CAR_Public/140821.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 166

                             Headlines


113-117 REALTY: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
9032-1076 QUEBEC: Recalls Patisserie Les Fantaisies Products
ACTIVE POWER: Motion to Dismiss "Lee" Action Denied
ALBION FISHERIES: Recalls Live Kumamoto Oysters
ALMA FOOD: "Nunez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

AMN HEALTHCARE: Completed Settlement of Wage & Hour Class Action
AMREIT INC: Faces Class Action Over Regency Centers Proposal
APPLE INC: Lawyers Challenge iTunes Antitrust Class Action
ARCHWAY MAINTENANCE: Faces "Pinillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls XF 7000 & ZR 7000 Models Due to Fuel Leakage

AVINA FRESH: Recalls Sliced Crimini Mushrooms Due to Listeria
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Court Approves OT Class Action Settlement
BOULANGERIE BOUTIN: Recalls Pastries Due to Undeclared Milk
BUILDING MATERIALS: Falsely Marketed Decking Products, Suit Says
CHAROB DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Margaritaville Lime Tortilla Chips

CHINA GREEN: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
CHRYSLER: Recalls 81 Cars Due to Door Wiring Harness Defect
COMCAST: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment in Class Action
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Cases Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Appeal in Suit Against HMA

CONCORD PREMIUM: Recalls Marc Angelo Genoa Salami
CONSOL ENERGY: No Ruling on Summary Judgment Bids in "Hale" Case
CONSOL ENERGY: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in "Addison" Case
CONSOLIDATED COMMS: Faces 4 Putative Class Actions Over Merger
CONTRA COSTA, CA: Faces Suit Over Closing of Cardiac Care Unit

COVIDIEN PLC: Sued in Mass. Over Misleading Proxy Statement
CORPORATIONS FOR CHARACTER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 3 Buses Over Wheelchair Lift Defect
DAN MARC APPLIANCE: "Mohammed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
DIGITAL RIVER: Court Certifies Class Action in Minnesota

DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Claims
DUPRE MARINE: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EDAP TMS: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in New York
ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Sale of Opana ER

EXPEDIA INC: Consumer Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Amend Class Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Dismissal of "Miller" and "Frank" Cases on Appeal
FEDEX CORP: Settles Meal Break Class Action for $2.1 Million
FLEET TOWING: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FORMFACTOR INC: No Deal Reached After Mediation in Wage Suit

FORD MOTOR: Recalls 117 SUVs Over Air Bubbles in Windshield
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 29 Trucks Due to Leaks in Rear Brake Hoses
GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Shan Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls AVEO, G3 WAVE, and OPTRA Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls VUE Model Due to Ignition Key Defect

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls ATS, ENCORE and TRAX Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Impala Model Due to Defective Door Latch
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Suburban Seat Heaters
GENERAL MOTORS: Gilbert's Lawyer Seeks Individual Trial for Suit
GRAND DESIGN: Recalls Momentum Models Due to Bolts That May Shear

GREEN TABLE: Recalls Hummus Products Due to Undeclared Sesame
HARRIS PRODUCTS: Recalls Torch Handles Due to Leakage
HJ HEINZ: Recalls Infant Food in China Over Lead Contamination
HETTRICK CYR: Has Refused to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
HONDA: Recalls 8,654 GL1800 Motorcycles Due to Brake Defect

HUSQVARNA: Recalls Honda Powered 7021p 21-Inch Push Mower
HYUNDAI: Recalls Santa Fe SUVs Due to Corrosion Susceptibility
HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata Cars Due to Defective Brake Lines
HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata Cars Due to Shift Lever That May Detach
IMMERSION CORPORATION: Ninth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces Investor Class Action in California
INSIGHT HEALTH: Plaintiffs Challenge Bid to Relitigate Status
JAGUAR: Recalls F-Type Model Cars Due to Limited Vehicle Software
KAISER FOUNDATION: Suit Blames Death on Recalled Dialysis Fluid
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Paid $14.4MM to Settle "Molina" Action

LYFT INC: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Cotter" Suit
MARKET REFRIGERATION: Doesn't Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
MATTRESS ONE: Faces "Pilpel" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violation
MAXFIELD & OBERTON: Jan. 17 Deadline Set for Buckyball Claim
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Injunction Effective Date Set for Aug. 2015
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Loses Motion to Dismiss TV Rights Suit
NEW JERSEY: Judge Recuses From Bridgegate Closure Class Action
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
PAVER DESIGNS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PFIZER INC: Judge Rejects Expert Witness Testimony in Zoloft MDL
PFIZER INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Pondimin Suit
PHILADELPHIA: Faces "Sourovelis" Suit Over Forfeiture Policies
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sued Over Illegal Seizure of Assets
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Higgins" Suit Now Final

PIZZA HUT: Faces "Rivera' Suit Over Violation of FLSA & NYLL
PNM RESOURCES: Continues to Monitor Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
POLYCOM INC: Seeks Dismissal of "Neal" Class Action
PORSCHE AUTOMOBILE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit
PORTUGAL TELECOM: Investor Association Mulls Class Action

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Certification Appropriate, Court Rules
RJ REYNOLDS: Court of Appeal Revives Roden Tobacco Suit
SAC CAPITAL: Judge Allows Insider Trading Class Action to Proceed
SATINSKY GROUP: Plaintiff Awaits Fate of 699 Scheme Class Action
SEGA OF AMERICA: Settles Video Game Class Action for $1.25 Mil.

SIGNAL INT'L: Defrauded and Enslaved 30 Indian Men, Suit Claims
SKYC MANAGEMENT: "Armas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SOFTWARE ADVICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Action Claims
SPI AUSNET: Class Action Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 24

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Disputes Boeing's Indemnification Claim
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of Pension Funds' Lawsuit
SSM HEALTH CARE: Tenth Circuit Trims Billing Class Action
SUGARMILL INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
TEMPUR SEALY: Dismissal of Norfolk & Benning Cases on Appeal

TEMPUR SEALY: Faces "Dodson" Consumer Class Action
TEXAS BRINE: Judge OKs $48.1-Mil. Sinkhole Class Action Accord
TIER REIT: No Appeal Taken on Texas Securities Action Dismissal
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Misclassifying Drivers as Contractors
UNILEVER PLC: Asks Judge to Slash Attorneys' Fees in Suave Suit

URS CORPORATION: WGI Ohio to Defend Against Class Action
US FOODSERVICE: September 25 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
XEROX CORPORATION: Appeal Process Ongoing in Securities Case
YELP INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
YELP INC: October 6 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set


                            *********


113-117 REALTY: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnulfo Juarez Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. 113-117 Realty, LLC, and Marolda Properties,
Inc., and Fred Marolda, in his individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-06363 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

113-117 Realty, LLC owns various residential buildings in New
York, New York.

Marolda Properties, Inc. is the management company and agent of
Realty's buildings as well as buildings of various other
individual and corporate owners in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Anthony Patrick Malecki, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


9032-1076 QUEBEC: Recalls Patisserie Les Fantaisies Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Other, Allergen - Sulphites,
                          Allergen - Tree Nut, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           9032-1076 Quebec Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9070


ACTIVE POWER: Motion to Dismiss "Lee" Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint was filed on September 10,
2013, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas against Active Power, Inc. and certain of its former
executives. The case is captioned Don Lee v. Active Power, Inc.,
et. al., Civil Action No. 1:3-cv-00797.

Active Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "As amended, the
complaint alleges that on February 19, 2013, we reported that we
had begun working with an unnamed Chinese distributor partner, and
that on April 30, 2013, we announced in press releases and
conference calls that we had entered into a strategic distribution
partnership with Digital China. However, on September 5, 2013,
after the close of trading, we disclosed that our partnership was
with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which is neither an affiliate
nor a subsidiary of Digital China. The amended complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all stockholders who
purchased common stock between February 19 and September 5, 2013."

"On March 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the class action
complaint.  Our motion was denied by the Court on July 2, 2014,"
the Company said.

Active Power, Inc. and its subsidiaries design, manufacture, sell,
and service flywheel-based uninterruptible power supply ("UPS")
products that use kinetic energy to provide short-term power as a
cleaner alternative to conventional electro-chemical battery-based
energy storage.  They also design, manufacture, sell, and service
modular infrastructure solutions ("MIS") that integrate critical
power components into a pre-packaged, purpose built enclosure that
may include its UPS products as a component.


ALBION FISHERIES: Recalls Live Kumamoto Oysters
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Albion Fisheries Ltd. (Richmond)
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9135


ALMA FOOD: "Nunez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Nunez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Alma Food Corp. and Ruddy Santana, in his individual
and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-06364 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Alma Food Corp. operates a grocery store and deli at 309 East
Burnside Avenue, Bronx, New York 10457.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Anthony Patrick Malecki, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


AMN HEALTHCARE: Completed Settlement of Wage & Hour Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that during the first
quarter of 2014, the Company completed the settlement of a wage
and hour class action (and a related action) for an immaterial
amount. Additionally, some of the Company's clients may also
become subject to claims, governmental inquiries and
investigations and legal actions relating to services provided by
the Company's clinicians and physicians. Depending upon the
particular facts and circumstances, the Company may be subject to
indemnification obligations under its contracts with certain
clients relating to these matters.


AMREIT INC: Faces Class Action Over Regency Centers Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------
AmREIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that "on July 14, 2014, two
of our alleged stockholders, filed a stockholder derivative
petition and purported class action in the Harris County, Texas
District Court, seeking injunctive relief in connection with
alleged breach of fiduciary duty claims against each of our
directors in connection with the board's consideration of an
unsolicited proposal from Regency Centers Corporation, announced
on July 10, 2014, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of our
common stock. The complaint also names us as a nominal defendant
in connection with the shareholder derivative claim. There have
been no further pleadings in this action since the filing of the
complaint. We believe these claims are without merit and intend to
defend against the claims vigorously."

