07016, Telephone No. (908)
497-2300.  Please note that the deadline for any objections to the
settlement, class certification, or Plaintiffs' counsel's
application for fees and expenses is September 23, 2014, and the
hearing by the Court to consider the fairness of the settlement
will be held on October 23, 2014 at the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Kings, located at 360 Adams Street,
Brooklyn, New York 11201.  Any individual or entity that is a non-
New York resident falling with the definition of the Class that
does not want to participate in the settlement may be excluded,
solely for the purpose of pursuing potential claims for monetary
damages, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than
September 23, 2014.


BP PLC: Files Petition to Enforce Claimants to Prove Fin'l Harm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Collin Eaton, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that BP is
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a battle over who
should receive monetary damages related to the Gulf oil spill.

The London oil company on Aug. 1 filed a petition asking the
Supreme Court to enforce requirements for claimants to prove they
can join a class-action settlement that has poured billions of
dollars into Gulf Coast pockets to fix economic wreckage left by
the spill.

BP said the Supreme Court should reverse lower-court decisions
that approved a settlement class with "vast numbers" of claimants
who weren't financially harmed by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon
disaster, and require claimants to show evidence that losses were
due to the spill.

After a defeat in a lower court, the company said in May it would
look to take the legal fight to the high court.

Current interpretations of the settlement, BP said, contradict
class-action law as well as the Supreme Court's long-held
interpretation of a section of the Constitution that requires a
plaintiff to trace its injury to a defendant's actions.  Those
lower court rulings also depart from similar rulings adopted by
several other appeals courts and deepen a circuit-court conflict
over how class-action members are defined, the energy company
said.

The petition follows other recent moves by BP to play hard ball in
the courts on oil spill compensation.   In June, BP said it would
seek millions of dollars in restitution for erroneous payments to
Gulf cash-based businesses under an overturned accounting policy
in the settlement.

In 2012, BP had reached one of the largest class-action
settlements in U.S. history, agreeing to resolve thousands of
claims of economic losses along the Gulf Coast.  It had originally
estimated it would cost $7.8 billion, though the settlement was
uncapped.  It later said it could no longer provide a reliable
estimate of those settlement costs.

                    Prior requests denied

In recent months, BP has argued that business claimants were
required to show their losses were tied directly to the spill.
Lower courts have denied its prior requests to throw out the
settlement if the class included claimants who were not directly
affected by the accident.

In its petition to the high court, BP argued some Gulf Coast
business have been allowed to gorge themselves on a windfall of
unwarranted compensation.  That, BP claimed, is largely because of
a misinterpretation of the settlement that a claimant doesn't need
to prove its losses were caused by the spill once it meets certain
settlement criteria, such as geographic proximity to the spill.

BP said more than $600 million in "illegitimate" payments have
gone to claimants who reside far from the Gulf or whose losses
could not have been linked to the spill.

In May, the 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals denied BP a full-court
rehearing on the matter, after it had upheld a district court's
approval of the settlement despite some claimants that weren't
affected by the spill.  The accord had set up certain parameters,
including geographic zones, to define some claimants in the
settlement class.

The appeals court's decision "greatly expands the potential for
sprawling, disjointed classes, potentially jeopardizing
defendants' willingness to enter into settlement agreements that
could be misinterpreted to permit claims by uninjured class
members," BP said in the petition, stressing that this case has
ramifications beyond it.

The company added: "And it does all this in the context of a
dispute that itself implicates hundreds of millions of dollars in
payments to claimants with no plausible cause of action against
BP."

                     130,000 pending claims

In an emailed statement, plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Steve Herman
and Jim Roy said that BP "co-wrote and agreed to every word in the
settlement agreement.  It is not surprising that the courts have
all told BP to honor its word."

More than $3.96 billion in payments have been made to about 46,000
claimants, according to the claims administrator, Patrick Juneau.
BP said there are around 130,000 pending claims, and the number
continues to grow.

It said it has made about $546 million in payments to claimants
who "reside far from the Gulf Coast and are engaged in business
activities that bear no logical connection to the spill."

And, the company said, it has also made $76 million in payments to
claimants whose losses had nothing to do with the spill, such as
businesses with warehouses that had burned down before the spill.

"If companies cannot have faith that class-action settlements will
be enforced in accordance with these well-established principles
of class-action law, then they will be more inclined to litigate
than settle, resulting in years of court proceedings and delayed
justice for real victims," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an
emailed statement.


BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Judge Approves $6.8MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blythe Bernhard, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
a $6.8 million class action settlement for residents who live
closest to the smoldering Bridgeton Landfill is fair, reasonable
and adequate, a federal judge has ruled.

About three-quarters of residents in the 400 homes closest to the
landfill agreed to the settlement reached in April for enduring
foul odors from an underground fire that started more than three
years ago.  Judge Thomas Mummert approved the settlement on Aug. 1
in U.S. District Court to conclude a lawsuit filed against
landfill owner Republic Services last year on behalf of six
Bridgeton residents.

After attorneys' costs, the settlement equals $26,250 per
household in the Spanish Village subdivision, $15,375 in the
Terrisan Reste mobile home community and about $3,900 in the
Carrollton Village condominiums, all in Bridgeton.  The awards
will go to 947 of 1,244 eligible residents who signed
participation papers. Those who did not participate had until
Aug. 8 to change their minds.

Anyone who accepts the settlement cannot file any further nuisance
claims for property damage due to the landfill's odor.

"Hopefully the landfill is being properly remediated and the
underground reaction is being contained and controlled, and there
won't be any need for further litigation," said plaintiffs'
attorney Ted Gianaris of the Simmons Law Firm in Alton.

Republic Services has spent more than $100 million on odor
improvement projects, according to Russ Knocke, a company
spokesman.

"Still, we are the first to acknowledge that odors have been a
source of considerable concern and frustration for our neighbors,
and we truly regret any inconvenience they have endured,"
Mr. Knocke said in a statement.  "We also wish to extend our
sincere appreciation to our neighbors for their continued
understanding and patience while we do everything within our power
to rectify a complex and unfortunate situation; one which we did
not create."

There were 27 residents who filed objections to the settlement
with the court.  Most objected to the amount of the settlement and
had questions regarding upcoming work on the landfill.

"The chemicals being released by the landfill have not been proven
to my satisfaction that they are harmless," wrote Mary Beth
Sutterfield, a resident of the Carrollton condominiums, in a
letter to the court.  "I have experienced breathing issues since
the beginning of the landfill odor issue and now cannot enjoy fair
weather days and nights with my windows open."

Judge Mummert overruled the objections in his final approval of
the settlement.  According to the agreement, plaintiffs' attorneys
are entitled to 25 percent of the settlement, or about $1.2
million in fees and $250,000 in expenses.

The odors are expected to get worse when construction begins on a
barrier between the Bridgeton Landfill and the adjacent West Lake
Landfill, where nuclear waste was dumped in the 1970s.  The work
to keep the fire from reaching the radioactive waste, which was
supposed to start in June, has been delayed as the location for
the barrier is determined by the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Army Corps of Engineers.  A spokesman for the EPA said on
Aug. 4 that there are no updates on the construction schedule.

"All those people that just took that settlement can't do anything
about it," said Tonya Mason, who has lived in Spanish Village
since 2006.  "I think the smell is going to be so hideous that we
aren't going to be able to live here."

Some residents say they are holding out for a buyout of their
homes.  The EPA, which is responsible for the cleanup of West Lake
under its Superfund toxic sites program, has said buyouts are not
an option in part because the landfill does not pose a health risk
to residents.

A lawsuit filed last year by Missouri Attorney General Chris
Koster against the waste management company for environmental
violations related to the landfills is ongoing, and more class
action suits from residents are expected.


BUFFA A LLC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Garcia, Jose Alfredo Licona, and Benito Velazquez, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.  Buffa A LLC
d/b/a Calexico, Brian Vendley, David Vendley Jesse Vendley, Peter
Oleyer, Anthony Fauci, and John Does #1 jointly and severally,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06196 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread hours premiums,
unlawful deductions, unlawful kickbacks and statutory penalties
for notice-and-record-keeping violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Buffa A LLC is a non-publicly traded New York domestic business
corporation operating a restaurant at 153 Rivington Street, New
York, New York 10002.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq.
      EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      113 University Place
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
      E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com


BUFFALO BILLS: Cheerleaders' Wage Theft Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Erbacher, writing for WKBW, reports that a class action wage
theft lawsuit brought by Buffalo Jills cheerleaders against the
Buffalo Bills, Citadel Communications, and Stejon Productions,
will proceed in New York State Supreme Court in Buffalo, after a
judge's ruling to deny two attempts to dismiss the case.

Attorneys for the Buffalo Bills and Citadel Communications each
filed motions to dismiss the wage theft lawsuit.  Bills attorneys
argued the cheerleading squad was under the control of a managing
company, and had no involvement in how much cheerleaders were
paid.  Citadel, the operators of the squad until 2012, argued that
Jills cheerleaders signed on as independent contractors, and not
as employees.

Attorneys for the Buffalo Jills cheerleaders argue the women were
misclassified as independent contractors, and were entitled to a
minimum wage that their employers failed to pay.  They also say
they can prove the Bills organization "exerted control over the
Jills."

Honorable Judge Timothy J. Drury ruled in favor of the Jills in
court on July 31, denying both motions to dismiss the case. Judge
Drury wrote in his decision:

"The minute control that Citadel and Stejon exercised over the
work of the cheerleaders supports the conclusion that they were
not independent contractors but employees.  The Bills insisted
that Citadel and Stejon obtain the agreement from each of the
cheerleaders that they were independent contractors and the Bills
directed that the agreements be returned promptly to them.  These
facts are further indication of the control the Bill exercised
over the Jills cheerleaders despite the fact that they were in the
nominal employment of the subcontractors."

Stejon Productions was not involved in any motions to dismiss this
case.  Its president, Stephanie Mateczun, is shedding new light on
her organization's decision to shut down Jills operations for the
2014 season.  According to attorneys for the Jills, the Buffalo
Bills had told Mateczun that they would supplement the wages of
Jills cheerleaders this season.  The Bills allegedly backed out
when the class action wage theft suit was filed.

As a result, the Bills first preseason home game on August 23rd
will be the first time in 47 years that the team will take the
field in Orchard Park without the Buffalo Jills.


CA LAW ENFORCEMENT: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Retirement Law Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William David Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. California Law Enforcement Association Long-Term
Disability Benefit Plan, California Law Enforcement Association,
and California Administration Insurance Services, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-03559 (N.D. Cal., August 6, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The Defendants provide long-term disability benefits to disabled
members of its member organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Teresa Renaker, Esq.
      LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
      476-9th Street
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 839-6824
      Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
      E-mail: trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com


CALIFORNIA: Fees May Be Paid to Counsel of Diabetic Students
------------------------------------------------------------
Fees may be available to attorneys who monitored California's
compliance with a settlement for diabetic public school students,
the 9th Circuit ruled on August 11, 2014, according to Tim Hull at
Courthouse News Service.

California headed off a proposed class action by four students and
the American Diabetes Association in 2005 when it agreed to settle
claims that it had failed to provide needed services for diabetics
in public schools.

Under the terms of the 2007 settlement, which awarded $400,000 in
attorneys' fees, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney retained
ancillary jurisdiction over the case in San Francisco until
January 24, 2010.

Nearly two years after that date had passed, attorneys for the
plaintiffs filed fees motion for their work monitoring the
California Department of Education's implementation of the terms
of the settlement.

Judge Chesney denied the move, however, saying that the court
lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue because the settlement
agreement had expired.

A three-judge appellate panel reversed on August 11, 2014, finding
that the federal court had retained ancillary jurisdiction over
attorneys' fees in the case.

To find otherwise would be to defeat the purpose of ancillary
jurisdiction in the first place, which is "to enable a federal
court to render a judgment that resolves the entire case before it
and to effectuate its judgment once it has been rendered," the
panel ruled, quoting a previous decision from the 7th Circuit.

"Requiring a separate lawsuit -- that hypothetically would invoke
federal question jurisdiction -- not only would interfere with the
district court's powers to render a judgment that resolves the
entire case and to effectuate its judgment, but also would harm
judicial economy and efficiency," Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote
for the court.  "Practically speaking, any such separate
'attorneys' fees only' lawsuit likely would be referred to the
district judge who presided over the underlying lawsuit anyway."

The panel remanded the question to San Francisco, leaving it to
the lower court to decide "whether to exercise ancillary
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Donna Brorby, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONNA BRORBY
          315 Hugo Street
          San Francisco, CA 94122
          Telephone: (415) 377-8285
          E-mail: brorbylaw@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Arlene B. Mayerson, Esq.
          Larisa M. Cummings, Esq.
          Charlotte L. Lanvers, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND, INC.
          3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210
          Berkeley, CA 94703
          Telephone: (510) 644-2555
          Facsimile: (510) 841-8645
          E-mail: lcummngs@dredf.org

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Paul E. Lacy, Esq.
          Amy Bisson Holloway, Esq.
          Edmundo Aguilar, Esq.
          Ava C. Yajima, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
          1430 N Street
          Sacramento, CA 95814-5901
          Telephone: (916) 319-0800
          E-mail: eaguilar@cde.ca.gov
                  ava.yajima@cde.ca.gov

The appellate case is K.C., et al. v. Tom Torlakson, in his
official capacity as Superintendent of Public Instruction for the
State of California, Case No. 12-16178, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The District Court case is
K.C., et al. v. Tom Torlakson, Case No. 3:05-cv-04077-MMC, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.


CANADA: Court Approves RCMP Veterans Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Federal Court has approved a
multimillion-dollar class-action settlement for a group of
disabled RCMP veterans whose disability payments were clawed back.