AmREIT is a full service, vertically integrated and self-
administered REIT that owns, operates, acquires and selectively
develops and redevelops primarily neighborhood and community
shopping centers located in high-traffic, densely populated,
affluent areas with high barriers to entry.


APPLE INC: Lawyers Challenge iTunes Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers for
Apple Inc. tried again on Aug. 13 to derail accusations dating
back nearly a decade that it illegally monopolized the digital
music market by strategically interlocking its iTunes music store
with iPod players.

Plaintiffs lawyers with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd claim the
company violated antitrust laws by making its MP3 players
compatible only with music downloaded via iTunes and blocking
iTunes downloads from playing on other devices.  Customers with
extensive iTunes libraries were forced to continue buying Apple
players or lose their music.  That allowed Apple to raise prices,
Robbins Geller attorneys argued.  Their economics expert has set
damages at about $350 million.

Apple's attorneys from Jones Day countered in Oakland federal
court Wednesday that plaintiffs have no proof consumers suffered
any adverse impact because Apple products weren't compatible with
other brands.  Robbins Geller lawyers haven't presented an
economic analysis or customer testimony, even from the suit's
named plaintiffs, that supports their theory, Jones Day partner
Robert Mittelstaedt -- ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- argued.

"They just don't have any evidence at all," Mr. Mittelstaedt said.
His team, which is seeking summary judgment for Apple, has already
succeeded in tossing two of plaintiffs' claims.  The remaining
claim, alleging Apple's 2006 iTunes upgrade violated antitrust
law, is set for trial in November before U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who seemed to heed Mr. Mittelstaedt's
arguments.

"I have to tell you," she said, "one of the big issues that I have
with the plaintiffs' case in the current posture is, what am I
supposed to be trying? Who is going to testify? Why are there no
customer surveys?"

In response, the Robbins Geller team produced a cardboard box
reportedly full of thousands of complaints from consumers upset
because they couldn't play off-brand songs on their iPods.  The
documents hadn't been entered into the record, but the lawyers
invited Judge Gonzalez Rogers to take a look.

She balked: "Don't give me a box of documents."

Judge Gonzalez Rogers took over the case from U.S. District Judge
James Ware, who retired in 2012.  Mr. Mittelstaedt spent the
better part of an hour on Aug. 13 going over the case's complex
history.

Plaintiffs first filed suit in 2005.  They claimed Apple was tying
its music to its devices, thereby forcing out the competition.
Judge Ware granted Apple's motion to dismiss that claim in 2006,
ruling a company has a right to prevent its products from working
with its competitors'.

Plaintiffs returned in 2010 with new claims in an amended
complaint.  They focused their argument on Apple competitor
RealNetworks Inc., which had figured out a way to circumvent
Apple's protection and make its music compatible with iPods.
To thwart the competition, plaintiffs argued, Apple implemented
new protections that prevented RealNetworks songs from playing on
Apple devices.

Judge Ware granted summary judgment to Apple on a 2004 upgrade,
ruling that a company has the right to improve its products even
if that improvement makes life difficult for competitors.  But he
ruled there were triable issues as to whether a 2006 upgrade
actually improved the product.

Now Judge Gonzalez Rogers must decide whether plaintiffs have
enough evidence to show consumers were impacted by the alleged
monopoly created by Apple's 2006 upgrade.

Robbins Geller partner Bonny Sweeney -- bonnys@rgrdlaw.com --
argued customers and music labels alike celebrated when
RealNetworks figured out how to become compatible with Apple.  Ms.
Sweeney said she has documents showing Apple executives, including
the late Steve Jobs, were threatened by the company's move and
engineered their software updates to stand in its way.

"People at the highest level of the company were shocked and
alarmed when the company made its debut in 2004," she said.
Plaintiffs based much of their argument on a regression analysis
by Stanford economics professor Roger Noll.

Mr. Mittelstaedt attacked Mr. Noll's analysis, and moved to
exclude his expert testimony.

"He's just making assumptions that are contrary to what the real
world shows," Mr. Mittelstaedt said.

Mr. Noll failed to account for important variables when
attributing price increases to the 2006 software upgrade,
Mr. Mittelstaedt said.  Mr. Noll also alleges consumers were
overcharged at a constant rate throughout the class period.

Mr. Mittelstaedt counters that if plaintiffs' claims were true,
prices actually would have continued to rise as people purchased
more iTunes music and became further locked into Apple products.
The four-hour hearing was thick with complex economic theory, and
Gonzalez Rogers lost her place more than once as she followed
along in the thick packet provided by Mr. Mittelstaedt.  Before
arguments began, Judge Gonzalez Rogers admitted she had been
intimidated by the case.

"It was on the back burner, I will admit," Judge Gonzalez Rogers
said.  "It's one of those things where you don't want to take the
medicine, and so I wasn't.  And so I just left it there."


ARCHWAY MAINTENANCE: Faces "Pinillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Cardenas Pinillo and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. v. Archway Maintenance Services, LLC and German Morillo,
Case No. 1:14-cv-22937 (S.D. Fla., August 11, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Archway Maintenance Services, LLC provides janitorial services
within the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls XF 7000 & ZR 7000 Models Due to Fuel Leakage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Snowmobile
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           3262
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014328
TC ID number:             2014328

On certain snowmobiles, fuel could leak at an attachment to the
fuel filter due to a loose or improperly positioned clamp.  Fuel
leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a
fire, increasing the risk of injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will inspect and if required, repair and/or replace fuel
line assembly.

Affected products:

   Maker          Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----          -----       ----------------------
   ARCTIC CAT     ZR 7000     2014, 2015
   ARCTIC CAT     XF 7000     2014, 2015


AVINA FRESH: Recalls Sliced Crimini Mushrooms Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Avina Fresh Mushrooms Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9134

Industry is recalling Avina Fresh Mushrooms brand Sliced Crimini
Mushrooms from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

Affected products: 454 g. Avina Fresh Mushrooms Sliced Crimini
Mushrooms


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Court Approves OT Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madhavi Acharya-Tom Yew, writing for Toronto Star, reports that
personal bankers, financial advisors and other employees at the
Bank of Nova Scotia could be paid as much as $95 million for
unpaid overtime as part of a settlement deal in a class-action
lawsuit.

The agreement, approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
during a brief hearing in Toronto on Aug. 12, would cover
thousands of workers for more than a decade of unpaid overtime.
The deal is "a remarkable and incredibly sensible settlement,"
Justice Edward Belobaba told the court.

"We are confident that the bank's employee policies have been
applied fairly and consistently," Scotiabank, as the bank is
known, said in an emailed statement.

"We have always made it clear that when employees work overtime we
will pay them for their work or provide time in lieu and the
decision reinforces that commitment."

The lawsuit includes approximately 16,000 Scotiabank employees
across Canada who worked as personal banking officers, senior
personal banking officers, financial advisors, and small business
account managers from Jan. 1, 2000 to Dec. 1, 2013.

Class members say that overtime was often required, they couldn't
always get approval in advance, plaintiffs' counsel David O'Connor
of Roy O'Connor said in an interview.  "For example, if someone
comes in five minutes before 5 o'clock and wants to arrange a
mortgage, you can't kick them out when the bank closes."

Others said that they worked unpaid overtime to meet their sales
targets, added co-counsel Louis Sokolov -- lsokolov@sotosllp.com
-- of Sotos LLP.

The deadline for claims is Oct. 15.  The bank will evaluate the
submissions, taking into account that most people won't have
documentation, O'Connor said.  Employees would receive 1.5 times
their standard wage at the time, but no interest.

Class members who are not satisfied with the bank's decision on a
claim may appeal to an independent arbitrator.

It will take several months to determine the total value of the
claims.

Mr. O'Connor estimates that figure could reach C$95 million.  "The
bank asserts that is too high but it was the best estimate we
could come up with," he said.

Scotiabank said previously that the payout would not be
financially material.

The deal stipulates that the plaintiff in the case, Cindy Fulawka,
a Scotiabank personal banker in Saskatchewan, will receive a
C$15,000 honorarium in addition to her unpaid overtime.

"When this all began, my lawyers did warn that this would be a
long and difficult road.  Here we are six and half years later and
I believe we have achieved something significant," Ms. Fulawka
said in an emailed statement.

"Many people felt we could never make a real difference.  Deep
down I felt we could."

Scotiabank will also pay legal fees of C$10.45 million in the
case.  "Litigating against the chartered banks in this country is
not a task for the faint of heart.  These are among the most
powerful, well-resourced corporations in Canada," Mr. Sokolov
said.  "The nature of these cases went to the very heart of their
employment practices and they fought back vigorously as we would
expected they would."

The lawsuit was filed in 2007, along with a similar class-action
filed by CIBC bank teller Dara Fresco of Toronto.  Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce said previously that it intends to go to
trial.


BOULANGERIE BOUTIN: Recalls Pastries Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Boulangerie Boutin - Cooperative de
                          travailleurs
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:          RetailCFIA reference number:9137


BUILDING MATERIALS: Falsely Marketed Decking Products, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Kaiser individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a/ Gaf
Materials Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02229 (D. Colo., August
11, 2014), alleges that the Defendants misrepresented Cross
Timbers Decking as requiring low maintenance and easy for
installation with superior engineering that does not require
staining or sealing.

Building Materials Corporation of America is a manufacturer of
residential exterior building products in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Plachy, Esq.
      Thomas M. Rogers, Esq.
      Caitlin McHugh, Esq.
      LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP
      1200 17th Street
      One Tabor Center, Suite 3000
      Denver, CO 80202-5855
      Telephone: (303) 628-9532
      Facsimile: (303) 623-9222
      E-mail: mplachy@lrrlaw.com
              trogers@lrrlaw.com
              cmchugh@lrrlaw.com


CHAROB DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Margaritaville Lime Tortilla Chips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Charob Distribution Services Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9120

Charob Distribution Services Inc. is recalling Margaritaville
brand Island Lime Tortilla Chips from the marketplace because it
contains milk which is not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described.