The case involved 1,056 Mounties whose long-term disability
payments were reduced by the amount of their monthly disability
benefits from the Veterans Affairs Department.  The estimated
value of the settlement is C$70 million.  That includes C$30.6
million in retroactive payments, C$9.1 million in interest on
those payments and C$30.3 million in future benefits.

The proposed agreement also means the reduction would end for all
RCMP veterans now receiving benefits and Mounties who are
medically released in the future.

The case was launched in 2008 by Gerard Buote, but was taken over
by David White after Mr. Buote died from cancer the following
year.

One of Mr. White's lawyers said he was pleased with the Aug. 5
decision.

"It ensures that the members of this class receive what they
rightly deserve, and we are grateful to Gerry and David for their
dedication to this cause," Dan Wallace said in a statement.

The case was almost identical to one that a judge deemed harsh and
unfair in a class-action lawsuit by military veterans, who were
awarded a C$887.8-million settlement after a former army sergeant
took the government to court in 2007.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dennison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., Huichun Qin,
Long Yi, Jianmin Yin, Jingeng Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, John F. Levy,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04956 (D.N.J., August 6, 2014), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities
Act of 1933.

China Commercial Credit, Inc. is a financial services firm
operating in the People's Republic of China. It provides direct
loans and loan guarantee services to small-to-medium sized
businesses, farmers and individuals in the city of Wujiang,
Jiangsu Province.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 313-1887
      Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


COASTAL COURIER: "Awai" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Awai, Omar Valdes, James Moreno, and other similarly-
situated individuals v. Coastal Courier, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-
61797 (S.D. Fla., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under
the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Coastal Courier, Inc. offers package delivery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com


DALLAS COWBOYS: Cannot Be Sued on Super Bowl XLV Seating Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas Cowboys cannot be sued over the Super Bowl XLV seating
debacle because they were not a contracting party to ticketing,
reports David Lee at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Several lawsuits concerning the February 2011 game at AT&T Stadium
in Arlington are pending.  They involve claims that the temporary
bleachers where hundreds of fans had been assigned to sit were not
installed by game time.  Some fans were allegedly completely
displaced to areas outside of the stadium while others were
delayed or relocated to other seats -- many with obstructed views.

Joseph Greco led one class action that said the team and the
National Football League knew some of the seats sold to the game
in February 2011 would never be available and concealed the
problem until the last possible moment on game day.  He said the
defendants had made settlement offers that fell short of
adequately compensating fans.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn sided with the Cowboys and
dismissed the contract claims against them on August 6, 2014.

A ticket to the game "is a contract only between the NFL and a
ticket purchaser," the ruling states.  Lynn shot down claims that
the team received 5 percent of tickets to the game from the league
for resale to some of the plaintiffs.

"Accepting plaintiffs' version of the facts as true, the fact that
the Cowboys defendants sold tickets issued by the NFL to 'one or
more plaintiffs' does not alter the nature of the contract, which
is between the NFL and the plaintiffs," Lynn wrote.  "Plaintiffs
have not plausibly alleged that the Cowboys defendants were
anything more than third-party sellers of tickets to an NFL event
and, therefore, have not pleaded the existence of a contract
between the Cowboys defendants and any plaintiff."

The fraudulent inducement claims against the team meanwhile failed
because the contract was only with the NFL, Lynn said, noting that
fraudulent-inducement claims can be made only against the league.

She was not persuaded with the argument that the tickets were sold
with the intent not to complete construction of the temporary
seating.

"The NFL had nothing to gain by tricking fans into purchasing
tickets for seats that it did not believe would be available,"
Lynn wrote.  "Plaintiffs allege that the Cowboys defendants'
original plan -- alleged to have been subsequently assumed by the
NFL -- called for the construction of temporary seats, that a
building permit was obtained, that many of the temporary seats
were in fact installed, and that work on the temporary seating
continued even on game day.  Without alleging plausible and non-
conclusory facts supporting the allegation that the NFL did not
intend to have temporary seats constructed for which tickets were
sold, plaintiffs cannot recover on a theory of fraudulent
inducement as to temporary seats that were not completed and
approved by game day."

Lynn also rejected the negligence claim against the team, holding
that the fans did not alleged physical harm and they "cannot
recover for purely economic harm."

"If the negligence claim stemmed from allegations that the
temporary seating was unsafe and a plaintiff was injured, a
negligence action might be available," Lynn wrote.  "The
gratuitous undertaking doctrine does not support the claims
asserted against the Cowboys defendants."

Contract claims against the NFL remain intact, however, with Lynn
saying they "cannot be determined as a matter of law."

Lynn also preserved claims of fraudulent inducement by omission
brought by fans with obstructed views of the game.

The Cowboys did not immediately respond to a request for comment
on August 10, 2014.

The case is Joseph Greco, et al. v. Jerral "Jerry" Wayne Jones, et
al., Case No. 3:13-CV-1005-M, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.


DCH AUTO GROUP: Doesn't Want to Pay Premium Wages, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Keables, Daniel DeGruchy, and Paul McCartney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DCH Auto Group (USA) Limited (a British Virgin Islands
corporation), and DCH SIMI Valley Inc. (a California corporation),
Case No. 2:14-cv-06159 (C.D. Cal., August 6, 2014), alleges that
the Defendants did not want to pay premium wages to their auto
dealership employees.

The Defendants own and operate auto dealerships in New York, New
Jersey and Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
      PHILLIPS ERLEWINE & GIVEN LLP
      50 California Street, Suite 3240
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-0900
      Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
      E-mail: nac@phillaw.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hughes and Pamela Chelin, writing for The Wrap, report that
Charles Paddock filed a class action lawsuit against DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc. on behalf of himself and all other
shareholders in the publicly-traded company, according to a
document filed on Aug. 1 in the U.S. District Court in Central
California.

Mr. Paddock alleges that DreamWorks "made false and/or misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance."
The suit details the period of time surrounding the film "Turbo,"
which was released in the summer of 2013.  After it
underperformed, the company waited until February 2014 -- the suit
erroneously states this date as February 2013 in multiple paces --
to take a $13.5 million write-down.

It was the third write-down for the company, after disappointing
returns for "Rise of the Guardians" and "Mr. Peabody & Sherman."
The company's most recent release, the sequel "How to Train Your
Dragon 2," has performed better, though with $167 million
domestic, it is notably off from the $217 million the original
earned in 2010.

The lawsuit claims that the company was misleading its investors
by failing to disclose that it had waited so long to take a
write-down for "Turbo, leading to an overstatement of Dreamworks'
net income for the 2013 fiscal year.  This allegedly resulted in
"materially false and misleading" financial statements.

The suit further details the conference call DreamWorks held with
analysts on July 29, 2014.  During this call, the company stated
that it was currently cooperating with an investigation by the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the "Turbo" write-down.  As
a result of this call, which also detailed the second quarterly
loss in a row, the company's stocks fell 12 percent on July 30,
according to the suit, to close at $19.98.

As a result, Mr. Paddock's suit states that the company's
shareholders have "suffered significant losses and damages."  On
behalf of the class, Mr. Paddock is seeking damages, interest,
attorney's fees and associated costs.  He is also demanding a jury
trial in the case.

Mr. Paddock is represented in the case by Lionel Z. Glancy,
Michael Goldberg, and Robert V. Prongay of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc., on Aug. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of DreamWorks Animation securities between October 29,
2013 and July 29, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at (310) 201-9150, or at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.  If you inquire
by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number
and number of shares purchased.

DreamWorks Animation is engaged in the development, production and
exploitation of animated films and their associated characters
worldwide through feature films, television, and consumer
products.  The complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that:

   -- DreamWorks Animation failed to take a timely write-down for
Turbo, a 2013 feature film about a supercharged snail.

   -- The Company's net income for the fiscal year of 2013 was
materially overstated.

   -- The Company lacked adequate internal and control over
financial reporting.

   -- The Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 29, 2014, the Company disclosed that the Securities and
Exchange Commission has been conducting an investigation related
to the Company's prior write-down of film inventory for Turbo.
DreamWorks Animation also reported a larger-than-projected 2014
second-quarter loss and sales that fell short of analysts'
forecasts.

As a result of this news, DreamWorks Animation shares fell nearly
12 percent, or $2.68 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume,
to close at $19.98 on July 30, 2014.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than September 30, 2014, to serve as lead
plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


EDAP TMS: Faces "Haddad" Suit Over Breach of Securities Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Haddad, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. EDAP TMS S.A., Marc Oczachowski, and Eric Soyer, Case
No. :14-cv-06188 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.

EDAP TMS S.A.is a French corporation with its principal executive
offices located at Pare d'Activites la Poudrette-Lamartine, 4/6,
rue du Dauphine, 69120 Vaulx-en-Velin, France. It markets
Ablatherm for high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of
localized prostate cancer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Gregory Bradley Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      77 Water Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (646) 722-4180
      E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com


EDAP TMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against EDAP TMS S.A. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-6069, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
EDAP securities between February 1, 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 EDAP securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 3, 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.

Defendant EDAP TMS S.A., through its subsidiaries, designs and
manufactures medical equipment.  The Company develops minimally
invasive therapeutic ultrasound solutions for urology, tumor
removal, localized prostate cancer, and related infectious
diseases.  EDAP purports to serve patients and medical
professionals worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company was overstating the efficacy and
safety of its Ablatherm trials by using faulty statistical methods
and presenting misleading data; (ii) the Company was understating
the frequency of adverse events in its trials for Ablatherm
including erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and urethral
and bowel injury; and (iii) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 28, 2014, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff report
was released in anticipation of a July 30, 2014 meeting of the
Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel Advisory Committee
meeting.  In the FDA Staff Report, the FDA questioned whether
EDAP's methods for testing the device were adequate.
Specifically, FDA staff questioned EDAP's safety and effectiveness
data because the Company compared patients in two different
studies to gather evidence, rather than a head-to-head trial.
EDAP relied on a registry of patients in Europe who have used
Ablatherm, and compared their data to a subgroup of patients in a
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs trial who underwent surgery
called radical prostatectomy.  Patients who used Ablatherm had a
1.1 percent risk of their cancer spreading after eight years,
compared to a 1.4 percent risk for men who underwent surgery.

On the news, EDAP stock fell $1.23 in unusually heavy volume, or
over 25%, to close at $3.65 on July 28, 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.


ELECTRONIC GAME: Discovery Stay Not Violated, 9th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reviving fraud claims against a defunct company that sold credit-
card-size electronic games, the 9th Circuit found that investors
did not violate a discovery stay, reports Tim Hull, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Dalton Petrie is the lead plaintiff in the 2010 class action filed
after the bankruptcy of Electronic Game Card Inc.  Filed in Santa
Ana, Calif., the investors claimed that executives Lee Cole and
Linden Boyne had misrepresented the company's earnings and assets
and hid a subsidiary agreement, among other things.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed similar claims
against the executives in 2012 for "repeatedly lying to investors
about the operations and financial condition" of the company.

A second amended complaint in Petrie's case in 2011 led Cole to
give notice that he would seek judgment on the pleadings. Cole
later claimed that such notice should have triggered a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA).

The plaintiffs nevertheless filed a third amended complaint (TAC)
with more detailed allegations of concealment shortly thereafter.

"The TAC also alleges the company was able to report millions of
dollars in cash and cash equivalents at the end of fiscal years
2006, 2007, and 2008 because its financial statements were
wrongfully consolidated with its subsidiary's," the 9th Circuit
explained on July 30.  "Allegedly, much of this cash was
represented to the auditor as being held in a bank account with
Credit Suisse in Gibraltar, Spain that was controlled by the
company and its subsidiary."

Another allegation of the TAC was that "the multi-million dollar
Gibraltar account never existed," according to the 9th Circuit's
ruling.

Cole moved to strike these so-called "auditor discovery materials"
from the amended complaint, arguing that they had been obtained in
violation of the stay of discovery.

U.S. District Judge David Carter agreed with Cole and struck
portions of the complaint, finding that the investors should have
ceased all discovery after Cole had announced plans to file his
motion.

The court later dismissed the amended complaint altogether and
ruled for the defendants. Without the new allegations, Judge
Carter found, the investors could not show falsity or knowledge of
wrongdoing.

A three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit reversed and sent the
case back to the lower court on July 30, saying key portions of
the amended complaint had been struck improperly.

"The complaint at issue in this appeal, the Third Amended
Complaint, was based in large part on discovery materials
subpoenaed before the company's former CEO gave notice of his
intent to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings," Judge
Morgan Christen wrote for the court in Pasadena.  "These materials
were not received until after the CEO gave such notice."

Auditor discovery materials can remain in the amended complaint
because they were not obtained or used in violation of the PSLRA,
according to the ruling.  With the inclusion of such materials,
the amended complaint "adequately pleads both falsity and scienter
as to defendants Cole and Boyne," Christen wrote.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee Lee Cole is represented by:

          Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq.
          BUCHALTER NEMER
          1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457
          Telephone: (213) 891-0700
          Facsimile: (213) 896-0400
          E-mail: LSteinberg@buchalter.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq.
          Herve Gouraige, Esq.
          SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS
          The Legal Center
          One Riverfront Plaza
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 643-7000
          Facsimile: (973) 643-6500
          E-mail: jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com
                  hgouraige@sillscummis.com

Defendants-Appellees Kevin Donovan, Eugene Christiansen, Paul
Farrell, Anna Houssels, Lynne Rochelle Attias, and Jonathan
Steinberg are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Cogan, Esq.
          Steven G. Kobre, Esq.
          Andrew M. Meehan, Esq.
          KOBRE & KIM LLP
          800 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 488-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 488-1220
          E-mail: jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com
                  steven.kobre@kobrekim.com

               - and -

          Christopher Kim, Esq.
          Bryan Sheldon, Esq.
          Lisa J. Yang, Esq.
          LIM, RUGER & KIM
          1055 West 7th Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 955-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 955-9511
          E-mail: christopher.kim@limruger.com
                  bryan.sheldon@limruger.com
                  lisa.yang@limruger.com

The appellate case is Dalton Petrie, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, and Dr. Thomas Lee;
Margaret Yu; Scott Lovell, Appellants, v. Electronic Game Card,
Inc.; Lee J. Cole; Linden Boyne; Kevin Donovan; Paul Farrell;
Eugene Christiansen; Anna Houssels; Lynne Rochelle Attias;
Jonathan Steinberg, as Executor of the Estate of Lord Leonard
Steinberg, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 12-55620, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The District Court
case is Dalton Petrie, et al. v. Electronic Game Card, Inc., et
al., Case No. 8:10-cv-00252-DOC-RNB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces "Davis" Suit in E.D. Wash Over SoftTest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Davis and Catherine Booher, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc.,
2:14-cv-00256 (E.D. Wash., August 5, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant designed, produced, and sold SoftTest and supporting
systems that caused problems in taking and uploading bar exams.

ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc. is in the business of distributing,
and/or selling its software throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              lsarko@kellerrohrback.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Data-Privacy Class Action in Austria
--------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Weber, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Facebook
Inc. faces a class action in Austria led by Max Schrems, a law
student and data-privacy campaigner who's already had a case
against the social network sent to the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Schrems alleges Facebook has violated European Union law with
its data policy and by supporting the U.S. National Security
Agency's Prism program, under which companies turned over user
data to the government.  He's claiming 500 euros ($671) in damages
per user and appealed on his website to people outside of the U.S.
and Canada to join his lawsuit.

"Our aim is to make Facebook finally operate lawfully in the area
of data protection," Mr. Schrems said in a statement.  "Within the
framework of this class action, individuals can also make a
contribution to this effort."

Facebook, used by 1.32 billion people worldwide, recently came
under pressure when U.K. authorities started investigating a
psychological experiment in which the social network influenced
what users saw in their news feeds.  The case came amid a push by
the EU for stronger privacy safeguards in a data- transfer deal
with the U.S.

Facebook's press representatives at Apco Worldwide in Berlin
declined to comment on the case.  Alexander Schmidt, a spokesman
for the Vienna Commercial Court, confirmed that the case against
Facebook Ireland was brought by Mr. Schrems on July 31.

A ruling in Austria could be enforced in Ireland, from where
Facebook's European operations are run, Schrems said.  Because
he's bringing the lawsuit as a consumer, he could file it only at
his place of residence, which is Vienna.

The action will be funded by a financier who'll get 20 per cent of
damages if the case is won.  Users can join the action without any
financial risk, according to the statement.  Under Austrian law,
people can transfer their financial claims to a single person even
as there is no typical class action.  Any damages awarded would be
shared.


FACEBOOK INC: 17,000+ People Join Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that more than 17,000 people have signed up to
join an Austrian law student's class action against Facebook over
the social media group's alleged violations of its users' privacy,
the student said on Aug. 5.

Max Schrems, 26, appealed to a billion Facebook users to join a
claim he filed at Vienna's commercial court as part of his
campaign.

Under Austrian law, a group of people may transfer their financial
claims to a single person -- in this case, Mr. Schrems.  Legal
proceedings are then effectively run as a class action.

The echo to his appeal has been "giant, much more than expected,"
Mr. Schrems said, adding that most people to sign up were from
Europe.  "The emails and feedback have been really positive and
what is interesting is that many people say finally someone is
doing something in this direction," he said.

Mr. Schrems is claiming damages of 500 euros ($670) per user for
alleged data violations by Facebook, including aiding the US
National Security Agency in running its PRISM program, which mined
the personal data of users of Facebook and other web services.  He
is also seeking injunctions under European Union (EU) data-
protection law at the court in data-privacy-friendly Austria.

Some of those joining his cause are donating money, he said.  "It
is good to see that for most people it is not a matter of
(getting) money but of advancing the matter," he said.

Mr. Schrems, who already has a case involving the social network
pending at the European Court of Justice, invited others to join
his Vienna court action at www.fbclaim.com using their Facebook
login.

Facebook, which has declined comment on the campaign, has come
under fire before for allegedly violating data-protection laws.

Most recently, Britain's data watchdog began investigating whether
a 2012 experiment on unwitting users, in which it tried to alter
their emotional state to see if their postings turned more
positive or negative.

The world's biggest social network, Facebook now has 1.32 billion
users.  It posted a 61 percent increase in sales in the second
quarter buoyed by mobile advertising, sending its shares to a
record high and valuing the company at almost $200 billion.


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated Conservatorship Litigation Chart
------------------------------------------------------------------
At http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201408.pdfeditors of
the Troubled Company Reporter and Class Action Reporter have
posted a chart, updated on Aug. 16, 2014, organizing information
about the 24 lawsuits complaining about how the Department of the
Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Administration are
handling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conservatorship proceedings.

Unaltered, this chart may be freely shared with anyone for any
purpose, notwithstanding that it is copyrighted by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., and Beard Group, Inc., and all rights
are reserved by the publishers.  For additional information,
contact Peter A. Chapman at peter@beard.com by e-mail or (215)
945-7000 by telephone.


FORMIA MARBLE: Fails to Workers Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Garcia, Oscar Marquez, and Victor Rocano, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Formia Marble & Stone,
Inc., and Filippo Berta. Case No. 2:14-cv-04939 (D.N.J., August 6,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay non-
exempt employees at the statutory overtime rate and one-half for
all hours works over 40 hours per week.

Formia Marble & Stone, Inc. is engaged in commercial marble and
granite fabrication and installation business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue--6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: j_cilenti@yahoo.com


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Adverse Facts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bradford C. Gelzayd, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Peter G. Traber,
and Jack W. Callicut, Case No.  3:14-cv-00412 (D. Nev., August 6,
2014), alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Galectin Therapeutics Inc. is a development-stage company focused
on galectin science and drug development to create new therapies
for fibrotic disease and cancer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      David C. O'mara, Esq.
      THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
      311 E. Liberty Street
      Reno, NV 89501
      Telephone: (775) 323-1321
      Facsimile: (775) 323-4082
      E-mail: david@omaralaw.net


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Nevada, and docketed under 14-cv-01287, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Galectin securities between January 6, 2014 and July 28,
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 Galectin 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.

Galectin is a development stage company engaged in the research
and development of therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer.  The
Company's lead product candidates include GR-MD-02, a complex
polysaccharide polymer for the treatment of liver fibrosis and
fatty liver disease (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or "NASH").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was utilizing the services of
paid stock promoters to disseminate positive but misleading
reports about Galectin's prospects; (2) moreover, GR-MD-02 did not
provide the benefits suggested by Defendants when discussing the
patent the Company was awarded or the Phase 1 clinical trial it
was conducting; and (3) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 28, 2014, Bleecker Street Research published an article on
SeekingAlpha.com claiming that Galectin "has strong ties to stock
promoters" engaging in a misleading brand awareness campaign aimed
at boosting its stock price.

On July 28, 2014, Adam Feuerstein ("Feuerstein") published an
article on TheStreet.com revealing that Emerging Growth Corp.
("Emerging Growth"), through its parent company TDM Financial
("TDM"), a penny-stock promotions firm, was the investor relations
and marketing company Galectin was paying for misleading
promotional campaigns to entice investors to buy its stock.

On this news, Galectin's stock fell $8.84 per share to close at
$5.70 per share on July 29, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 61%
on volume of nearly 7.7 million shares.

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


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Responds to Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics, a developer of therapeutics that target
galectin proteins to treat fibrosis and cancer, issued the
following statement on Aug. 4.

"We have become aware that a putative class action lawsuit has
been filed against Galectin Therapeutics and certain officers of
the Company alleging violations of United States federal
securities laws.  We dispute the allegations in the complaint and
intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit," Galectin Therapeutics
said.

"Galectin Therapeutics is in the business of drug development. We
are confident in our drug development program, and our preclinical
and clinical trials remain as priorities," said Peter G. Traber,
M.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Medical Officer
of Galectin Therapeutics.  "We are, of course, disappointed to
learn of the lawsuit that was recently filed, but we believe the
claims are without merit.  While we intend to vigorously defend
the Company in this matter, the Company's board of directors and
management team remain focused on our drug development, and we
will continue to move forward with enrollment of our third cohort
of patients in our Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating our galectin
inhibitor GR-MD-02 in fatty liver disease (NASH) with advanced
fibrosis."


GEORGE AVENUE: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erwin Zambrano Moya, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. George Avenue Subway, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01341
(D.D.C., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation.

George Avenue Subway, Inc. owns and operates food chain business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      836 Bonifant Street
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Siriano" Suit Over Damaged Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rocco Siriano and Janet Siriano, Jason Oakley and Stephanie
Oakley, Cindy Molleur, Thomas Cook and Laura Cook, Leeann Bormann,
Michelle Lapread, and Andrew Bilen and Jennifer Bilen,
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P., Goodman Global, Inc., and Goodman
Company, L.P., Case No. 2:14-cv-01131 (S.D. Ohio, August 6, 2014),
is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who purchased air
conditioners, air handlers and heat pumps manufactured by the
Defendants since 2007, or who own or have owned a home or other
structure in which the Goodman Products have been installed since
2007, and who suffered damages related to leakage of refrigerant
in the Goodman Products.

Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P., Goodman Global, Inc., and Goodman
Company, L.P., are in the business of engineering, manufacturing,
distributing and marketing heating, ventilation and air
conditioning products for residential and light commercial use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER-GRIECO-MERRIMAN, LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Stalling Defect in Santa Fe Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Reniger and Greg Battaglia, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Hyundai Motor America, a
California corporation, and Hyundai Motor Company, a foreign
corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-03612-LB (N.D. Cal., August 8, 2014)
is brought on behalf of all persons in the United States, who
purchased or leased any 2010 through 2012 Hyundai Santa Fe
vehicles.

The case concerns a serious safety defect in the Class Vehicles,
which causes unexpected stalling that results in total loss of
power, including braking and steering, posing a risk of injury or
death to both passengers and pedestrians.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants engaged in an egregious breach of their duties
under the law by intentionally failing to disclose the Stalling
Defect for years.

Hyundai Motor America is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Fountain Valley, California.
Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean corporation with its
principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea.  The Defendants
designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted and
serviced the subject vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgreenstone@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com


IMAX CORP: Funds in Securities Suit Accord Distributed to Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a securities suit against IMAX Corporation in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was
distributed to the U.S. Class, according to the company's June 24,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Court"). On January 18, 2007, the Court
consolidated all eight class action lawsuits and appointed
Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On
October 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock on the
NASDAQ between February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 (the "U.S.
Class"), alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue
recognition of theater system installations, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue
recognition practices. The amended complaint also added
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a
defendant.

On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing The Merger
Fund as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as
lead plaintiff's counsel. On November 2, 2011, the parties entered
into a memorandum of understanding containing the terms and
conditions of a settlement of this action. On January 26, 2012,
the parties executed and filed with the Court a formal stipulation
of settlement and proposed form of notice to the class, which the
Court preliminarily approved on February 1, 2012. Under the terms
of the settlement, members of the U.S. Class who did not opt out
of the settlement will release defendants from liability for all
claims that were alleged in this action or could have been alleged
in this action or any other proceeding (including the action in
Canada as described in (d) of this note (the "Canadian Action")
relating to the purchase of IMAX securities on the NASDAQ from
February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 or the subject matter and
facts relating to this action. As part of the settlement and in
exchange for the release, defendants will pay $12.0 million to a
settlement fund which amount will be funded by the carriers of the
Company's directors and officers insurance policy and by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

On March 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court
an amended formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of
notice to the class, which the court preliminarily approved on
March 28, 2012. On June 20, 2012, the Court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement. The settlement was
distributed to the U.S. Class on May 5, 2014.


IMAX CORP: Settlement Order in Canadian Stock Lawsuit Stands
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for leave to appeal an order enforcing a settlement in a
Canadian securities law violation suit against Imax Corp. was
dismissed, according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the
Canadian Court against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws. This
lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the
Company's securities between February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006.
The lawsuit seeks $210.0 million in compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as costs. For reasons released December 14, 2009,
the Canadian Court granted leave to the plaintiffs to amend their
statement of claim to plead certain claims pursuant to the
Securities Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain
individuals ("the Defendants") and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding. These are procedural decisions, and
do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to
the factual or legal merits of the claim. Leave to appeal those
decisions was denied. In March 2013, the Defendants obtained an
Order enforcing the settlement Order in the parallel class action
in the United States in this Canadian class action lawsuit, with
the result that the class in this case was reduced in size by
approximately 85%. A motion by the Plaintiffs for leave to appeal
that Order was dismissed.


IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Krupp" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Krupp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Impact Acquisitions LLC d/b/a Kubicheck Office
Products, Case No. 2:14-cv-00950 (E.D. Wis., August 5, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Impact Acquisitions LLC offers software sales, installation and
training, including SVC copier machines networking and web design.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com


INDYMAC: Settles Securities Class Action for $340 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
MJ Clark, writing for Wyoming Business Report, reports that the
Wyoming State Treasurer's Office and the Wyoming Retirement System
announced Aug. 4 a $340 million agreement-in-principle to settle
class-action claims against six underwriters of IndyMac mortgage-
backed securities (MBS).  Together, the Wyoming plaintiffs
represent a class of investors that will ultimately receive
proportional distributions of the settlement amount.

The settlement is the result of class-action claims against six
underwriters of IndyMac mortgage-backed securities.  IndyMac was
the informal name for the Independent National Mortgage
Corporation, which was the largest savings and loan association in
California and the seventh largest mortgage initiator in the U.S.
until it failed on July 11, 2008.