The following product has been sold in Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

Affected products: 364 g. Margaritaville Island Lime Tortilla
Chips


CHINA GREEN: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------
China Green Agriculture, Inc., which produces and distributes
humic acid-based compound fertilizers and other varieties of
compound fertilizers and agricultural products, on Aug. 15
disclosed that, on August 12, 2014, the United States District
Court for the State of Nevada had given its final approval to the
settlement of the securities class action pending against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors since October 15, 2010.  As a result, all of the
securities law claims that had been filed against the Company have
now been resolved and dismissed.  The Company's insurers funded
the full amount of the settlement ($2.5 million).

"After the settlement of the derivative actions against the
Company on April 5, 2012, the class action was the only lawsuit
still pending.  We are pleased that it, too, now comes to an end,"
said Tao Li, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
"The settlement is a significant step forward for us and helps us
advance our goals of focusing on building our business and to
maximizing shareholder value."


CHRYSLER: Recalls 81 Cars Due to Door Wiring Harness Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           81
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014336
TC ID number:             2014336
Manufacturer recall
number:                   P43

On certain vehicles, the driver's door wiring harness may
overheat, which could result in an inoperative window and/or door
locks, burning odour, smoke, or fire, increasing the risk of
injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace the door wiring harness.

Affected products: 2015 200 Chrysler


COMCAST: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5, 2014, the Honorable Judge Arthur A. Wick denied
Comcast's motion for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit
alleging that Comcast failed to pay their Account Executives
earned commission wages. See Hurley, et al. v. Comcast of
California, et al., currently pending in the Sonoma County
Superior Court for the State of California, Case No. SCV-253801.

The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik originally filed the class action lawsuit in
June of 2013 alleging Comcast withheld payments of commission
wages to their Account Executives, contrary to the commission
agreement these employees signed, when the customer did not pay
the invoice within 90 or 120 days.  The Complaint alleged that the
Account Executives procured the sale for Comcast, Comcast received
payment from the customer, but as a result of the 90 or 120 day
rule, Comcast allegedly kept the commission wages.

Comcast argued that the "Earned Commission" was only deemed earned
and therefore payable for invoices paid by the customer within 90
or 120 days.  The Court declined to follow Comcast's reasoning and
stated "[n]owhere in the Agreement does it unambiguously state
that the failure to pay an invoice when due (or within 90/120/
days) results in the Account Executives' inability to earn said
commission."

The Account Executive lawsuit has already been certified as a
class action and as a result the case will now proceed as a class
action in the Sonoma County Superior Court before the Honorable
Judge Arthur A. Wick.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Francisco labor law firm
with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The firm dedicates its practice to contingency fee employment law
work for issues involving overtime pay, unpaid commission wages,
missed meal and rest periods, wrongful termination, discrimination
and other California labor laws.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel.

Community Health Systems, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company's
motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and is pending
before the court. The Company believes this consolidated matter is
without merit and will vigorously defend this case.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Appeal in Suit Against HMA
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 30, 2012,
two class action lawsuits that were brought against Health
Management Associates, Inc. and certain of its then executive
officers, one of whom was at that time also a director, were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida under the caption In Re: Health Management Associates,
Inc., et al. and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as
lead plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of
stockholders who purchased HMA's common stock during the period
from July 27, 2009, through January 9, 2012. The amended
consolidated complaint (i) alleges that HMA made false and
misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding its
business and financial results and (ii) asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiffs claim
that HMA inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare
billing practices that entailed admitting patients to observation
status when they should not have been admitted at all and to
inpatient status when they should have been admitted to
observation status. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages.

On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint. On December 15,
2012, the court entered an order approving the stipulation and
providing a schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed
amended pleadings.

On February 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, which asserted substantially the same
claims as the amended consolidated complaint. As of August 15,
2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim and plead facts required by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was fully briefed and
awaiting the Court's decision.

On May 22, 2014, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on
June 20, 2014 the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
lawsuit. We are unable to predict the outcome or determine the
potential impact, if any, that could result from its final
resolution," the Company said.


CONCORD PREMIUM: Recalls Marc Angelo Genoa Salami
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Concord Premium Meats Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9138

Concord Premium Meats Ltd. is recalling Marc Angelo brand Genoa
Salami from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

Affected products: 100 g. Marc Angelo Genoa Salami


CONSOL ENERGY: No Ruling on Summary Judgment Bids in "Hale" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v. CNX Gas
Company, et. al.

The lawsuit alleges that the putative class consists of forced-
pooled unleased gas owners whose gas ownership was declared to be
in conflict with rights of others even where the Virginia Supreme
Court and General Assembly have purportedly decided that coalbed
methane (CBM) belongs to the owner of the gas estate; that the
Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990 unconstitutionally provides only
a 1/8 net proceeds royalty to CBM owners for gas produced under
the forced-pooled orders; and, that CNX Gas Company relied upon
control of only the coal estate in force pooling the CBM
notwithstanding decisions by the Virginia Supreme Court. The
lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and
that the entire net proceeds of CBM production (that is, the 1/8
royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since production began) be
distributed to the class members. The lawsuit also alleges CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants, or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

CONSOL Energy said, "In ruling on our Motion to Dismiss, the
District Judge decided that the deemed lease provision of the Gas
and Oil Act is constitutional, as is the 1/8 royalty. An amended
complaint was filed, which added additional allegations that
include gas hedging receipts should have been used as the basis
for royalty payments, severance tax should not be allowed as a
post-production deduction from royalties, and damages incurred
because gas was produced prior to the entry of pooling orders. A
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed and denied."

"The Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation on June 5,
2013, recommending that the District Judge grant plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. On September 30, 2013, the
District Judge entered an Order overruling CNX Gas Company's
Objections, adopting the Report & Recommendation and certifying
the class with a modified class definition. CONSOL Energy believes
this case cannot properly proceed as a class action and filed a
Petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
to review the class certification Order.

"On November 13, 2013, the Fourth Circuit entered an Order
deferring a ruling on the Petition but assigning the case to a
merits panel. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument was
held before a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit on May 13,
2014. Plaintiffs filed Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue
of ownership of the gas royalty escrow accounts and seeking an
accounting. The Fourth Circuit denied a Motion to Stay the trial
court proceedings while it considers the class certification
issues, and the District Judge heard argument on the summary
judgment motions on January 6, 2014, but has not ruled on the
Motions."

CONSOL Energy believes that the case has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend it vigorously.


CONSOL ENERGY: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in "Addison" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action
lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the United States District
Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company, et
al.

The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff class consists of gas
lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit alleges
that the Virginia Supreme Court and General Assembly have decided
that the plaintiffs own the gas and are entitled to royalties held
in escrow by the Commonwealth of Virginia or CNX Gas Company. The
lawsuit also alleges CNX Gas Company failed to either pay
royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them less
than required because of the alleged practice of improper below
market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production
deductions. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment regarding
ownership, an accounting and compensatory and punitive damages for
breach of contract; conversion; negligence (voluntary undertaking)
for improperly asserting that conflicting ownership exists,
negligence (breach of duties as an operator); breach of fiduciary
duties; and unjust enrichment.

The Company said, "The District Judge granted, in part, CNX Gas
Company's Motion to Dismiss. An Amended Complaint was filed which
added an additional allegation that gas hedging receipts should
have been used as the basis for royalty payments. A motion to
dismiss those claims was filed and was denied. The Magistrate
Judge issued a Report & Recommendation on June 5, 2013,
recommending that the District Judge grant plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification. On September 30, 2013, the District Judge
entered an Order overruling CNX Gas Company's Objections, adopting
the Report & Recommendation and certifying the class with a
modified class definition."

CNX Gas believes this case cannot properly proceed as a class
action and filed a Petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit to review the class certification Order. On
November 13, 2013, the Fourth Circuit entered an Order deferring a
ruling on the Petition but assigning the case to a merits panel.
The appeal was fully briefed, and a three-judge panel of the
Fourth Circuit heard oral argument on May 13, 2014. Plaintiffs
have filed Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of ownership
of the gas royalty escrow accounts and seeking an accounting. The
Fourth Circuit denied a Motion to Stay the trial court proceedings
while it considers the class certification issues, and the
District Judge heard argument on the summary judgment motions on
January 6, 2014, but has not ruled on the Motions.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend it vigorously.


CONSOLIDATED COMMS: Faces 4 Putative Class Actions Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
Enventis Corporation shareholders challenging Consolidated
Communications Holdings, Inc.'s proposed merger with Enventis in
which the Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc., Enventis and members of
the Enventis board of directors have been named as defendants.

The shareholder actions were filed in the Fifth Judicial District,
Blue Earth County, Minnesota.  The actions are called: Hoepner v.
Enventis Corp. et al, filed July 15, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2489,
Bockley v. Finke et al, filed July 18, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-
2551, Kaplan et al v. Enventis Corp. et al, filed July 21, 2014,
Case No. 07-CV-14-2575, and Marcial v. Enventis Corp. et al.,
filed July 25, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2628.

The actions generally allege, among other things, that each member
of the Enventis board of directors breached fiduciary duties to
Enventis and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of Enventis
to the Company for consideration that allegedly is unfair to the
Enventis shareholders and agreeing to terms that allegedly unduly
restrict other bidders from making a competing offer.  The
complaints also allege that the Company and Sky Merger Sub Inc.
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly
committed by the members of the Enventis board of directors.  The
lawsuits seek, amongst other things, equitable relief, including
an order to prevent the defendants from consummating the merger on
the agreed-upon terms.

"We believe that these claims are without merit," Consolidated
Communications Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is a holding company
with operating subsidiaries that provide communications services
to residential and business customers in Illinois, Texas,
Pennsylvania, California, Kansas and Missouri.