The claims were initiated in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, following the financial crisis
of 2008.  The late State Treasurer Joe Meyer, former Wyoming
Retirement System Director Thom Williams, and former Attorney
General Bruce Salzburg took this action in the interest of Wyoming
citizens and retirement system members.  The national law firm of
Berman DeValerio, which represents the Wyoming lead plaintiffs, is
acting as lead counsel for the class.

By taking action in this case, Wyoming was able to broaden the
case to cover a number of the offerings that had not been
addressed in the initial complaint and expand the scope of
investors covered in the class-action.  According to Elizabeth
Anderson, general counsel for the State Treasurer's Office, the
size of the class is still being determined and at this point, "we
have no idea what [Wyoming's] proportion might be."  She added
that the process of determining a plan of allocation for the
settlement will extend into next year.

The lawsuit cited a report by the Center for Responsible Lending
that claimed that IndyMac, "encouraged its employees to approve
loans regardless of an individual's ability to repay."

Defendants included former IndyMac Chairman and CEO John Olinski,
and former Executive Vice President S. Blair Abernath.  The
agreement in principle to settle the case was disclosed on Aug. 4
by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, the parent of defendant
RBS Securities, Inc., in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The other underwriter defendants in the case are
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (in its own right and as successor-in-
interest to Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.), Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC,
and UBS Securities LLC.  The class-action settlement must be
approved by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who is overseeing
the case.

"We believe this is a good settlement. It offers a meaningful
recovery to investors, including the State of Wyoming, and is a
testament to the pooled efforts of the State Treasurer's Office,
the Wyoming Retirement System, the Attorney General's Office and
our legal team," Wyoming State Treasurer Mark Gordon said.


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston, MA law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP on Aug. 5
disclosed that it filed a class action suit on July 31, 2014
against InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp., a Cambridge, MA
company, and its former Chairman and CEO for violations of federal
securities laws.  The firm filed the complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled
Battle Construction Co., Inc. v. InVivo Therapeutics Holdings
Corp., et al., C.A. No. 14-cv-13180.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP conducted a careful investigation before
filing its Complaint, which alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements about the FDA's approval of a clinical
trial and the time for completion of the trial and submission of
data to the FDA.  The Complaint alleges that these misstatements
and omissions by Defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material
facts to the investing public, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased common stock of InVivo from April 5, 2013 through
August 26, 2013.

If you purchased shares of InVivo common stock during the above
time period, you may move the court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff no later than 60 days from August 5, 2014.

The factual and legal bases for the Plaintiff's claims are set
forth in greater detail in the Complaint, which is available at
www.shulaw.com or can be obtained, without any obligation, from
counsel for the Plaintiff, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.  More
information about the law firm and its qualifications is available
at www.shulaw.com

If you would like more information about this case or you are
interested in joining the suit, please contact the firm at the
telephone numbers below or by email.

Several other law firms have published notices announcing the
filing of a law suit against InVivo.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is the only firm that has investigated
the company and has actually filed a complaint.

CONTACT: Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         Thomas G. Shapiro
         Seaport East
         Two Seaport Lane
         Boston, MA 02210
         Tel: (800) 287-8119
              (617) 439-3939
         E-mail: cases@shulaw.com
         Web site: http://www.shulaw.com


JADE RESTORATION: Faces "Cordova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Cordova v. Jade Restoration Corp., and John O'Reilly,
Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04662 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jade Restoration Corp. and John O'Reilly are in the commercial
cleaning and maintenance business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      Jaffe Glenn Law Group, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220, 168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy Victims Have Until Nov. 14 to Register
----------------------------------------------------------
On July 21, 2014, the Johns Hopkins Health System disclosed that
it has reached an agreement to settle the class action lawsuit
filed October 24, 2013, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Case No. 24-C-13-001041 MM, on behalf of thousands of women who
allegedly were surreptitiously recorded during examinations by
Dr. Nikita A. Levy.  According to The Baltimore Sun, the $190
million settlement is one of the largest on record for a physician
accused of sexual misconduct.

An investigation prompted by a colleague's suspicions revealed
that Dr. Levy had used cameras concealed in pens and key fobs to
photograph the genitals of female patients, some of whom were
minors.  In an October 24, 2013letter, Johns Hopkins' President
and CEO told the health system's employees, "One thing we have
been reminded of throughout this difficult situation is how
important it is that we foster an environment that encourages us
all to speak up.  Because an employee was willing to step forward,
we were able to put a stop to Dr. Levy's behavior as soon as we
learned of it."

Baltimore personal injury lawyer Steven Heisler represents dozens
of women who are members of the class of plaintiffs victimized by
Levy.  "While it is true that the initial investigation came about
as a result of a whistleblower's actions, it is equally true that
in order for justice to be served, it is necessary that women come
forward in what they might view as an embarrassing situation and
speak out," said Mr. Heisler.

One way to do this, Mr. Heisler said, is to register as a member
of the class action if they were a patient of Dr. Levy between
April 26, 1988 and February 8, 2013.  A Notice has been sent to
all known potential class members to inform them that they have
until November 14, 2014 to register and possibly share in the
settlement, which will be paid by Johns Hopkins' insurance
carriers.

"When the class action was certified," Mr. Heisler said, "former
patients of Dr. Levy were notified by the court that they could
have rights under any potential settlement.  But they must
register with the court to protect those rights.  We encourage all
women and girls who may have been victims of this doctor's illegal
and scandalous behavior to do so."

           About Steven H. Heisler, The Injury Lawyer

Since his graduation from the University of Baltimore Law School
in 1988, Steven H. Heisler has focused on making a difference for
those who have suffered an injury in Maryland or the District of
Columbia.  For more information, please visit
http://www.theinjurylawyermd.com/


KODIAK OIL: Being Sold at Unfair Price, "Reiter" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Reiter, Derivatively on Behalf of Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corporation, and Individually on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, William
J. Krysiak, Rodney D. Knutson, Herrick K. Lidstone, Jr., Whiting
Petroleum Corporation, and 1007695 B.C. Ltd. and Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02176 (D. Colo., August 6, 2014),
seeks to enjoin defendants from further breaching their fiduciary
duties in their pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair
price through an unfair process.

Kodiak Oil & Gas Corporation is a Canadian company focused on the
exploration, exploitation, acquisition, and production of natural
gas and crude oil in the United States.

Whiting Petroleum Corporation is an independent exploration and
production company with an oil focused asset base.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Kodiak Oil
& Gas Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian James Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com


L & K RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ying Jie Zhao and Jian Jun Li, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. L & K Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Asian Wok
Xiaohua Zhu a/k/a Ken Zhu and "John " Zhu, Case No. 1:14-cv-06103
(S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

L & K Restaurant, Inc. operates a restaurant known as Asian Wok at
88 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      Honhohn Zeiss, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: iohntroy@pllc.com
              tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Misrepresented Company Facts
----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Nguyen, 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-06182
(S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
misrepresented material facts about the business, operations and
management of the Company.

L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. supplies command and control,
communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
systems and products, avionics, ocean products, training devices
and services, instrumentation, space, and navigation products to
the United States Departments of Defense and Homeland Security,
the United States government intelligence agencies, NASA,
aerospace contractors and commercial telecommunications and
wireless customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Employees' 401(K) Class Action Approved for Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that a
class-action lawsuit brought by employees of Lockheed Martin
Corp., Bethesda, Md., has been approved for trial by a U.S.
district court judge.

The lawsuit, which was filed in September 2006 and has been
remanded twice, now represents more than 100,000 employees and
retirees questioning the fees and investments of two Lockheed
Martin 401(k) plans, including a stable value fund and company
stock, which the plaintiffs allege were imprudent investments.

In addition to upholding the excessive fee and company stock
investment claims, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Reagan in
East St. Louis, Ill., also on Aug. 1 allowed the plaintiffs in
Abbott vs. Lockheed Martin Corp. to proceed with their stable
value fund claim, which he said "compels certification."  A Dec. 1
trial date is expected to be confirmed in September.

Defined contribution plan assets total $27.7 billion.

Schlichter Bogard & Denton was appointed class counsel, and
Mr. Reagan said he intends to appoint Lloyd Cueto, a retired St.
Clair County, Ill., judge, to mediate a resolution.


MACQUARIE GROUP: Class Action Lawyers Amid Compliance Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael West, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Macquarie Group is motoring along in top gear again but it can now
see John Walker, chief executive of litigation funder IMF Bentham,
looming in its rear vision mirror.

The class lawsuit fraternity has been tailing Macquarie, and
indeed all the banks for years, but Mr. Walker has now drawn fully
into view:

"IMF is aware of the issues raised in the enforceable undertaking
in respect of Macquarie Private Wealth and is interested in
talking to more people who were clients of MPW and who may have
been subject to breaches of standards for financial services," he
told Fairfax he is talking to victims.

The challenge for Mr. Walker is not so much getting victim
numbers.  These are legion, as evidenced again in the weekend
story by Adele Ferguson and Ben Butler over the widespread
compliance breaches at Macquarie Private Wealth (MPW).

Nor is the pot of money at issue.  Macquarie is a rich target,
even if it fights every case tooth and nail.  Rather, the
conundrum for Mr. Walker is in coalescing the myriad claims for
faulty financial advice and the consequent client losses into one
representative action.

Losses span an array of financial products and Macquarie will seek
to defend each case separately, effectively taking Mr. Walker and
the plaintiff law firms out of the picture.

The critical question for the bank and its shareholders is the
size of the liability.  What is the overall exposure here?

In what came as a surprise to many, the presentation to the bank's
annual general meeting presentation the week before last contained
a slide on the "remediation process".

Out of the blue -- perhaps prompted by its own lawyers or the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) which had
struck an Enforceable Undertakings (EU) arrangement in 2012 with
the bank to address its compliance failures -- Macquarie announced
a review process with the regulator and Deloitte was under way.

The slide noted the bank was writing to its clients to inform them
of the MPW remediation process.  The number of clients potentially
affected was put at 87,000 "of which a significant number are high
net worth".

This may be the number now but the number of clients of Macquarie
Private Wealth in 2012 when the EU was struck was 319,500
according to newspaper reports the next day.

The numbers, and their divergence, are substantial issues for the
bank when calculating its exposure to claims for inappropriate
advice.

Using an average $100,000 loss per client (losses include loss of
future earnings from depleted capital), you get an exposure of
$8.7 billion for 87,000 clients.  On a client base of 319,500
however the exposure is almost $32 billion.  Which number is
right, the figure put to the ASX or the higher numbers from two
years earlier when the EU was struck?

Working backwards, let's say the bank reckons its overall exposure
at $1 billion.  That would suggest an average loss of just over
$3000 per client (if the number of clients was 319,500).  If the
client base was 87,000, a $1 billion exposure would mean an
average loss of just $11,500.

Is Macquarie really saying that the average loss per client since
before the global financial crisis amounts to just $11,494.25 per
client?

That's only a 1 per cent loss on a $1 million portfolio.

The EU with ASIC came about in the wake of an internal audit
conducted by a team called Adviser Solutions in 2008, which found
that more than 80 per cent of advisers in the nation's largest
stockbroking house were not in compliance with the industry
standards prescribed in the then financial services regime.

Redolent of the regulatory delays to address the compliance
failures at the Commonwealth Bank, there was a three-year hiatus
until ASIC announced its EU program.

Incredibly, in the wake of the EU, Macquarie then shifted many of
its clients from retail client status to sophisticated client
status (wholesale clients are not required the same level of
advice and care as retail clients).  ASIC has been made aware of
this mass transition but its response is as yet unknown.

Whatever the outcome, it should be said that the actions against
Macquarie and CBA are a response to widespread compliance failures
but these sorts of failures are by no means contained to these two
banks.  The advisory market is similarly fraught elsewhere by
client losses stemming from poor advice, excessive product
leverage and commissions.  It is just that Macquarie and CBA were,
on the whole, more aggressive in their product sales and cultures
than their rivals, and in the case of Macquarie, exacerbated by
billions in sales of derivatives products and margin loans.


MICHELINOS PIZZERIA: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Fajardo v. Michelinos Pizzeria, and Michael Lobrace,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04925 (D.N.J., August 5, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff,
and those similarly situated employees, for all overtime hours
worked in a work week.

Michelinos Pizzeria is a restaurant located in Elizabeth, Union
County, New Jersey owned by Michael Lobrace.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MODA HEALTH PLAN: Sued Over Exclusion of ABA Therapy Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
A.M., by and through his parents and guardians, B.M. and L.M.,
individually, on behalf of Vancouver Clinic Health Benefit Plan
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals and plans v.
Moda Health Plan, Inc., an Oregon, Case No. 2:14-cv-01191 (W.D.
Wash., August 5, 2014), seeks to end the Defendant's standard
practice of routinely excluding coverage of medically necessary
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy to treat autism spectrum
disorder.

Early and intensive provision of medically necessary Applied
Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy can dramatically improve the
health and life-long wellbeing of insureds with ASD.

Moda Health Plan, Inc. is an authorized health carrier engaged in
the business of insurance in the State of Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
      Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
      SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
      999 Third Avenue, Ste 3650
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 223-0303
      Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
      E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
              rspoonemore@sylaw.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: September 19 Concussion Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Henry, writing for KFSM, reports that the NCAA has reached a
preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit over concussions
brought by former college athletes.  As previously reported by
CBSSports.com's Dennis Dodd, the agreement filed on July 29 calls
for the NCAA to provide $70 million for concussion testing and
diagnosis of current and former NCAA players to settle several
claims.

A Fayetteville resident and former University of Arkansas student,
Angela Palacios, 21, who played soccer at Ouachita Baptist
University, is one of the athletes who filed the class-action
lawsuit.  Ms. Palacios said she has had three concussions.  She
said she was told to take the field despite having a concussion.
Unlike the NFL's proposed $765 million concussion settlement, the
NCAA's proposed agreement covers only diagnostic medical expenses.
It preserves college athletes' rights to sue their universities or
the NCAA for personal-injury damages, although some opponents of
the settlement say the agreement is not a good one.

The NCAA settlement was filed on July 29 in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois.  It still requires the approval of
Judge John Z. Lee, who held a hearing on July 29 on the matter
without yet issuing a ruling.

The settlement establishes a 50-year medical monitoring program
for all current and former college athletes in any sport, with $70
million going toward screening for long-term brain damage and $5
million going to research.  The NCAA agreed not to oppose
attorneys' fees up to $15 million and out-of-pocket expenses up to
$750,000 out of the $75 million pot.

Among the changes agreed to in the settlement:

* Baseline testing in the preseason for every athlete in which he
or she competes.

* Requiring medical personnel who are trained in concussion
diagnosis and treatment to attend all games and practices for all
NCAA contact sports.  The settlement defines contact sports as
football, lacrosse, wrestling, ice hockey, field hockey, soccer
and basketball.

* Prohibiting athletes from returning to competition on the same
day they are diagnosed with a concussion.

* Requiring that schools provide NCAA-approved concussion training
to athletes, coaches and athletic trainers prior to each season.

* Implementing concussion tracking so schools will report
concussions and their resolutions.

"The settlement basically changes the future of college sports
forever," said Joe Siprut, a lead attorney in the case. "It
accomplishes for the first time in history implementation of
return to play guidelines that the NCAA has never really had.
That's what this case was about: the absence of those guidelines."

The first concussion lawsuit was filed in September 2011 on behalf
of former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington.  He
was joined by Ms. Palacios of Fayetteville, former Central
Arkansas football player Derek Owens and former Maine hockey
player Kyle Solomon in the initial lawsuit.  Copycat lawsuits were
filed and they were merged into one case.

The settlement states Mr. Arrington, Mr. Owens, Ms. Palacios and
Mr. Solomon could each apply for $5,000 from the medical
monitoring fund due to their time and service.  Eight other named
plaintiffs could apply for $2,500.

           'Fundamentally different than NFL settlement'

Steve Berman, who on July 29 was named co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, said the NCAA case is fundamentally different than the
proposed NFL settlement.

If there was billions of dollars available in an NCAA settlement,
"why wouldn't I have gone for it?" Mr. Berman told Judge Lee
during the July 29 hearing.  "I like big-ticket cases.  I've done
a lot of big-ticket cases.  If I could have expanded this into the
billion-dollar NFL case, I would have. The NFL has 45 personal
injury claims so there's a mass of people you could work with.
. . . The NFL could buy peace for PR purposes.  In this case,
there are very few individual cases out there.  There's not a
groundswell suggesting even a need for a class action like in the
NFL."

Mr. Siprut said the settlement is a creation of a medical
monitoring program that will help identify injuries on an
individual basis.

"If you think about the amount of money that will be necessary to
pay for personal injuries of every single college athlete, it
would be billions and billions of dollars," Mr. Siprut said.
"That's not what we're doing with this settlement."

If the medical monitoring fund is depleted before 50 years, the
settlement says class members may pursue "on an individual,
non-class basis claims seeking medical monitoring."  If it appears
the $70 million fund is going to be depleted before the expiration
of the medical monitoring period, the plaintiffs' lawyers may
serve the NCAA notice requiring that they meet within 30 days to
consider additional funding.

"In such event, the NCAA and/or its insurers may elect to deposit
or cause to be deposited additional funds into the Settlement
Account for the Medical Monitoring Fund but shall not be required
to do so," the settlement states.

Within 45 days of the preliminary approval date of the settlement,
a request for proposals will be issued to medical institutions in
at least 10 regionally geographic locations to provide the
evaluations to class members. The medical monitoring program would
start within 90 days from the effective date.

Class members who want to participate must first complete a
screening questionnaire to determine whether they qualify for a
medical evaluation.  The screening program will assess "self-
reported symptoms and cognitive, mood, behavioral, and motor
problems that may be associated with persistent post-concussion
syndrome and/or mid- to late-life onset problems, such as Chronic
Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and related disorders," according
to the settlement.

A medical science committee would oversee the screening process
and other aspects of the medical monitoring fund.  The proposed
members of the committee are NCAA chief medical officer Dr. Brian
Hainline, Dr. Robert Cantu, Dr. Ruben Echemendia, and another
expert still to be named.

The committee would annually review the screening questionnaire
and the scope of the medical evaluations.  Retired federal judge
Wayne Andersen would chair the committee as a tie-breaking vote.

An algorithm would be designed by the committee to score responses
from the questionnaire, which determines if athletes get a medical
evaluation.  Evidence during the questionnaire that an athlete may
commit suicide may warrant immediate evaluation and possible
intervention prior to a medical evaluation, the settlement states.

Some of the terms of how athletes would be monitored under the
program:

* Athletes could complete the screening questionnaire no more than
once every five years until they turn 50, and no more than once
every two years after they turn 50 and before the medical
monitoring period expires.

* Athletes could have up to five total screening questionnaires
during the 50-year period. Additional screenings could be provided
on a case-by-case basis.

* Athletes could qualify up to two times for a medical evaluation
during the 50-year period. If an athlete seeks a third medical
evaluation "and can demonstrate a showing of significant symptoms
or loss of function in the areas of cognition, behavior, mood or
movement," the medical science committee could determine if
further evaluation is appropriate.

* If an athlete does three screening questionnaires without
qualifying for an examination, any further questionnaires would be
sent to the medical science committee to review.

The NCAA admits no wrongdoing in the settlement, which states,
"The information generated through the Medical Monitoring Program,
including but not limited to the evaluation of completed Screening
Questionnaires, the results of Medical Evaluations, and written
reports documenting the evaluation of Medical Evaluations, does
not and shall not constitute an admission by the NCAA or any other
Released Person."

Can the settlement get approved?

Now the question is whether the NCAA and the concussion plaintiffs
can get the settlement approved.  The NFL has met resistance from
potential class members and, at one point, the judge to get its
concussion settlement finalized with more than 4,500 former
players.  The NCAA settlement already faces opposition.

Attorney Jay Edelson, who represents former San Diego State
football player Andy Nichols and former Pittsburgh football player
Frank Moore, said there is a "large camp" of attorneys and clients
who are very concerned about the settlement and plan to oppose it.

"What the case was originally about was people who suffered real
injuries from concussions," Mr. Edelson said.  "If you look at the
NFL settlement, and I'm not taking a position whether it's good or
bad, there's going to be people who gets hundreds of thousands of
dollars of cash.  Here nobody is getting anything.  I think we
lost focus of what the purpose of the case was: get cash in
people's hands."

Mr. Edelson said the idea that players with concussion-related
symptoms can fill out a questionnaire and possibly get another
medical evaluation "doesn't do them any good.  Having another
doctor say they have medical issues? So what?"

The settlement contends that it would be "unsupportable" to get a
personal-injury class certified.

"Lead Plaintiffs made the strategic decision to support a $70
million Medical Monitoring Program with meaningful changes to the
NCAA's return to play practices in return for waiving a virtually
non-existent right to class personal injury claims," the
settlement states.  "In sum, Plaintiffs likely could not have
achieved the same victory -- a comprehensive Medical Monitoring
Program for all living NCAA athletes under 50 states' laws and
significant changes to the NCAA's concussion-management and
return-to-play guidelines -- on a contested basis."

Mr. Berman, the plaintffs' lead attorney, said the medical
treatment for players isn't being paid for because the NCAA
wouldn't assume liability on a class-wide basis since injuries
vary based on individual cases, and because most athletes will be
covered by their insurance.

"We studied that, and they're probably not paying out of pocket"
for treatment after NCAA-funded medical evaluations, Mr. Berman
said.

At the July 29 hearing, Berman told Judge John Z. Lee this was a
tradeoff that was in the best interests of the class.  NCAA
attorney Mark Mester said the NCAA disagrees with some of the
characterizations of what the association did or didn't do, but
"we know if we don't dismiss the (class action) claims, there will
be incentive for other lawyers to file class action."

Mr. Berman said he intentionally spelled out in documents the
"playbook" for how to sue the NCAA or schools over individual
claims.

"I've got some clients and I'm pursuing some clients who are going
to have personal injury claims," Mr. Berman said.  "I think there
will be more personal injury claims when this news comes out."

Judge Lee questioned how the $70 million number was established
for the fund.  Mr. Berman said it came from medical experts and
economists analyzing concussion rates in football and other sports
and multiplying them over time given estimated medical injury and
CTE cases.

"We have some real hard numbers," Mr. Berman said.  "A lot of
homework went into this."

Mr. Berman said there are roughly 4.2 million class members, with
700,000 who played football and 1.1 million who played other
contact sports.

Judge Lee emphasized he needs to determine even in a settlement
whether there's an appropriate class to certify given that
athletes are waiving their rights to proceed seeking personal-
injury damages as a class.  Lawyers for the NCAA and the
plaintiffs argued past cases allow for a "hybrid settlement."

Judge Lee set the next hearing for Sept. 19.  The plaintiffs had
until August 8 to file a memo.  Mr. Edelson has until Aug. 28 to
file an objection to the settlement.

Union activist criticizes settlement

Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players
Association, said the settlement has "red flags written all over
it."  Mr. Huma said the NCAA's "shameful handling of concussions"
is the primary reason he is trying to unionize college sports.

Mr. Huma said protections mentioned in the settlement for athletes
moving forward would be suggested guidelines that are
unenforceable.

Under terms of the settlement, the NCAA executive committee would
recommend that the governing bodies of Division I, II and III pass
legislation requiring member schools to certify they have a
concussion management plan that meets the settlement's
requirements.

"There's a reporting mechanism that the schools have to report to
the NCAA that they're in compliance, and they have to give a
yearly report on the number of concussions they treated,"
Mr. Berman said. "So there's real teeth in this."

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said the association is working
through details on funding sources for the settlement, but they
are expected to include payments from NCAA insurance carriers.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said his understanding is that
more than 90 percent of the money would come from insurance
carriers, with some small amount of NCAA reserve money going
toward research.

Mr. Delany said the proposed settlement is a good outcome by
mitigating the damages claims.

"Individuals can certainly pursue their own cause of action if
there's a cause of action," Mr. Delany said.  "I think it's a good
outcome where you can settle and you can provide something that's
not there now for future athletes.  It makes people more aware.  I
think somebody noted, well, maybe Ohio State and Southern Cal are
doing these things.  But there's thousands and thousands of
athletes at a thousand schools so this probably ups the standards
for everybody."

Mr. Delany said college sports leaders and health officials are
attempting to do the best they can with incomplete information
about concussions.  "Right now we're acting a little bit in the
dark because there are 38 different definitions of what concussion
is," Delany said.

In the short term, the NCAA and the plaintiffs' lawyers will try
to sell a settlement that's already been met with some opposition.
Finalizing the settlement could take several months and may not be
easy.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Retired Players' Concussion Suit Nears Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan I Fetterman, personal injury attorney, in article for
LawFuel, reports that the class action involving National Football
League players is nearing the final playout.  The approval of a
preliminary settlement agreement is currently under the scrutiny
of a federal judge.

Will it mean the end of the case?

A massive class action lawsuit that has put former players and the
National Football League on opposing teams is in the fourth
quarter of play.  Approval of a preliminary settlement
agreement recently under scrutiny by a federal judge is perhaps
bring the case to an end.

A class of over 4,500 former players filed the suit just days
before professional football's regular season kick off in 2013.
The most recent phase of the litigation involved months of court
ordered mediation and other negotiations between the parties.

                   Serious Injuries Alleged

Retired players brought the suit after experiencing serious health
conditions that they allege came from their careers on the
gridiron.  Among the ailments said to be linked to wear and tear
on the field include Alzheimer's, depression, and dementia.
Citing bad faith conduct as part of the cause of their health
issues, the plaintiff's sought redress in court.

At the heart of the matter is a condition known as Chronic
traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.  It has come to be known that
CTE can be traced to concussion-related brain damage, and can
bring about diagnosis of ALS and Parkinson's disease, as well as
many others.

Players assert that season after season enduring concussions and
heavy impact on the field brought about their present medical
issues. Furthermore, plaintiff said the NFL was not forthcoming
about the dangers of concussions in the long-term and would put
injured players back in the game before it was safe to do so.

Additionally, players claimed that the NFL promoted and exploited
the violence of the game for profit.  For their part, the National
Football League maintained that safety was a foremost concern in
the organization.

                     Hall of Fame Plaintiffs

Among the injured players bringing suit were former star
quarterback Jim McMahon who brought the Chicago Bears to a
Superbowl victory in 1985.  Hall of Famer and Rookie of the Year
Tony Dorsett, who started his career with the Cowboys, is
also a class member.  The family of Junior Seau, whose death by
suicide has been linked to his injuries, also joined the
class.

The settlement, as it stands now, offers plaintiffs monetary
damages paid annually over 65 years.  A planned damage cap of
approximately $775 million was removed by the federal judge after
concerns that the necessary amount would exceed the
cap.  Presently, there is no maximum payout limit written into the
potential agreement.

Seventy-five million dollars would go to screening all retired
players to see if they have suffered harm.  After that, all
eligible players would receive between $1.5 and $5 million for
treatment and compensation for injury.

However, another hearing to review the fairness of the agreement
is scheduled for November.

Should the final agreement be ok'd, former players would be able
to register for their portion.


NIPPON SEIKI: November 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS (ALSO KNOWN AS METERS)
DIRECTLY FROM NIPPON SEIKI, DENSO, OR YAZAKI BETWEEN JANUARY 1,
2001 AND MAY 16, 2014, YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH NIPPON SEIKI.

A proposed $5.25 million settlement has been reached in In re
Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2311, 2:12-cv-00201-
MoB-MKM) (E.D. Mich.), with defendants Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd., N.S.
International, Ltd., and New Sabina Industries, Inc.
(collectively, "Nippon Seiki").