CONTRA COSTA, CA: Faces Suit Over Closing of Cardiac Care Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Costa County's plan to close the cardiac care unit of the
Doctors Medical Center will be "catastrophic" for residents of the
Health Care District, particularly the elderly, African Americans,
poor people and the disabled, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

The DMC Closure Aversion Committee and nine people sued the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors, the West Contra Costa County
Health Care District, and their individual officers, on August 11,
2014, in California Federal Court.

Contra Costa County, pop. 1.1 million, is inland from San
Francisco Bay.  Its seat is Martinez.

The defendants announced they are closing the "specialized Segment
Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) cardiac care unit of
Doctors Medical Center," divert ambulances from its Emergency
Department and cap inpatient beds at 50, effective on the week of
August 11, 2014, according to the lawsuit.

The STEMI unit is specially designed to provide quick care to
heart attack patients.

The Doctors Medical Center is one of only two hospitals in West
Contra Costa County with a STEMI unit.  It treated 578 patients
last year, 78 of whom were "high risk" patients who arrived via
ambulance, the complaint states, citing a June 2014 report from
the Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services Agency.

"The population DMC's STEMI Unit serves is comprised largely of
African Americans, senior citizens, indigent persons, and disabled
residents of West County," the complaint states.

"DMC is one of only two hospitals in the West County, serving
between 40,000 and 45,000 patients a year in its Emergency
Department (ED).  DMC represents 79 percent of the inpatient
capacity in West County and provides 59 percent of ED care in the
region.  DMC receives 62 percent of the region's ambulance
traffic."

The complaint adds: "DMC serves a community in West County with
elevated rates of health problems, notably heart disease,
diabetes, cancer, as well as child and adult asthma.  The
community served by DMC is largely African American (34.65 percent
of 2013 discharges) and people aged 60 or older (61.6 percent of
2013 discharges).  By contrast, African Americans made up only
15.15 percent of discharges at CCRMC [Contra Costa County Regional
Medical Center], and people aged sixty or older made up only 19.11
percent of hospital discharges at CCRMC in 2013.

"Defendant WCCHD's elimination of its STEMI Cardiac Unit,
diversion of ambulance services, and cap of 50 patient beds, and
Defendant CCC's funding preference for CCRMC over DMC, are not
justified by any healthcare services provision necessity.  Such
actions by defendants will cause devastating health consequences
to African Americans, senior citizens, indigent persons, and
disabled residents of West County."

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, an injunctions, and
damages for age discrimination, disability discrimination, and
violations of state health, safety and welfare codes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela Price, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA Y. PRICE
          901 Clay Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 452-0292
          Facsimile: (510) 452-5625
          E-mail: pamela.price@pypesq.com


COVIDIEN PLC: Sued in Mass. Over Misleading Proxy Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lipovich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Covidien PLC, Jose E. Almeida, Craig Arnold, Robert H.
Brust, Christopher J. Coughlin, Randall J. Hogan, III, Joseph A.
Zaccagnino, Dennis H. Reilley, Joy A. Amundson, and Stephen H.
Rusckowski, Case No. 1:14-cv-13308 (D. Mass., August 11, 2014),
arises in connection with the Defendants' attempts to sell
Covidien to Medtronic, Inc. at an unfair price, and through an
unfair process that involved the defendants' dissemination in bad
faith of a false and misleading proxy statement.

Covidien PLC is an Irish-incorporated healthcare products company
and manufacturer of medical devices and supplies.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Covidien
PLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
      HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, CROSS AND MANDELCORN, LLP
      110 Cedar St.
      Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
      Telephone: (781) 431-2231
      Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
      E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, 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
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com


CORPORATIONS FOR CHARACTER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Family Films of
Utah, Inc., Feature Films for Families, Inc., Forrest Sandusky
Baker Inc., Rekab Sudskany, L.C., Rekab Tserrof, L.C., and
Stepping Stones Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04795
(E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2014), arises out of telephone calls, made
by or on behalf of Defendants, using an artificial or prerecorded
voice that delivered a message that advertised the commercial
availability or quality of a home-security system.

The Defendants own and operate a film company with its principal
place of business located at 5286 South Commerce Drive, Suite A-l
16, Murray, Utah 84107.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd C. Bank, Esq.
      TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
      119-40 Union Turnpike
      Kew Garden, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 261-2482
      E-mail: tblaw101@aol.com


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 3 Buses Over Wheelchair Lift Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           3
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014338
TC ID number:             2014338
Manufacturer recall
number:                   FL-633

On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift
platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean
against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the
vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at
risk of injury.

Ricon Corporation repair facilities will inspect lift platforms
for cracks and repair as necessary, and install a repair kit.


DAN MARC APPLIANCE: "Mohammed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shameer Mohammed on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dan Marc Appliance, Inc., and Daniel Verschleisen,
Case No. 1:14-cv-04753 (E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2014), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, damages and reasonable attorneys'
fees, injunctive relief and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Dan Marc Appliance, Inc. owns and operates an appliance service
business that sends Service Technicians to repair such appliances
as Whirlpool, Maytagr Kitchen Aid, Jenn Air, Amana, Roper,
Electrolux, Frigidaire, Marvel, U-Line, and more, throughout New
York and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      Matthew Cohen, 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
              matthewcohen21@gmail.com


DIGITAL RIVER: Court Certifies Class Action in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 31,
2014, certified a class action against Digital River, Inc. of all
persons in the United States who purchased Extended Download
Service for Norton Products between January 24, 2005, and October
26, 2009.  The plaintiffs have sued Symantec Corporation and the
Company.  The claims against the Company are for alleged violation
of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud and False Statement in Advertising
Acts and unjust enrichment, based on the Company's sale of
Extended Download Service to purchasers of Norton products.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend this matter, but
cannot predict the timing or ultimate outcome, nor estimate a
range of loss, if any, for this matter," Digital River said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Digital River is a provider of global Commerce-as-a-Service (CaaS)
solutions.  Digital River provides commerce, payments and
marketing solutions to business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-
consumer (B2C) digital product and cloud service companies as well
as branded manufacturers across a variety of vertical markets
through its multi-tenant technology, platform and service
offerings.


DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Brown and David Gillard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Discrete Wireless, Inc., Fleetcor
Technologies Operating Company, LLC, and Fleetcor Technologies,
Inc. d/b/a Nextraq, Case No. 8:14-cv-01922 (M.D. Fla., August 11,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Discrete Wireless, Inc., Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company,
LLC, and Fleetcor Technologies, Inc. provide fleet operators with
an internet based system that enhances workforce productivity
through real time vehicle tracking, route optimization, job
dispatch, and fuel usage monitoring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman
      FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA
      501 N Reo St
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Phillips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. dba Loan Mart/Money Mart,
Case No. 3:14-cv-03632 (N.D. Cal., August 11, 2014), alleges that
the Defendant negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

Dollar Financial Group, Inc. provides consumer short-term loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Suren Naradha Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Drive, #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


DUPRE MARINE: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Pena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dupre Marine Transportation, LLC and Rory Dupre, Case
No. 3:14-cv-00260 (S.D. Tex., August 11, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant failure to pay overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Dupre Marine Transportation, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company that operates vessels and barges within the Southern
District of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


EDAP TMS: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of EDAP TMS
S.A., on Aug. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of
the Company's securities between February 1, 2013 and July 30,
2014, inclusive.

Please contact Casey Sadler 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.

EDAP, through its subsidiaries, develops, produces and markets
minimally invasive medical devices for the treatment of urological
diseases.  The Company offers the Ablatherm-HIFU device for the
treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer.  The Complaint
alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company overstated the
efficacy and safety of its Ablatherm trials by relying on cross-
study comparisons rather than a head-to-head trial; (ii) the
study's survival endpoint was inappropriate for the patient
population; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's
statements about its business and operations were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 30, 2014, the FDA announced that the panel convened to
review EDAP's Ablatherm-HIFU submission unanimously found that
EDAP had failed to demonstrate the efficacy of its product or that
it had demonstrated that the benefits of the device outweighed its
risk.  Following this news, shares of EDAP declined more than 40
percent on July 31, 2014.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than October 3, 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
Casey Sadler, 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.


ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Sale of Opana ER
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Endo Health Solutions
Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and
Impax Laboratories Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06171 (N.D. Ill., August
11, 2014), seeks treble damages arising out of the
Defendants' unlawful scheme to allocate the market for extended
release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which the Company sells under
the brand name Opana ER.

The Defendants own and operate drug manufacturing companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
      Wexler Wallace LLP
      55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com


EXPEDIA INC: Consumer Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Amend Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since August 20, 2012, more than 30 putative class action
lawsuits, which refer to the Statement of Objections of the the
United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading, have been initiated in the
United States by consumer plaintiffs alleging claims against the
online travel companies, including Expedia Inc., and several major
hotel chains for alleged resale price maintenance for online hotel
room reservations, including but not limited to violation of the
Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection
statutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust enrichment.
The cases have been consolidated and transferred to Judge Boyle in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

On February 18, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to move for
leave to amend their complaint.

On March 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to
amend, Expedia Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On July 31, 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading
("OFT") issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia,
Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental Hotels Group PLC ("IHG")
have infringed European Union and United Kingdom competition law
in relation to the online supply of hotel room accommodations. The
parties voluntarily proposed to address the OFT's investigation by
offering formal commitments. On January 31, 2014, the OFT
announced that it had formally accepted the commitments offered by
the parties, with no finding of fault or liability. On April 2,
2014, Skyscanner Limited filed an appeal challenging the OFT's
January 31, 2014 decision.

In addition, a number of competition authorities in other European
countries have initiated investigations into competitive practices
within the travel industry and, in particular, in relation to
"Most Favored Nations" clauses and other contractual arrangements
between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia.
These investigations differ from the OFT investigation, in
relation to the parties involved and the precise nature of the
concerns.