What is the lawsuit about? This class action is part of
coordinated legal proceedings involving a number of parts used in
motor vehicles.  The litigation, and the proposed settlement,
relate solely to Instrument Panel Clusters purchased directly from
a defendant.  These proceedings do not relate to, and have no
effect upon cases involving any other product or purchaser.

"Instrument Panel Clusters," for purposes of the settlement, are
the mounted array of instruments and gauges housed in front of the
driver of a motor vehicle.  They are also known as meters.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants entered into a conspiracy to
suppress and eliminate competition for Instrument Panel Clusters
by agreeing to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices, rig
bids, and allocate markets and customers for Instrument Panel
Clusters, in violation of federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiff
further alleges that, as a result of the conspiracy, it and other
direct purchasers of Instrument Panel Clusters were injured by
paying more for those products than they should have paid, and
seek recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of
costs and an award of attorneys' fees.

Nippon Seiki and other defendants deny plaintiff's allegations,
and the Court has not issued any findings or rulings on the merits
of plaintiff's claims or defendants' defenses.  This is a partial
settlement of the claims in the Complaint, as it is with Nippon
Seiki only.  The litigation is continuing against the remaining
defendants.

Who is included? The Class is composed of all persons or entities
who purchased Instrument Panel Clusters in the United States
directly from any of the following defendants (or from any of
their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, or
affiliates) during the period from January 1, 2001 up to and
including May 16, 2014 (the "Class Period): Nippon Seiki Co.,
Ltd.; N.S. International, Ltd.; New Sabina Industries, Inc.;
Yazaki Corporation; Yazaki North America Inc.; Denso Corporation;
and Denso International America, Inc.

A Notice of Proposed Settlement was mailed to potential Direct
Purchaser Settlement Class members on or about July 30, 2014.  The
Notice describes the litigation and options available to Direct
Purchaser Settlement Class members with respect to the Nippon
Seiki settlement in more detail.  If you did not receive the
Notice you may obtain a copy on internet at
www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com or by calling or writing to
the following Settlement Class Counsel:

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class

What does the settlement provide? Nippon Seiki has paid the amount
of $5.25 million (the "Settlement Fund") into an escrow account
and will cooper with plaintiff in the prosecution of the claims
against the remaining defendants.

Your rights may be affected. If you purchased Instrument Panel
Clusters in the United States directly from any defendant during
the Class Period, you will automatically remain a Direct Purchaser
Settlement Class member as to the Nippon Seiki settlement unless
you elect to be excluded.  If you wish to remain in the Direct
Purchaser Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action at
this time and your interests will be represented by plaintiff and
by Settlement Class Counsel.

If you don't want to be bound by the settlement, you must submit a
written request for exclusion, postmarked no later than
September 13, 2014.  If you validly exclude yourself from the
Direct Purchaser Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any
decision concerning the Nippon Seiki settlement and you may have
against Nippon Seiki, but you will not be eligible to share in the
Settlement Fund created by the Nippon Seiki settlement.

If you stay in the Settlement Class, you have the right to object
to the proposed Nippon Seiki settlement and to plaintiff's request
to utilize a portion of the Settlement Fund to pay for litigation
expenses.  Your object must be filed no later than September 13,
2014.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on November 5, 2014, to consider
whether to approve the proposed settlement and plaintiff's request
to utilize a portion of the Settlement Fund to pay plaintiff's
litigation expenses.  The hearing may be continued without further
notice.

If you believe you are a member of the Direct Purchaser Settlement
Class, you are urged to obtain a copy of the detailed Notice,
which discusses your rights regarding the Nippon Seiki settlement.

If you have questions concerning this litigation, you may contact
Settlement Class Counsel identified above.

Do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge.

Dated: August 8, 2014

BY ORDER OF:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division


NEIMAN MARCUS: Accused of Deceiving Consumers in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action accuses
Neiman Marcus of deceiving consumers by labeling clothes for sale
at its Last Call discount stores with tags comparing the prices to
traditional Neiman Marcus stores -- though the clothes were never
offered for sale there.

Lead plaintiff Linda Rubenstein accuses The Neiman Marcus Group of
false advertising, unfair competition and violating state consumer
law, in her Aug. 7 complaint in California Superior Court.

Neiman Marcus's 41 U.S. retail outlets reported more than $400
million in revenue in 2013, Rubenstein says in the lawsuit.  The
company also runs 35 Last Call stores, which sell clothes more
cheaply.

Clothing sales at such factory outlet stores rose by 17.8 percent
in 2011, far faster than industry-wide clothing sales growth of
1.4 percent that year, according to the complaint.

Rubinstein claims that Neiman Marcus "immersed themselves into
this lucrative industry" by claiming to sell "the alleged exact
same clothing after season and/or excess clothing that defendant's
traditional stores once carried, but for a discounted price."

She claims that Neiman Marcus "labels its Last Call clothing with
a tag that shows a markedly lower price from the 'Compared to'
price which corresponds to the price that appears to be used in
traditional Neiman Marcus retail stores."

But it's not true, Rubinstein says.  "Defendant's Last Call
clothing is actually not intended for sale at the traditional
Neiman Marcus stores as the 'Compared to' pricing strategy
suggests, but rather strictly for the Last Call store.  Therefore,
defendant's price tags on the Last Call clothing are labeled with
arbitrary, inflated 'Compared to' prices that are purely
imaginative because it was never sold at the traditional Neiman
Marcus store and therefore can't be compared to any price.  Thus
the insinuated price is false and misleading."

Rubinstein claims that the Federal Trade Commission has received
complaints from "many members of Congress" about this deceptive
strategy.

She seeks class certification, disgorgement and restitution, an
accounting, statutory and exemplary damages, and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather M. Baker, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Ave, Fl 3
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: hmp@kirtlandpackard.com


NELNET BUSINESS: Got Prelim. OK of Deal in Collection Calls Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet can pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it recorded
collection calls about student loan debts, reports Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

The case is Than Zaw v. Nelnet Business Solutions Inc.; Nelnet,
Inc.; and Nelnet Servicing, LLC; and Does 1-100, Case No. C 13-
05788 RS, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.


OLD WORLD BRICK: Faces "Solorzano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Solorzano, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Old World Brick Paving, Inc. and Christien
Calistro, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05994 (N.D. Ill., August
5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Old World Brick Paving, Inc. is a brick paving contractor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


PARTS AUTHORITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Don" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Don, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Parts Authority, Inc., and Woodbury
Automotive Warehouse Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-04663
(E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Parts Authority, Inc. and Woodbury Automotive Warehouse
Enterprises, LLC are distributors or automotive and truck parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Blvd.
      Roslyn, NY 11578
      Telephone: (516) 625-0105
      Facsimile: (516) 625-0106
      E-mail: lg@louisginsberglawoffices.com


PAWSITIVE SERVICE: Faces Fraud Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Hubert, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that Pawsitive
Service Dog Solutions is facing a class action.

Yuba County nonprofit group assured them would be highly trained
to help their autistic son Sammy with his anxiety and his tendency
to wander into dangerous situations.

What they got in return for their investment in Bolt, a boxer mix,
was a "very sweet" family pet incapable of performing the tasks
needed to assist their 4-year-old son, they said.

"Bolt is a very good boy," said Emily James.  "He will always have
a home with us.  But he's not a service dog by any means."

Others in California and across the country who had similar
experiences with Pawsitive Service Dog Solutions are calling the
corporation a fraud, and demanding refunds of money that in many
cases they raised through emotional appeals to the public.

Four families have filed a lawsuit against Pawsitive in Santa
Clara Superior Court, alleging fraud and breach of contract, among
other things.  More than 20 others may join the lawsuit, said Los
Altos attorney Matthew Coleman, who is representing the group.
Some of the families received dogs "completely unsuited" to help
their children, he said.  Others deposited money with Pawsitive
and received nothing in return.

The nonprofit, incorporated in 2011, is in the process of filing
for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, said Chico attorney Doug
Jacobs, who is representing the company in the dissolution.
Families who invested in the dogs have no guarantee that they will
receive reimbursement for their losses, he said.

"We're turning it all over to a bankruptcy trustee," Mr. Jacobs
said.

According to the lawsuit, families of children with autism and
other disorders contracted with Pawsitive to obtain trained
service dogs to perform tasks such as "tethering," to keep
youngsters from bolting away from their parents; "scent tracking,"
to locate children in case they slipped away from adult
supervision; and "applying pressure" to anxious youngsters to calm
them.

Pawsitive told prospective clients that the corporation spent
about $25,000 to breed, raise and train each service dog,
according to the lawsuit.  Families were expected to provide about
half of that cost, and dogs would be matched with children based
on the individual needs of the client.  Pawsitive pledged to
provide "ongoing support" to families that received its service
dogs.

On its website, the company claimed to "train and partner healthy,
reliable, exclusively bred, highly trained service dogs with
individuals of all ages challenged by Autism Spectrum Disorders
and other developmental disabilities, thereby providing relief,
security, and a dramatically improved quality of life to the
affected individual and their families."

But Pawsitive and its dogs were not as advertised, according to
the lawsuit.  The animals the families received were unable to
perform even basic tasks, the suit says, and exhibited behaviors
"wholly inconsistent" with trained service animals.

In one case, a dog named Curly dragged a family's young daughter
"through the house by the arm and leg, as if the child were a
toy," it says.  The dog, supposedly trained to prevent a teenager
with Down syndrome from bolting away and getting lost, is
skittish, fails to come when called and "could not care less"
about where the teen goes, according to the court document.

Another Pawsitive dog, named Cooper, was supposed to accompany a
young autistic girl to school to keep her calm.  But Cooper was
"unable to apply pressure to her without walking all over her" and
making her cry.  He grabbed food out of the hands of
schoolchildren, and failed a basic "canine good citizenship"
training program.

A third Pawsitive dog, Java, matched with a 6-year-old autistic
boy, tried to climb into a primate exhibit and dive into a
flamingo pond during a school trip, and did not respond to basic
commands, the suit says.

The suit alleges that Pawsitive does not raise its service dogs
from puppies, as it claims; fails to train dogs in accordance with
industry standards; and overcharges clients.  The corporation also
has failed to maintain proper financial records and engages in
false advertising, the court document claims.

Carmel Mooney, executive director of Pawsitive, did not return
messages seeking comment about the lawsuit, nor did her attorney,
Gina Gingery.

Mr. Jacobs, the bankruptcy lawyer, blamed Pawsitive's downfall on
"one disgruntled person" who launched a campaign on the Internet
that quickly snowballed and sent the corporation into a free fall.

"Unfortunately, this is the society that we live in," said
Mr. Jacobs.  "Based on the words of one disgruntled person,
clients started to jump off.  No one was interested in fulfilling
their contractual agreements.  The money stopped coming in, and
the coffers were drained.  It's a horrible statement when things
just blow up, and people choose to believe evil things rather than
good ones."

Emily James has a far different take on the situation.  She said
Pawsitive callously preyed on families desperate for help for
their children.

Her son Sammy has a tendency to break away from the grasp of his
parents and "do things that are inherently dangerous," including
running into streets and parking lots, Ms. James said.  The family
tried electronic tracking devices, among other techniques, but
found them to be unreliable.  "We were having a very hard time
finding something to help us," she said.

After seeing a documentary about service dogs and autistic kids,
the family contacted Pawsitive and "they assured us they could
help," said Ms. James.  The family hosted bake sales and rummage
sales, solicited help from its church congregation and posted a
video online to attract donations to pay for a service dog. In
April, they sent $12,500 to the Yuba County nonprofit.  They later
sent another $1,500 for an unanticipated "placement fee," Emily
James said.

Soon after learning they had been matched with a dog they named
Bolt, the family attended a session hosted by a Pawsitive trainer.
They were surprised to find that "the dog was not trained for
tracking at all," Ms. James said.  "Sam would hide. The trainer
would give the dog a command for finding Sam, and Bolt just sat
down.  He was also bad at very basic stuff.  He refused to sit
unless you said it six or eight times."

Last month, as the dog was still "in training," Ms. James said,
she learned that Pawsitive would be filing for bankruptcy
protection and would no longer be placing dogs with clients.
Ms. James and her husband demanded the dog that they had paid for,
and got him.  But they still feel bilked.

"He didn't come with papers, a vaccination schedule, a health
history, or anything like that," she said.  "He was just a naked
dog.  He didn't even have a collar."

The family plans to pay for further training for Bolt, but "we're
not sure he'll ever be a service dog," Ms. James said.

She and her husband intend to join the lawsuit against Pawsitive,
which was filed in May.

The suit asks for an injunction preventing Pawsitive from
misrepresentations to the public, a mandate that the company turn
over its financial records, restitution for "ill-gotten gains" by
the corporation and unspecified monetary damages.

Coleman, the lawyer who filed the claim, said he and the families
he represents will appeal to the California attorney general,
which oversees charitable organizations, to intervene and recover
funds "squandered" by Pawsitive.

They also are calling for state regulatory oversight of the
service dog industry "so that families with developmentally
disabled children, who already are stressed, don't fall prey to
unscrupulous or incompetent 'service dog mills' such as what we've
seen here."


PELLA CORPORATION: Sued Over Latent Defects in Clad Windows
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Crampton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pella Corporation, an Iowa corporation, and
Pella Windows and Doors, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-06013 (N.D. Ill., August 5, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants' aluminum-clad windows contain a latent defect that
allows water to penetrate and leak behind the aluminum cladding,
resulting in premature wood rot and other physical damage to both
the window and main structure.

The Defendants manufacture and sell Pella windows with its
principal place of business in Pella, Iowa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
      Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
      120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 899-9090
      E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com
              rac@cliffordlaw.com


PENN WEST: Sued in N.Y. Over Manipulation of Financial Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Vollbeer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Penn West Petroleum, Ltd., David E. Roberts, Todd H.
Takeyasu, Murray R. Nunns and Jeffrey Curran, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06203 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendants used
accounting sleight of hand in order to artificially manipulate
operating costs, royalty expenses and capital expenditures in a
manner designed to fraudulently inflate the Company's bottom line
and "funds flow."

Penn West Petroleum, Ltd. is a senior exploration and production
company and is one of the largest conventional oil and natural gas
producers in Canada.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Penn West
Petroleum, Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Ave., 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile:(212)545-4653
      E-mail: Nespole@whafh.com
              Kaufman@whafh.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, Massachusetts 02110
      Telephone: (617)398-5600
      Facsimile: (617)507-6020
      E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
              Jason@blockesq.com
              Mark@blockesq.com


PENN WEST: Wolf Popper Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Penn West Petroleum, Ltd., and certain of
its current and former officers, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of Penn West common stock on the
New York Stock Exchange during the period May 1, 2012 through July
29, 2014, and were damaged thereby.  This action alleges claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than October 3, 2014 to be appointed a lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased Penn West on the NYSE during the Class Period and
suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their
rights.

The Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, including that the Company was understating
operating costs and overstating capital expenditures and royalty
expenses; and the Company's improper accounting practices were
causing Penn West to be at risk of non-compliance with certain of
its debt covenants.

On July 29, 2014, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee
was conducting an internal review of certain of its accounting
practices.  Thus far, the Audit Committee has concluded that the
Company improperly reclassified approximately $181 million in
operating expenses as capital expenditures, and had "incorrectly
reclassified" approximately $200 million in additional operating
expenses as royalty expenses for 2012 and 2013.  The Company will
restate its past financial statements for years 2012 and 2013 and
certain interim periods, and consequently, may not be in
compliance with certain of its debt covenants.

On this news, Penn West shares declined $1.30 per share or 14% on
July 30, 2014.

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel: (877) 370-7703
Fax: (877) 370-7704
E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


PENN WEST: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Aug. 5 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Penn West
securities between May 4, 2012 and July 29, 2014, inclusive,
seeking to recover damages for violations of the federal
securities laws.

To join the Penn West class action, visit the firm's website
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-320.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The class action alleges the Company issued materially false and
misleading financial statements to investors.  Specifically that:
(a) Penn West improperly classified operating expenses as
property, plant and equipment without documentary support,
resulting in an overstatement of capital expenditures; (b) Penn
West incorrectly classified certain operating expenses as royalty
expenses; (c) Penn West lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; (d) Penn West was not in compliance with
certain of its covenants under its unsecured, revolving syndicated
bank facility; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, Penn West's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.  When these adverse facts entered the market, the
price of Penn West securities dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 3, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com.  You may also
visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-320.html

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Patent Protection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and
Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-00396 (E.D. Va.,
August 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendants implemented a scheme
to unlawfully prolong patent protection for celecoxib to avoid the
consequences of the Federal Circuit ruling invalidating the '068
patent and allowing earlier generic competition into the market
for Celebrex.

Pfizer, Inc. is engaged in the worldwide marketing, production,
and distribution of pharmaceutical products, including in this
district.

G.D. Searle LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business at 235 East 42nd Street, New
York, New York, 10017. It is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of
Pfizer Inc.

Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. is a Singapore private limited
company, with its principal place of business at 31 Tuas South
Avenue 6, Singapore 637578.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Steven Glasser, Esq.
      Kip Andrew Harbison, Esq.
      Marc Christian Greco, Esq.
      Melissa Marie Watson Goode, Esq.
      Michael Andrew Glasser, Esq.
      William Hanes Monroe Jr., Esq.
      GLASSER & GLASSER PLC
      580 E Main St., Suite 600
      Norfolk, VA 23510
      Telephone: (757) 625-6787
      Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
      E-mail: richardg@glasserlaw.com
              kip@glasslaw.com
              marcg@glasserlaw.com
              mgoode@glasserlaw.com
              michael@glasserlaw.com
              bill@glasserlaw.com

         - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215)875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
              zcaplan@bm.net


QR ENERGY: Faces "Taylor" Action Over Sale to Brietburn Energy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harry J. Taylor, as grantee for Roy E. Toler, Michelle Burt,
Michael Taylor, and Jennifer Taylor, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v.  Alan Smith, John Campbell, Jr.,
Donald Wolf, Stephen Thorington, Donald Powell, Richard Herbert,
Toby Neugebauer, S. Wil Vanloh, Jr., QR Energy LP, and QRE GP,
LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-02243 (S.D. Tex., August 5, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of their attempt to sell the Partnership to Breitburn
Energy Partners L.P., Breitburn GP, LLC, and Boom Merger Sub, LLC
by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price.

The Company Defendants are engaged in oil and natural gas
production.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of QR Energy
LP, and QRE GP, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM LLP
      700 Louisiana, Ste 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720
      Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com


ROYAL CARRIBEAN: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal and denied plaintiff's petition for
re-hearing and re-hearing en banc of a lawsuit by stateroom
attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean International cruise
vessels, according to Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s June 24,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of
stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean
International cruise vessels. The complaint alleges that the
stateroom attendants were required to pay other crew members to
help with their duties and that certain stateroom attendants were
required to work back of house assignments without the ability to
earn gratuities, in each case in violation of the U.S. Seaman's
Wage Act. Plaintiffs seek judgments for damages, wage penalties
and interest in an indeterminate amount. In May 2012, the Court
granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis
that the applicable collective bargaining agreement requires any
such claims to be arbitrated. The United States Court of Appeals,
11th Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal and denied Plaintiff's
petition for re-hearing and re-hearing en banc.


SANDFORD OIL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hernandez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Sandford Oil Company, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00839
(E.D. Tex., August 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sandford Oil Company, Inc. specializes in providing fuel
distribution and transportation services to various oilfield
installations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over Lead in Paint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company is a defendant in a number of legal
proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged
personal injuries as a result of ingestion of lead pigment or
lead-containing paint, according to the company's June 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company and other companies are defendants in a number of
legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from
alleged personal injuries. These proceedings include claims by
children allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-
containing paint and claims for damages allegedly incurred by the
children's parents or guardians. These proceedings generally seek
compensatory and punitive damages, and seek other relief including
medical monitoring costs. These proceedings include purported
claims by individuals, groups of individuals and class actions.


SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action v. EC Education Department Postponed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Malibongwe Dayimani, writing for Grocotts' Mail, reports that the
class action court case led by the Grahamstown-based Legal
Resources Centre (LRC) on behalf of 32 Eastern Cape schools
against the EC Department of Education, has been postponed.

The case deals with the appointment of teachers to vacant posts
and reimbursement to schools that paid teachers from their own
reserves instead of the government.  Sarah Shepton of the LRC told
Grocott's Mail on Aug. 4 that the case was postponed to allow the
new acting Education Head Ray Tywakadi time to bring himself up to
speed with the case's details.

The LRC is representing the School Governing Body (SGB) of
Linkside High School in Port Elizabeth and the SGBs of 31 other
affected schools in the Eastern Cape.  The involved parties
appeared briefly in the Grahamstown Magistrates Court on July 31
where Judge Clive Pasket postponed it until October 30, 2014.
According to the LRC website, the number of teachers involved in
the class action currently stands at 150 and they are owed up to
R25 million.

In January the two parties came to an agreement requiring the
Department of Basic Education to reimburse schools within 30 days
of the court order. So far, no school has been reimbursed.
George Dickerson Primary School Principal Melville Meiring told
Grocotts the department owes his school around R80 000.   He said
the school was paying four teachers from their own reserves,
through school fees.


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Pennsylvania woman has filed seven class action lawsuits against
various companies she claims have violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Sarah Heinzl named Zamagias Properties, WP Realty Inc., CVS
Caremark Corporation, Starbucks Corporation, Boston Market
Corporation, Kamin Realty Company and Quality Foods Corporation in
the seven class action lawsuits, claiming the companies deny full
access to their facilities for those with mobility disabilities,
according to seven class action complaints filed July 28 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Ms. Heinzl claims in June and July, and at other times, she
visited the defendants' properties and experienced unnecessary
difficulty and risk due to excessive slopes in purportedly
accessible parking spaces and access aisles and along routes to
the buildings' entrances.

As a result of the defendants' non-compliance with the ADA,
Ms. Heinzl's ability to access and use the defendants' facilities
has been significantly impeded, according to the suits.

"Though defendant has centralized policies regarding the
management and operation of its facilities, defendant has never
had a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated to make its
facilities fully accessible to, and independently usable by
individuals with mobility disabilities," one of the complaints
states.

Ms. Heinzl claims as an individual with a mobility disability who
is dependent on a wheelchair, she has a keen interest in whether
public accommodations have architectural barriers that impede full
accessibility to those accommodations by individuals with mobility
impairments.

The plaintiff intends to return to the defendants' facilities to
shop and to ascertain whether those facilities remain in violation
of the ADA, according to the suits.

"However, so long as the numerous architectural barriers at
defendant's facilities continue to exist, plaintiff will be
deterred from returning to defendant's facilities," one of the
complaints states.

Ms. Heinzl claims she brings the class actions on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
all wheelchair users who have attempted, or will attempt, to
access the defendants' facilities.

"The class described . . . is so numerous that joinder of all
individual members in one action would be impracticable," one of
the complaints states.  "The disposition of the individual claims
of the respective class members through this class action will
benefit both the parties and this Court."

Ms. Heinzl's claims are typical of the claims of the members of
the class.  The claims of the plaintiff and members of the class
are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same
unlawful conduct.

The plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because
her interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of
the class, according to the suits.

"Plaintiff will fairly, adequately and vigorously represent and
protect the interests of the members of the class and has no
interests antagonistic to the members of the class," one of the
complaints states.  "Plaintiff has retained counsel who are
competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action
litigation, generally, and who possess specific expertise in the
context of class litigation under the ADA."

Ms. Heinzl is seeking class certification and permanent
injunctions requiring the defendants to bring their properties
into compliance with the ADA.  She is represented by R. Bruce
Carlson, Stephanie Goldin and Carlos R. Diaz of Carlson Lynch Ltd.

The cases have been assigned to district judges Joy Flowers Conti,
David S. Cercone, Cathy Bissoon and Robert C. Mitchell.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case
numbers: 2:14-cv-00891, 2:14-cv-00963, 2:14-cv-00979, 2:14-cv-
00989, 2:14-cv-00997, 2:14-cv-01003, 2:14-cv-01010


STARDUST DINERS: "Rosa" Suit in Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jhonatan Rosa and Luis Osorio, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Stardust Diners, Inc. doing business
as: Colony Diner, George Strifas, Peter Strifas, and Thomas
Strifas, Case No. 2:14-cv-04645 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre-and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a restaurant known as Colony Diner located
in East Meadow, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric S. Tilton, Esq.
      ERIC S. TILTON, P.L.L.C.
      193 East Main Street
      Babylon, NY 11702
      Telephone: (631) 629-5291
      Facsimile: (516) 324-3170
      E-mail: erictiltonlaw@gmail.com


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces RICO Act Violation Suit in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. continues to face a lawsuit alleging violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 14, 2014.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The
Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all
proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Seeks Review of Judgment in Suit Over C&S Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. filed a petition for en banc review by the Eighth
Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and
specific issues in a lawsuit over a 2003 transaction with C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Inc., according to the company's June 24, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 14, 2014.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions.
On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit
for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied
the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District
Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court
ordered mandatory mediation which was not successful in resolving
the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1)
reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment
in favor of the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's
decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all
retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale
grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and
September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court
to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers
supplied from the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution
center. On June 18, 2014, the Company filed a petition for en banc
review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment
decision and specific issues raised thereunder.


SUPERVALU INC: Seeks Final Approval of FWW Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Final approval is being sought in a settlement reached in a
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in the District
of Connecticut by former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-Lot
over the fluctuating work week method of pay ("FWW"), according to
the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 14,
2014.

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-
Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent
current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week
method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the
District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby
employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a
week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for
overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful
or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method
of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday
pay, and bonus payments.

In March 2013, the United States District Court granted
conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of
whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the
United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for
summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is
permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state
laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case.

The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two
additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly
before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed
by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW
was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save-
A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim
against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment.

In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously,
plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the
matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the
Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to
settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and
settlement administration costs. The settlement is subject to the
applicable courts' preliminary and final approval. The court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014.
Final resolution is subject to the court's approval, which the
parties will seek in July 2014.

The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 million
before tax ($3 million after tax) in the second quarter of fiscal
2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter.
The Company funded $5 million into a qualified settlement fund on
February 28, 2014.


TEREX CORP: Motions to Dismiss Securities, ERISA Lawsuits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions by Terex Corporation to dismiss a securities lawsuit and a
lawsuit alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act are pending before a court, according to the
company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a
stockholder derivative lawsuit as follows:

     (i) A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
Litigation.

    (ii) A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

   (iii) A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints
all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate
a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters. Accordingly, on November 19, 2010 the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011 the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit. These
motions are currently pending before the court. The plaintiff in
the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to
put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to
dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit.


TIRE SHOP: Faces "Ferrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Ferrera v. Tire Shop Center, and Leomares Luna,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04657 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tire Shop Center distributes and sells tires with principal place
of business located at 112 Jamaica Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      Jaffe Glenn Law Group, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


TK RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Reyes" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Celso Reyes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TK Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a SQUARE DINER), Theodore
Karoumos and John Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-06211 (S.D.N.Y., August 6,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation.