Expedia, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide travel products and
services to leisure and corporate travelers in the United States
and abroad as well as various media and advertising offerings to
travel and non-travel advertisers.  These travel products and
services are offered through a diversified portfolio of brands
including: Expedia.com(R), Hotels.com(R), Hotwire.com(TM),
Expedia(R) Affiliate Network, Classic Vacations, Expedia Local
Expert, Egencia(TM), Expedia(R) CruiseShipCenters(R), eLong(TM),
Inc. ("eLong"), Venere Net SpA ("Venere") and trivago GmbH
("trivago"). In addition, many of these brands have related
international points of sale.


EXPEDIA INC: Dismissal of "Miller" and "Frank" Cases on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiffs have filed a
request for interlocutory appeal of the trial court's ruling
granting the motions to dismiss filed in the Miller and Frank
putative class actions, which are consumer cases against Hotwire.

Expedia, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide travel products and
services to leisure and corporate travelers in the United States
and abroad as well as various media and advertising offerings to
travel and non-travel advertisers.  These travel products and
services are offered through a diversified portfolio of brands
including: Expedia.com(R), Hotels.com(R), Hotwire.com(TM),
Expedia(R) Affiliate Network, Classic Vacations, Expedia Local
Expert, Egencia(TM), Expedia(R) CruiseShipCenters(R), eLong(TM),
Inc. ("eLong"), Venere Net SpA ("Venere") and trivago GmbH
("trivago"). In addition, many of these brands have related
international points of sale.


FEDEX CORP: Settles Meal Break Class Action for $2.1 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, reports that a FedEx Corp. unit
has agreed to pay $2.1 million to settle a proposed class action
filed by a group of current and former package handlers who
alleged the company failed to provide proper meal and rest breaks,
according to an Aug. 12 filing in a California federal court.

Lead plaintiff Aaron Rangel filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with FedEx Ground Package System Inc.,
whom he sued in state court last year on behalf of himself and
other package handlers.  According to the settlement motion, the
parties had been working for almost two months to "[hammer] out" a
suitable agreement, which in addition to the cash component
includes a vow by FedEx to clear up key employment policies.

Of the gross settlement amount, up to $700,000 will be set aside
for attorneys' fees, $40,000 for attorneys' expenses and costs,
about $7,500 as an award for Rangel and at least $50,000 for
administrative costs, according to the agreement.  FedEx will also
be required to clarify its meal and rest period policies, which
the agreement says could itself be worth $100,000.

"The terms of the proposed settlement are fair and are the product
of serious, arm's-length negotiation," the motion says.

Mr. Rangel, a former FedEx employee, filed his putative class
action in September 2013 in California Superior Court in Orange
County, accusing the company of violating the California Labor
Code and the state's Unfair Competition Law.

He said FedEx was required, but failed to provide, class members
who worked two shifts in a workday a meal period, as well as a
second rest period.  He also said FedEx failed to provide pay
employees for time spent in security checks.  In October FedEx had
the case removed to district court, according to the agreement.

Throughout, FedEx maintained that, among other things, it has
complied at all times with California wage-and-hour laws,
according to the agreement.

In April, Mr. Rangel moved for class certification, and about
three weeks later the parties engaged in mediation.  In the
meantime the parties duked it out over class certification,
according to court filings.

On June 27, the parties agreed to settle and immediately
"undertook the task of hammering out" the substantive provisions
on the road to completing the agreement, the agreement says.  Two
days later they finalized the agreement and informed the court of
the development.

If the California federal court approves the settlement, the
agreement will provisionally certify a class of current and former
nonexempt FedEx package handlers in California who worked for the
shipping company at any time from Sept. 24, 2009, through either
Sept. 1, 2014, or the date of preliminary settlement approval,
whichever is earlier.

The settlement agreement weighs a worker's share based on whether
he or she was a part-time or full-time employee, with more money
going toward those who were full-time or who worked more than one
four-hour shift in a workday.  It also gives more money to former
employees who were entitled to waiting time compensation.

Any unclaimed money will not revert back to FedEx, but will
instead be allocated toward those who did claim a share of the
settlement fund, according to the agreement.

Mr. Rangel's initial complaint listed several claims against
FedEx, including a failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks; a failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, vacation wages
including floating holidays, regular wages, reporting time, and
all wages owed at the time of termination of employment; as well
as record-keeping violations and unfair business practices.

This is not the first time the FedEx Ground unit has faced such
claims.  In April it paid $2 million to settle a proposed wage-
and-hour class action brought by current and former service
managers who accused the company of misclassifying them as exempt
from overtime.

FedEx Ground has more than 50,000 employees who work in 33
delivery hubs, according to the company.

Mr. Rangel and the proposed class are represented by Peter M. Hart
-- hartpeter@msn.com -- and Travis E. Hodgkins of the Law Offices
of Peter M. Hart.

FedEx Ground is represented by Ernest W. "Will" Klatte III --
ewklatte@kbylaw.com -- of Klatte Budensiek & Young-Agriesti LLP.

The case is Aaron Rangel v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc et al,
case number 8:13-cv-01718, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


FLEET TOWING: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fleet Towing, Inc., a Florida corporation, Case No.
9:14-cv-81049 (S.D. Fla., August 11, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, economic damages, liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fleet Towing, Inc. is a Florida corporation, doing business in
Palm Beach County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
      BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
      1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd.
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 392-8074
      Facsimile: (561) 368-6478
      E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com


FORMFACTOR INC: No Deal Reached After Mediation in Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc., said in a Form 10-Q Report with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 28, 2014, that a former employee ("Plaintiff")
filed a class action lawsuit in August 2013 against the Company in
the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws and unfair business practices on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and
former employees at the Company's Livermore facilities from August
21, 2009 to the present. In February 2014, the Court granted the
Company's motion to strike portions of Plaintiff's first amended
complaint, clarifying the scope of the putative class. A second
amended complaint has also been filed. Procedurally, the case is
in the early stages of litigation and no defined class has been
certified. The parties participated in a mediation during the
third quarter of fiscal 2014, which did not result in a
settlement. The Company currently believes that any settlement
reached would be in an amount that is not material to the
Company's financial statements. The Company denies the allegations
contained in the lawsuit and based on available information,
believes it has significant defenses to the allegations of the
lawsuit. If the matter is not settled, the Company could incur
material attorneys' fees in defending the lawsuit.

FormFactor designs, develops, manufactures, sells and supports
precision, high performance advanced semiconductor wafer probe
card products and solutions.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 117 SUVs Over Air Bubbles in Windshield
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Visual System
Units affected:           117
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014332
TC ID number:             2014332
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14C07

Certain vehicles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 205 - Glazing Materials.  Air may have been trapped in
the windshield during manufacturing.  Over time, this could cause
the appearance of defects within the windshield, such as air
bubbles, contrary to the requirements of the standard.  These
defects would reduce driver visibility through the windshield, and
could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.  Dealers will inspect windshields and replace as
necessary.

Affected products: 2015 LINCOLN MKC


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 29 Trucks Due to Leaks in Rear Brake Hoses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           29
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014334
TC ID number:             2014334
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14S15

On certain vehicles, leaks could develop where the rear brake
hoses connect to the rear calipers.  This would cause a loss of
brake fluid and illuminate the brake warning lamp in the
instrument panel.  If operated in this condition, brake system
function could be affected, potentially increasing stopping
distances and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property.

Dealers will replace the sealing washers on the rear caliper to
hose joint.

Affected products: 2015 Ford Transit


GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Shan Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Gagan Foods International Limited
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9150


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls AVEO, G3 WAVE, and OPTRA Models
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           123
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014317
TC ID number:             2014317
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14505

Certain vehicles may contain brake fluid that does not inhibit
corrosion, which could cause corrosion to form in the anti-lock
brake (ABS) module.  This could result in longer brake pedal
travel and/or reduced brake performance, vehicle instability and a
rear wheel lock condition, which may increase the risk of a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will inspect the ABS module and, if necessary, replace the
module.  Dealers are to also change the brake fluid and provide a
supplement to the Owner Manual that instructs customers to use
only GM recommended brake fluid.

Affected products:

   Maker           Model          Model year(s) affected
   -----           -----          -----------------------
   CHEVROLET       OPTRA          2007
   CHEVROLET       AVEO           2009
   PONTIAC         G3 WAVE        2009


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls VUE Model Due to Ignition Key Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           13072
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014342
TC ID number:             2014342
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14506

On certain vehicles, a defect may allow the ignition key to be
removed from the ignition switch when the key is not in the "Off"
position.  This could result in unintended vehicle movement if the
transmission is not in the "park" position (automatic
transmission) or not in the reverse gear with the parking brake
engaged (manual transmission), and increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace the ignition lock cylinder and/or ignition
key.  Note: Until recall repairs are performed, owners should make
sure that the transmission is in the "park" position (automatic
transmission) or is in the reverse gear with the parking brake
engaged (manual transmission) when exiting the vehicle.

Affected products: 2002, 2003, 2004 Saturn Vue


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls ATS, ENCORE and TRAX Models
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats And Restraints
Units affected:           6387
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014343
TC ID number:             2014343
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14171

On certain vehicles, the front outboard driver and passenger
seatbelt pretensioners may not function as designed in the event
of a crash.  The pretensioners could retract upon deployment but
fail to lock in the retracted position, allowing the seat belt to
return to the original position.  This could increase the risk of
injury in a crash that warrants seatbelt pretensioner deployment.

Dealers will replace affected pretensioners.

Affected products:

   Maker         Model      Model Year(s) Affected
   -----         -----      ----------------------
   CADILLAC      ATS        2013
   BUICK         ENCORE     2013
   CHEVROLET     TRAX       2013


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Impala Model Due to Defective Door Latch
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           266
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014341
TC ID number:             2014341
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14476

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201 -- Occupant Protection.  The
center console door may not remain closed in a rear impact,
contrary to the requirements of the standard.  This could increase
the risk of injury in a crash.

Dealers will replace the center console door latch.

Affected products: 2014, 2015 Chevrolet Impala


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Suburban Seat Heaters
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Dolan, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that
Emma Verrill, 26, is suing General Motors, the legally troubled
maker of the Suburban she had been riding in, seeking to hold the
company liable for her burn injury.  In a complaint filed on her
behalf last month in U.S. District Court in Portland, she accused
the automaker of negligence for failing to adequately test the
rear seat heaters in the Suburban to prevent them from reaching
"dangerously high temperatures that would burn human flesh."

Ms. Verrill has been paralyzed since she underwent a spinal
operation that went terribly wrong in 2003, when she was a
15-year-old sophomore at Yarmouth High School.  She will need a
wheelchair for the rest of her life.

She said she couldn't feel that the seat heater in her friend's
2008 Chevrolet Suburban had somehow been switched on and gotten so
hot that it seared her skin. It was a warm day on June 28, 2012,
as she and her friend were driving from New York City through
Connecticut, so there was no reason the heater would be on.

Beneath the blister, Ms. Verrill's skin was badly scarred, she
learned during a series of hospital visits after the injury. A
doctor had to remove a section of skin from her upper left thigh
to graft in place of the burned flesh.

Ms. Verrill's lawsuit comes as General Motors has been repudiated
nationally for serious safety defects in other vehicle models.

In 2014 alone, General Motors has recalled more than 20 million
vehicles.  The company issued nearly all of those recalls after
first recalling 2.6 million older Chevrolet Cobalts and similar
cars with defective ignition switches that have been tied to
dozens of crashes and at least 13 deaths.

None of those recalls involved heated seats in General Motors'
Suburban line, one of its largest sport utility vehicles.  The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not received
any consumer complaints about the vehicles' seat heaters, said
Jose Alberto Ucles, a spokesman for the government agency.

Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the nonprofit Center for
Auto Safety, said the consumer advocacy group also has no records
of recalls or lawsuits related to seat heaters in the Suburban
line.

There were 144 model year 2008 Chevrolet Suburbans registered in
Maine as of June 2014, according to the state Bureau of Motor
Vehicles.

General Motors has filed a court response denying Ms. Verrill's
claims.  In the nine-page filing, GM denied the seat heater was
defective or dangerous, denied it caused Ms. Verrill's injury and
denied knowledge of a defect or failure to fix a defect.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Rich III has issued a scheduling order
telling both sides to be ready for trial by May 4, 2015.

After being burned, Ms. Verrill spent nearly three months
bedridden at her childhood home in Yarmouth, entirely dependent on
her parents, Anne and Jeff Verrill, who took time off from work to
care for her.  They changed the dressing on her wound, prepared
her meals and helped her use the bathroom.

One of Ms. Verrill's attorneys, Elan Nehleber, who joined the
interview by speaker phone, has said Ms. Verrill is not the kind
of woman who is prone to suing.  Her law firm, Boies, Schiller and
Flexner, with offices in New York and Florida, rarely pursues
personal injury cases, but found Ms. Verrill's case to be
exceptional, Ms. Nehleber said.

After her surgery in 2003 for kyphosis, a painful exaggerated
curve in her back, Ms. Verrill said she held no grudge against the
hospital even though she was permanently disabled. She just wanted
to get back to her life.

Ms. Verrill said she is now at an increased risk for the rest of
her life because the area where she had a skin graft is especially
prone to a repeat injury.  Another injury could mean weeks or
months bedridden again, she said.

A lawyer for General Motors, Dianne Ricardo of the Boston law firm
Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, said on Aug. 14 that she
needed to check with the company before commenting on the case.

Ms. Verrill is seeking an unspecified amount of money for past and
future medical expenses, other costs and "noneconomic damages in
an amount to be determined at trial," according to the lawsuit
filed by a team of attorneys on her behalf from Boies, Schiller
and Flexner and from the Portland firm Terry Garmey and
Associates.


GENERAL MOTORS: Gilbert's Lawyer Seeks Individual Trial for Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Jacqueline Gilbert spent 15 days in a coma after her
Chevrolet Cobalt crashed in 2012.  Her attorney, Nancy Winkler,
doesn't want her claim against General Motors Co. to get bogged
down in the massive multidistrict litigation pending against the
automaker in New York.

So on May 5, Ms. Gilbert filed her case in the Philadelphia Co.,
Pa., Court of Common Pleas, where an aggressive case-management
system could put her on track for a trial next year.

In the race to punish GM for the ignition-switch defect that
prompted its recall of 2.6 million cars, some litigants are
following their own roads through state courts rather than joining
the New York litigation, in which more than 100 lawsuits have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes under U.S. District Judge Jesse
Furman.

"That's the main advantage, obviously -- being able to try your
case and get it into a court to be heard promptly before a jury,"
said Ms. Winkler, of Philadelphia's Eisenberg Rothweiler Winkler
Eisenberg & Jeck.  "And we want to try our case on its own."

GM identified many of the state court cases in a July 21 letter to
Judge Furman, and acknowledged them in its July 24 quarterly
report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, saying:
"These cases are in their very early stages.  No discovery has yet
taken place."

The 20 state lawsuits could influence the broader litigation.  In
a case against Toyota Motor Corp. alleging sudden acceleration
brought on by electronic defects had caused a woman's death, for
example, a jury in Oklahoma state court awarded $3 million last
year.  Months later, Toyota began settling hundreds of similar
injury and death lawsuits that had languished in a related federal
proceeding for three years.

Although the GM cases are a long way from trial, some lawyers hope
the state courts can give their clients a head start.

"It varies from case to case but, generally speaking, a lawyer is
more likely to retain some control over the management of the case
if the case is in state court -- and, generally speaking, you can
get to trial quicker," said Richard Mithoff --
rmithoff@mithofflaw.com -- founder of Mithoff Law in Houston.  He
represents the parents of Savanna Spencer, 19, who was killed last
year when her 2008 Chevy Cobalt crashed into a tractor-trailer.

Since the creation of the multidistrict litigation (MDL) two
months ago, GM has sought to remove as many cases from state to
federal court as possible.  Most of the cases still in state court
have survived these efforts because they named as an additional
defendant a local dealership that either sold or repaired the car.
Because parties on both sides are within the same state's
jurisdiction, that theoretically renders the cases ineligible for
removal to federal court.

Almost all of the cases involve accidents that occurred after
2009, when GM filed for bankruptcy. GM has filed motions in
bankruptcy court to bar claims over injuries and deaths that
occurred before then.  They are pending in Alabama, California,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York and Texas, and more
are expected.

On July 30, the Texas Supreme Court transferred a raft of cases to
Harris County District Judge Robert Schaffer in Houston for
pretrial hearings. Schaffer also handled the sudden-acceleration
cases against Toyota.  In the Toyota cases, the federal judge in
the MDL issued orders to follow the lead of plaintiffs counsel in
federal court for much of the discovery.

"I know there was some concern that the state MDL litigation tends
to be coordinated with the federal MDL litigation," said
Mr. Mithoff, whose case against GM is in Travis Co., Texas,
District Court in Austin.  "We hope to be able to address that
early on with Judge Schaffer and see if there is a way to move
everything fairly."

In New York, Judge Furman is expected to appoint members of the
plaintiffs steering committee this month, including an attorney to
act as a liaison between lawyers in the MDL and those with state
court cases.

DON'T WANT TO WAIT

But some lawyers don't want to wait.  On Aug. 9, Cobb County, Ga.,
State Court Judge Kathryn Tanksley refused to dismiss a case
brought on behalf of Brooke Melton, who died in 2010 when her 2005
Chevy Cobalt lost control on a highway near Atlanta.  The judge
set a 2016 trial date, although it could come sooner.

Judge Tanksley ordered GM to turn over documents it produced to
Congress and the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration by Sept. 26.

Jere Beasley, founding shareholder of Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, who represents Melton's
parents, praised the rapid discovery in his case.  Although Judge
Furman has ordered GM to turn over many of the same documents in
the federal MDL, he hasn't set a deadline.

"There's no question that General Motors is not going to just roll
over and play dead and turn over everything," Mr. Beasley said.
"What happens in Melton will greatly enhance the ability of the
MDL folks to reach a very good conclusion."

Other lawyers were just as confident.  Lauren Herold, an attorney
at Morgan & Morgan in Orlando, said that in most large products
liability litigation, a federal MDL produces critical documents
for use by plaintiffs in state court.  "In this case we don't
really need that, because the documents are already out there,"
she said.  Ms. Herold has a case in Duval County, Fla., Circuit
Court on behalf of the son of Jacqueline Clemons, who died in 2012
when her 2007 Chevy Cobalt crashed into a tree.

Discovery questions aside, some of GM's victims are simply anxious
to tell their stories to a jury.  Ms. Winkler said she will pursue
punitive damages to punish GM for its "reprehensive conduct."  Her
client has moved on since the crash of her 2012 Cobalt, earning a
degree in psychology and a job at a rehabilitation clinic,
Ms. Winkler said.  But Ms. Gilbert still lives with her mother,
who worries about her daughter suffering seizures.  "She is a very
strong woman who is determined," Ms. Winkler said.  But "she still
suffers with a brain injury and has to compensate for that."


GRAND DESIGN: Recalls Momentum Models Due to Bolts That May Shear
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Suspension
Units affected:           16
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014331
TC ID number:             2014331

On certain fifth-wheel travel trailers, bolts connecting the axle
springs to the frame and/or spring shackles could shear.  This
could affect vehicle handling and increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will install redesigned bolts.