TK Restaurant Corp. is a Restaurant owned by Theodore Karoumos
located at 33 Leonard Street, New York, NY 10013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOLEDO MUDLOGGING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley McCown, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated
v. Toledo Mudlogging Services, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-00121 (E.D.
Tex., August 5, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Toledo Mudlogging Services, Inc. provides providing mud logging
services in various areas of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


TRANSNET: Pensioners' Class Action to Hit Expansion Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Citizen reports that warnings that an R80 billion class action
law suit against Transnet and its pension funds will
"significantly impact" its ability to raise loans has become a
reality, with the courts opening the way for pensioners.

Former Public Enterprises Minister Malusi Gigaba issued the
warning in Parliament last year as he detailed the utility's R300
billion expansion program.

The North Gauteng High Court granted an application by two
Transnet pensioners to institute an R80 billion class action suit
against Transnet and its pension funds.  The action will be
brought on behalf of 26, 000 impoverished pensioners in an attempt
to recover close to R80 billion in assets and interest and is
expected to be instituted within 60 days.

The pensioners have accused Transnet of stripping the Transnet
Pension Fund and Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund (TSBF) of
its assets and mismanaging them to such an extent the funds were
unable to meet their obligations to members.  Increases to
pensions have been limited to 2% for much of the past decade,
reducing most of them to poverty.

Newly appointed Minister of Public Enterprises Lynne Brown on
Aug. 1 did not want to comment on the impact, saying she was
studying the ruling.

This was echoed by Transnet.

Charl Kocks, principal of Ratings Afrika, said lenders had over
many years been wary of financing Transnet and its debt had
therefore been priced higher than that of other state-owned
companies.

"It remains to be seen, if successful, who will be held
responsible.  Will it be limited to the pension funds and its
trustees, or will it include Transnet itself?"

However, if the facts are not contested, the case may progress
rather quickly to the stage of quantifying damages, he said.

As soon as the action was instituted, Transnet would be compelled
to raise a contingent liability, Mr. Kocks said.  At first, a mere
note informing stakeholders of the pending case would suffice, but
as soon as there was reasonable certainty about the facts and the
amount, Transnet would have to make provision for the amount in
its financial statements, Mr. Kocks said.  That would be expensed
through the income statement and shown as a liability on its
balance sheet.  In the year that it would be done, it would
seriously affect Transnet's results.

The company's revenue in FY2014 amounted to R56.6 billion, with a
R5.2 billion profit for the year.  Its gearing was at 45.9% with
borrowings at R90.4 billion, up 23.7% from the previous year.

Mr. Kocks said lenders' appetite to fund Transnet was to a large
extent based on Transnet's ability to generate cash.  In 2014 it
generated R25.3 billion in cash from operations after working
capital changes.

Alberts, who has long been trying to address the fate of
pensioners, told Business he would personally write to all
Transnet's funders to bring the July 31 court ruling and the
associated risk to their attention.

Wynanda Coetzee, the attorney acting on behalf of the pensioners,
has publicly appealed to Transnet to sit around the table with her
clients and discuss a settlement.  She has also stated there "is
no political involvement or affiliation in this litigation and
same will not be tolerated".


TRULIA INC: Being Sold to Zillow for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Collier, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Trulia, Inc., Erik Bardman, Peter Flint, Theresia
Gouw, Daniel Stephen Hafner, Samiinkinen, Robert Moles, Gregory
Waldorf, Zillow, Inc., and Zebra Holdco, Inc., Case No. CGC 14-
540985 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., August 7, 2014)
accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties in
connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of all the
outstanding stock of Trulia.

Trulia is incorporated in Delaware with its principal executive
offices located in San Francisco, California.  Trulia operates
innovative mobile and Web products that provide home buyers,
sellers, renters, and real estate professionals with valuable
tools and information for use in the home search process.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Zillow is a Washington corporation headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.  Zillow operates real estate and home-related
information marketplaces via mobile applications and the Web, with
a complementary portfolio of brands and products that help people
find vital information about homes and connect with local real
estate professionals.  HoldCo is a Washington corporation that was
created for purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

In another story, Courthouse News Service reports that directors
are selling Trulia too cheaply through an unfair process to
Zillow, in a stock swap valued at $3.5 billion, shareholders claim
in Delaware Chancery Court.

Plaintiff Robert Collier is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          James Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
                  mschreiner@faruqilaw.com


UNITED REFINING: Sued in Pa. Over Violation of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. United Refining Company and Kwik-Fill
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00205 (W.D. Pa., August 6, 2014),
alleges violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

United Refining Company and Kwik-Fill Corporation operate an oil
refinery in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Black Secret Service Agents' Bias Suit Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Zajac, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that black U.S.
Secret Service agents may pursue claims of racial discrimination
in promotions as a group, a federal appeals court said, dismissing
a government challenge to giving the complaint class-action
status.  The ruling means that about 120 current and former agents
can pursue their claims that they were denied promotion to senior
positions because of their race.

A three-judge panel in Washington on Aug. 1 upheld a finding by a
lower court that "the interests of efficiency and uniformity
supported resolving the question of discrimination in one stroke
rather than requiring the same question to be answered separately
for each individual," according to an opinion by U.S. Circuit
Judge Douglas Ginsburg.

The original complaint underlying the ruling was filed in 2000 and
the class affirmed on Aug. 1 includes black agents who sought
promotions to the GS-14 or GS-15 level from 1995 to 2005.

The Secret Service employs about 3,000 special agents.
Established in 1865 during the U.S. Civil War to suppress
counterfeit currency, it's best known for providing security for
the U.S. president, other national leaders and visiting foreign
heads of state.

                          Recent Scandals

In recent years, the agency has been roiled by scandal.  At least
nine employees left after allegations that they hired prostitutes
while setting up security for a presidential visit to Cartagena,
Colombia, in April 2012.

Three agents were sent home from Amsterdam in March on the eve of
a visit by President Barack Obama for violating a rule that bans
drinking within 10 hours of going on duty.

Brian Leary, a spokesman for the Secret Service, didn't
immediately respond to a voice-mail message requesting comment on
the appeals court decision.

The ruling did away with arguments "largely erected as roadblocks
to a trial," said Catherine Stetson, an attorney for the agents.
"We're looking forward to discussing next steps with the
government."

Stetson said she didn't know how many members of the class still
are on duty with the agency.

The case is In re: Jeh Johnson, 13-8002, U.S. Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia (Washington).


VISA INC: Consumer Interchange Litigation Transferred to MDL 1720
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A 2013 a putative class action of Visa Inc. cardholders alleging
that certain financial institutions conspired to fix interchange
fees, was transferred to MDL 1720, according to the company's July
24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On December 16, 2013, a putative class action was filed in federal
district court in California against certain financial
institutions alleging that they conspired to fix interchange fees
and imposed other alleged restraints on competition. The complaint
was filed on behalf of four named plaintiffs and an alleged class
of all Visa and MasterCard payment cardholders in the United
States since January 1, 2000. Although no Visa entity is named as
a defendant, the complaint identifies Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, and
certain non-defendant financial institutions as co-conspirators,
and plaintiffs assert that they may seek leave to amend the
complaint to add the co-conspirators as defendants. Plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and treble damages
allegedly to compensate the purported class for more than $54.0
billion dollars in purported overcharges imposed on them each year
by defendants and their alleged co-conspirators. On March 28,
2014, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. After the Clerk of
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to
transfer the case to MDL 1720, defendants filed a motion with the
Panel seeking transfer of the case to MDL 1720. On June 4, 2014,
the motion was granted, and the case was transferred to MDL 1720.


VISA INC: Plaintiffs Pursue Bid to Amend U.S. ATM Access Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the National ATM Council lawsuit and the consumer
lawsuits filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit against a district court's
refusal to allow them to file amended complaints, according to
Visa Inc.'s July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On December 19, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia denied plaintiffs' motions for leave to file amended
complaints in the National ATM Council class action and the
consumer class actions, and denied plaintiffs' motions for an
order altering or amending the court's February 13, 2013 judgment.
On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs in the National ATM Council class
action and the consumer class actions filed notices of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.


VISA INC: Wants to Separate Data Breach Suit From Case v. Target
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. filed a motion to separate and remand data breach claims
against it after the action was transferred to In re Target Corp.
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2522, according
to Visa Inc.'s July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On March 3, 2014, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah against Target, Visa and
MasterCard alleging, among other things, violations of Utah unfair
competition law, invasion of privacy, negligence and breach of
contract as a result of unauthorized access in November and
December 2013 to certain personal information and payment card
data stored by Target. The complaint also alleges that Visa and
MasterCard unlawfully failed to implement chip technology in the
United States. The complaint seeks damages, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On April 4, 2014, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order
conditionally transferring the action to an existing MDL related
to the Target data breach where Visa has not been a party in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, In re Target
Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2522. On
April 23, 2014, Visa and MasterCard filed a motion to separate and
remand the claims against them, or alternatively, to remand the
action in its entirety. The case has otherwise been stayed pending
the outcome of the motion, which Target and the plaintiffs have
opposed.


VISA INC: Provides Updates on Merchant Litigations in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. provides updates on several Canadian Competition
Proceedings in its July 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

In the British Columbia lawsuit, a hearing on class certification
commenced on April 22, 2013 and concluded on May 1, 2013. The
lawsuits in Quebec and Ontario are being held in abeyance pending
further proceedings in the British Columbia lawsuit. In Alberta
and Saskatchewan, applications for a stay of proceedings and
carriage of the lawsuits have been filed. In Saskatchewan, on
April 25, 2014, a separate action was filed against Visa Canada
Corporation and Visa Inc., two MasterCard entities, and a number
of smaller Canadian issuing banks that are not named as defendants
in any of the existing proceedings.

On March 26, 2014, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in Watson
v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., granted the plaintiffs'
application for class certification in part, allowing plaintiffs
to proceed as a class on, among other claims, claims for price
fixing under Canada's Competition Act. Both plaintiff and
defendants are appealing aspects of the certification decision to
the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The pending Canada Merchant Litigation lawsuits largely seek
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief, but some
allege substantial damages.


WCS SERVICES: "Hicks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Torrey Hicks, and  Tyra Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. WCS Services, LLC, Wardlaw Claims
Service, LLP,  WCCA, Inc., Wardlaw Claims Training Center, LLC,
Wardlaw Auto Claims Solutions, LLC, Wardlaw Claims Service, Inc.,
Wardlaw Consulting Services, Inc., Custom Data Systems, Inc.,
William F. Wardlaw, Michael Wardlaw, and Rebecca Meadows, Case No.
6:14-cv-00337 (W.D. Tex., August 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The Defendants are Texas companies that provide claims management
services to insurance companies through a work force of claims
adjusters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Starzyk, Esq.
      April L. Walter, Esq.
      STARZYK & ASSOCIATES PC
      10200 Grogan's Mill Rd., Suite 300
      The Woodlands, TX 77380
      Telephone: (713) 364-7261
      Facsimile: (713) 364-7533
      E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
              awalter@starzyklaw.com


WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over False Marketing of Yogurt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Whole Foods Market after
class members claim its 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt was
falsely marketed at having only two grams of sugar per serving
when it actually contained six times the labeled amount.

Tracey M. Knox claims Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek
Yogurt, which expressly states on the label that it contains two
grams of sugar per serving, was falsely marketed, according to a
complaint filed Aug. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

"In fact, in six recent tests conducted by the venerable consumer
publication Consumer Reports, the Yogurt had 11.4 grams of sugar
per serving on average -- nearly six times the stated amount," the
complaint states.  "The claimed amount of sugar raised eyebrows
because it is much lower than competitors, which generally range
between five and 10 grams of sugar per serving."

As a result of the defendant's materially false statements
concerning the sugar content in the yogurt, the plaintiff and the
proposed class have been harmed and have suffered damages,
according to the suit.

"One of the mottos of Whole Foods is 'Health Starts Here.'
Defendant markets itself and its 365 brand products as a healthier
alternative to other stores and brands," the complaint states.
"Defendant advertises and warrants the statements on its label and
as they pertain to the Yogurt the statements are demonstrably
false."

Ms. Knox claims the yogurt market in the United States is enormous
by any standard -- it tops $7 billon dollars per year.  Greek
yogurt in particular comprises a major portion of the overall
yogurt market, due in large measure to its high protein content
and perceived health value over traditional yogurt.

"Among health conscious consumers, yogurt can be and is an
important component of a healthy diet," the complaint states.
"For those with health conditions, such as diabetes, the accuracy
of sugar content in products is extremely important.  Defendant
has a duty to provide accurate information on its product label
and has failed to do so."

The defendant is responsible and liable for, among other things,
providing notice to consumers of accurate information concerning
the sugar content of the yogurt and repayment of its ill-gotten
gains, as well as other related consequential damages that
resulted from the defendant's provision of false and misleading
information concerning the yogurt, according to the suit.

Ms. Knox claims on multiple times during the last several years,
she has purchased the yogurt because of its purported health
benefits, including the low sugar content.

Although the plaintiff was unaware of the Consumer Reports
information concerning the false information the defendant
provided about the yogurt at the time of the purchase, the
plaintiff's purchase occurred after the defendant was made aware
of the discrepancies demonstrated by Consumer Reports' testing,
according to the suit.

"Despite notice of the discrepancy Defendant has not removed the
yogurt from the shelves or provided any corrective notice to
purchasers, like [the] plaintiff," the complaint states.

Ms. Knox is seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages. She is being represented by Erica C. Mirabella
of Mirabella Law; Matthew E. Miller and William H. Anderson of
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP; and Jon Herskowitz of Baron &
Herskowitz.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Richard G. Stearns.

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case number:
1:14-cv-13185


YELP INC: Faces "Curry" Suit Over Misleading Financial Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Curry, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman, Robert J. Krolik and
Geoffrey Donaker, Case No. 3:14-cv-03547 (N.D. Cal., August 6,
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's true business and financial
condition.

Yelp Inc. describes itself generally as an online networking
platform that connects people with great local businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
              e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

      David Conrad Walton, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com


                              *********

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  * * *