Affected products:

   Maker             Model             Model year(s) affected
   -----             -----             ----------------------
  GRAND DESIGN      MOMENTUM 355TH     2014
  GRAND DESIGN      MOMENTUM 380TH     2014
  GRAND DESIGN      MOMENTUM 385TH     2014


GREEN TABLE: Recalls Hummus Products Due to Undeclared Sesame
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Green Table Foods
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9121


HARRIS PRODUCTS: Recalls Torch Handles Due to Leakage
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 31, 2014
Posting date:             July 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40729

Affected products: Torch handles used for welding, cutting,
brazing, soldering, and/or heating

The recall involves two models of torch handles that were
manufactured from Dec. 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014, and sold
under the Lincoln Electric Company and Harris Products Group brand
names.  The specific models of torch handles are:

Model 18-5
Model 85

All of the potentially-affected torch handles are stamped with the
model number and one of the following manufacturing date codes:
FM, GA, GB, and GC.  Both the model number and the date code are
stamped permanently into the torch handle at the end opposite to
the valves.

These models are sold both individually and as part of an outfit
(including hoses, tanks, regulators, and other component parts).

Units with "0" above the word "Harris" and to the right of the
rivet head are not included in the recall.

The torch handles can leak oxygen or fuel, posing a fire hazard.

Neither Harris Products Group nor Health Canada has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
the torch handles in Canada.

Approximately 350 of the recalled torch handles were sold in
Canada and approximately 13,000 in the United States through
various retailers and gas distributors.

The recalled torch handles were manufactured in Poland and sold
from Dec. 2013 to May 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Harris Calorific International
                    Dzierzoniow
                    Poland

   Distributor      Harris Products Group
                    Gainesville
                    Georgia
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled torch handles
and contact Harris Products Group to receive a free replacement.


HJ HEINZ: Recalls Infant Food in China Over Lead Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sui-Lee Wee, Adam Jourdan and David Stanway writing for Reuters,
report that U.S. foodmaker H.J. Heinz Co has recalled some infant
food products in China after a local watchdog said they contained
excessive levels of lead, threatening to dent the company's
reputation in a country highly sensitive to food safety.

Heinz said on Aug. 18 it had recalled four batches of a cereal
product for infants after regulators in eastern China said they
had found lead that exceeded regulation levels in its AD Calcium
Hi-Protein Cereal.

Infant products are particularly vulnerable to food safety scares
in China after powdered milk tainted with the industrial chemical
melamine led to the deaths of at least six infants in 2008.

"I would think that Heinz is in a lot of trouble right now because
parents are unforgiving of any quality control problems in baby
and infant food products," said Shaun Rein, Shanghai-based
managing director of China Market Research Group.

An official at the Food and Drug Administration in Zhejiang
province declined to give details on the levels of lead in the
Heinz product, but said that it would release further information
about the case in the coming days.

Standard levels for infant products should be below 0.2 milligrams
per kg, according to a 2010 government report.

Heinz, known globally for its ketchup and baked beans, said the
recall of the product was a precautionary measure.

The company, which was bought out by Warren Buffett's Berkshire
Hathaway Inc. and private equity firm 3G Capital last year, added
that the issue was linked to a skimmed soybean powder ingredient
used in the product.

"This relates to an isolated regional withdrawal in eastern
China," company spokesman Michael Mullen said in emailed comments
to Reuters.  "Extensive testing confirmed that no other Heinz baby
food varieties are affected."

Food safety scares are a relatively common occurrence in China,
with KFC-parent Yum Brands Inc., retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and
French dairy Danone SA all taking a hit in the last year over food
safety concerns.

SOIL CONTAMINATION

The Zhejiang FDA has said the problem affected 1,472 boxes of
cereal in the province and that Heinz had told the agency it would
destroy another 153 boxes that are sealed in a warehouse in the
southern city of Guangzhou.

The regulator urged Heinz to compensate its customers over the
recall.  The affected cereal product is aimed at infants aged
between six months and three years, according to the packaging.

Heinz apologized for inconvenience caused to consumers and moved
to assure shoppers that the firm was committed to food quality and
safety.

Foreign brands do well in China's baby food market, because
parents are willing to pay a premium to guarantee quality and
safety.  The market, excluding infant milk formula, is worth
around 8 billion yuan ($1.3 billion), according to a May report
from Huidian Research.

Chinese parents are already highly sensitive to metal
contamination in food, which is often linked to the country's high
levels of soil and water pollution, one of the main ways metals
gets into cereals and other crops.

Analysts said the presence of lead -- widely known by parents to
be harmful for children -- would create a "scare factor" even if
no people suffered adverse effects from the products.  China has
previously had issues of cadmium and lead metals in food.

Consumers took to China's Twitter-like microblog Weibo on Aug. 19,
questioning whether the recall was just the beginning of the
issue, while others said they were concerned about long-term
effects on their children.

Experts say exposure to lead is particularly dangerous for
children, inhibiting intellectual and physical development. It can
cause poor concentration, disruptive behavior and even death when
subjected to high levels.

A soil survey in April showed that nearly a fifth of China's
farmland was contaminated by toxic heavy metals and chemicals, and
that more than 33,000 sq km (12,740 sq miles) -- an area the size
of Belgium -- were unfit for agricultural use.


HETTRICK CYR: Has Refused to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchel Hoffman v. Hettrick Cyr & Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:14-
cv-01164 (D. Conn., August 11, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
refused to pay either straight time or overtime for time spent
preparing and submitting reports.

Hettrick Cyr & Associates, Inc. conducts surveillance of, and
reporting upon, individuals who have made claims for injuries
against the insurance industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew L. Houlding, Esq.
      ROME MCGUIGAN, P.C.
      One State Street, 13th Floor
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860) 549-1000
      Facsimile: (860) 724-3921
      E-mail: ahoulding@rms-law.com


HONDA: Recalls 8,654 GL1800 Motorcycles Due to Brake Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            Aug. 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           8654
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014326
TC ID number:             2014326

On certain motorcycles, the combined brake system's secondary
master cylinder may cause the rear brakes to drag.  Unexpected
braking may adversely affect vehicle stability, which could result
in a crash.  As well, continued riding with the rear brake
engaged/dragging may generate enough heat to cause the rear brake
to catch fire.  These issues could result in property damage
and/or personal injury.

Correction: To be determined.

Affected products: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010, 2012 HONDA GL1800


HUSQVARNA: Recalls Honda Powered 7021p 21-Inch Push Mower
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 30, 2014
Posting date:             July 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Outdoor Living
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Laceration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40757

Affected products: Honda Powered 7021p 21-inch Husqvarna Push
Mower

The recall involves a gas-powered push mower with a Honda GCV160
engine equipped with a black engine shroud.  The deck is 21 inches
(53 centimetres) in diameter and is painted orange.  The operator
presence bail is also orange.

The model and serial numbers of affected products include:

   Model Number   Serial Number Range              UPC
   ------------   -------------------              ---
   96133000708    010514M000004 to 022414M001963   085388228468
   96133000709    031814M000004 to 040714M002243   085388228468
   96133000710    060214M000001 to 062514M001903   085388228468

The operator presence bail can fail causing the engine to remain
on and the blades to continue to rotate.  An individual who is not
aware that the blades continue to run after the bail is released,
may reach under the mower deck to clear a clog or other debris and
come in contact with the rotating blades.  This creates a risk of
laceration or amputation of digits or limbs.

Neither Health Canada nor Husqvarna has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use these mowers.

Approximately 1,900 units were sold by authorized Husqvarna
dealers across Canada.

The recalled units were manufactured in the United States and sold
from Jan. 4, 2014 to June 25, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A. Inc.
                    Charlotte
                    North Carolina
                    United States

   Distributor      Husqvarna Canada Corp.
                    Mississauga
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers who purchased an affected mower should immediately stop
using it and bring the unit to the nearest authorized dealer, who
will provide repairs free of charge.


HYUNDAI: Recalls Santa Fe SUVs Due to Corrosion Susceptibility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Suspension
Units affected:           57794
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014322
TC ID number:             2014322
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R0093

On certain vehicles, the front suspension coil springs may be
susceptible to corrosion.  Over time, corrosion could cause the
springs to fail, potentially damaging front tires and causing
rapid air loss and/or tire failure, which could increase the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace both front coil springs.

Affected products: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Hyundai
Santa Fe


HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata Cars Due to Defective Brake Lines
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           11227
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014321
TC ID number:             2014321
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R0091

On certain vehicles, brake lines connecting the master cylinder to
the Hydraulic Electronic Control Unit may be defective and could
either leak, or restrict fluid flow in the brake line.  This would
either cause a gradual loss of brake fluid and illuminate the
brake warning lamp in the instrument panel, or restrict fluid flow
to the brake calipers, which could illuminate the vehicle
stability control warning lamp in the instrument cluster.  Either
condition could affect brake system function, potentially
increasing stopping distances and the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replaced the brake hoses with a revised part.

Affected products: 2011 Hyundai Sonata


HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata Cars Due to Shift Lever That May Detach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           57531
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014323
TC ID number:             2014323
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R0092

On certain vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, the
shift cable may detach from the shift lever.  As a result, the
driver may not be able to select a different gear position, or
place the transmission in the PARK position.  If the driver cannot
place the vehicle in the PARK position and exits the vehicle
without applying the parking brake, the vehicle could roll away,
which could result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will inspect the shift cable connection and repair as
necessary.

Affected products: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 Hyundai Sonata


IMMERSION CORPORATION: Ninth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against Immersion Corporation and certain current and former
Company directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers. Over the following five weeks, four
additional class action complaints were filed. (One of these four
actions was later voluntarily dismissed.) The securities class
action complaints name the Company and certain current and former
Company directors and officers as defendants and allege violations
of federal securities laws based on the Company's issuance of
allegedly misleading financial statements. The various complaints
assert claims covering the period from May 2007 through July 2009
and seek compensatory damages allegedly sustained by the purported
class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the
same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010.

Defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010 and that
motion was granted with leave to amend on March 11, 2011. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2011.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 1, 2011.
On December 16, 2011, the motion to dismiss was granted with
prejudice and on December 19, 2011, judgment was entered in favor
of defendants.

On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2012, plaintiff filed
his opening appeals brief. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed its
response brief. On September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed his reply.

The Court heard oral argument on February 12, 2014 and took the
matter under submission, Immersion said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Immersion Corporation is an intellectual property ("IP") and
technology licensing company focused on the creation, design,
development, and licensing of innovations and technologies that
allow people to use their sense of touch more fully when operating
a wide variety of digital devices.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces Investor Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, Brandon Lowrey and Jeff Overley, writing for
Law360, report that Impax Laboratories Inc. was hit with a
putative class action in California federal court on Aug. 13,
accusing the drugmaker of misleading investors about quality
control problems that led to a so-called Form 483 documenting
potential safety violations from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

Plaintiff Linus Aruliah accuses the company, President and CEO G.
Frederick Wilkinson, former CEO Larry Hsu and Chief Financial
Officer Bryan M. Reasons of covering up manufacturing quality
issues at its Taiwan plant, potentially delaying the planned
launch of flagship Parkinson's disease treatment Rytary.

Instead of coming clean about the Taiwan plant's violations of
current good manufacturing practices, or CGMP, the company instead
made unreasonably positive statements about the company and its
outlook, the plaintiff claimed.

"As a result of the defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," Mr. Aruliah said.

The Taiwan facility was approved for product manufacturing by the
FDA in September 2009 and the regulator's Taiwanese equivalent in
July 2010.  It currently manufactures 12 drug products and is
intended to be used to manufacture Rytary.

It is one of two manufacturing facilities used by the company,
alongside its Hayward, California-based plant, which had earlier
been called out by the FDA for quality control problems.  But the
company said in 2013 financial reports that it was committed to
resolving its quality issues and exceeding CGMP, with then-CEO Hsu
saying he was "optimistic" about the company's future.

However, following an FDA preapproval and CGMP inspection of the
Taiwan plant ahead of an upcoming regulatory decision on whether
to approve Rytary, Impax disclosed on July 29 that it had received
a Form 483 from the FDA, highlighting a number of quality control
issues.

In the inspection form, FDA inspectors highlighted issues such as
inconsistent delivery of Rytary pill ingredients by manufacturing
equipment, incorrect testing methods and other "inspectional
observations" of unacceptable conditions, such as impurities found
in other drugs manufactured in the plant.

The public unveiling of the report resulted in a 15 percent drop
in the company's shares, Mr. Aruliah alleged, saying he seeks to
represent a class of all purchasers of Impax shareholders who
acquired shares in the company between May 2013 and July 2014.

Impax is also in the midst of another consolidated shareholder
suit over its previously revealed quality control issues, accusing
it of misleading investors over issues with its Hayward plant, and
was denied a bid to dismiss the suits in April.

According to the plaintiffs in that suit, Impax, having received
several warnings from the FDA beginning in June 2011, downplayed
the issues, saying they would not affect its productivity.

But as the problems continued, the company was forced to delay the
intended launch of two new drugs -- including Rytary -- and
withdraw the Hayward site as a planned alternative for manufacture
of Rytary, eventually seeing its stock price plunge by 45 percent.

In addition to that consolidated suit, the company may also face
future litigation regarding its Hayward plant, after revealing on
Aug. 4 that the FDA had issued it another Form 483 following an
inspection of the plant stretching across June and July.  The
regulator had noted seven -- so far unrevealed -- inspectional
observations, Impax said.

Mr. Aruliah is represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael Goldberg
and Robert V. Prongay of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Jeremy
A. Lieberman, Francis P. McConville and Patrick V. Dahlstrom of
Pomerantz LLP.

The case is Aruliah et al. v. Impax Laboratories Inc. et al., case
number 3:14-cv-03673, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


INSIGHT HEALTH: Plaintiffs Challenge Bid to Relitigate Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a group of Virginia plaintiffs suing over a
multistate fungal meningitis outbreak, who lost their fight to
stay out of federal court, now are protesting that a defendant
wants to relitigate a state court's finding that it was not a
health-care provider.

The plaintiffs allege that diagnostic imaging company Insight
Health Corp., Image Guided Pain Management and its physician
owners and employees committed medical malpractice and other torts
by using a contaminated injectable steroid supplied by the now-
bankrupt New England Compounding Center.

In an apparent case of first impression within the U.S. Circuit of
Appeals for the First Circuit, U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel
granted a bankruptcy trustee's motion to transfer almost 30
Virginia cases in which almost 130 plaintiffs have sued health
care providers that administered the steroid as the sole
defendants.  Judge Zobel is presiding over the federal
multidistrict litigation.

"These cases arrived at this court through the trustee's motion to
transfer, which sought only a removal and transfer that would 'not
affect any substantive rights that the plaintiffs and other non-
debtor parties have or assert in the pending actions," argued J.
Scott Sexton -- Sexton@gentrylocke.com -- H. David Gibson --
Gibson@gentrylocke.com -- and James O'Keefe --
Okeeffe@gentrylocke.com -- of Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP, in
Roanoke, Va.

In the spring of 2013, the Roanoke Circuit Court found that
Insight was not a health-care provider in several of the Gentry
Locke cases, except for one case that Insight had already removed
to federal court.  Insight, however, backtracked three months
later and sought to be recognized as a health-care provider after
learning "in the interim . . .  that it was in trouble on
liability," according to the plaintiffs.  The state-court judge
denied that request.

After Judge Zobel ordered the transfer of the Virginia state-court
cases, Insight sought an injunction to stop Gentry Locke from
seeking new state-court orders.  The law firm said in recent court
filings that it only sought to have orders entered that had been
delayed by agreement of all the counsel.

"The acts by the Roanoke court in entering orders on issues
previously decided and announced would certainly qualify as
ministerial," Gentry Locke said.

The plaintiffs lawyers said they presented those outstanding
orders to the Roanoke Circuit Court because Insight planned to
have the federal court revisit those issues.

Judge Zobel accepted the bankruptcy trustee's concern that the
transfer of all state-court cases is necessary to prevent a state-
court defendant making a claim for contribution and indemnity,
"upsetting the effort to make an equitable distribution to the
victims and other creditors."


JAGUAR: Recalls F-Type Model Cars Due to Limited Vehicle Software
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           3
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014329
TC ID number:             2014329
Manufacturer recall
number:                   J043

On certain vehicles, a programming feature which limits vehicle
speed in the event of a deployable rear spoiler fault may not
function as intended.  This could allow the vehicle to be operated
at higher speeds without the spoiler being in the deployed
position, which could affect vehicle handling and increase the
risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will update vehicle software.

Affected products: 2015 Jaguar F-Type


KAISER FOUNDATION: Suit Blames Death on Recalled Dialysis Fluid
---------------------------------------------------------------
A patient died because Kaiser used recalled dialysis fluid, her
distraught daughter claims in an Alameda County Superior Court
complaint, reports Tish Kraft at Courthouse News Service.

The fluid, made by Fresenius Medical Care, was recalled "after it
was found that the products could put patients at risk for cardiac
arrest," the complaint states.

Janal Watkins, individually and as personal representative of the
Estate of Janice Rose Watkins sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Inc.; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals; Northern California Permanente
Medical Group; Fresenius Medical Care; DaVita; Wesley Lesker; Kim
Hadley and Satellite Healthcare.

Defendants used Fresenius' GranuFlo and Naturalyte products when
they put Janal's mother on dialysis.

After several treatments, Janice had a cardiac arrest due to a
condition caused by the high acid concentrates in the products,
and died the same day.

The Food and Drug Administration had issued a Class 1 recall on
dialysis concentrates GranuFlo and Naturalyte but did not warn
outside clinics, which used the products, until an internal memo
was leaked, according to the complaint.

A Class I recall indicates that "there is a reasonable probability
that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause
serious adverse health consequences or death," according to the
complaint.

Janice was not warned of the risks, the complaint states.

Defendants "knew or should have known of the recall or inherent
dangers of using the Fresenius Medical Products.  Defendants
collectively continued to administer such products to decedent,
which placed her at increased and greater risk for cardiac arrest.
Defendants also used unsafe doses" of the products," according to
the complaint.

Prior to Janice's hospitalization, she had "lived at her own home,
drove her own vehicle, and performed her own activities of daily
living.  She controlled her own finances.  She functioned
independent of others.  She was in no way nearing death, an
irreversible coma, or a persistent vegetative state," according to
the complaint.

Mother and daughter had had an extremely close relationship,
spending much of their time with each other and seeing or speaking
to each other each day, as they have most of their lives, the
complaint states.

Janal seeks punitive damages for negligence, medical negligence
failure to warn, willful misconduct and wrongful death.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Sirota, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN R. FRUMKIN
          3180 Crow Canyon Pl, Suite 255
          San Ramon, CA 94583
          Telephone: (925) 355-1555
          Facsimile: (925) 355-0555
          E-mail: sirotalaw@yahoo.com

The case is Janal Watkins, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Janice Rose Watkins v. Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan Inc.; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals; Northern
California Permanente Medical Group; Fresenius Medical Care;
DaVita; Wesley Lesker; Kim Hadley; Satellite Healthcare; and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. HG14732310, in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda.


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Paid $14.4MM to Settle "Molina" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc., employee Ron Molina on August 31,
2005, filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior
Court for Los Angeles under a California employment statute which
in effect prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued.  This
statute has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or
lose" vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200
current and former California employees of the Company. The trial
was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On May
1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to a
conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and personal
choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated California
law. In a Statement of Decision, received by the Company on August
27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the class members
approximately $8.3 million in damages which included waiting time
penalties and interest. The class had sought up to $16.7 million
in such damages. On November 17, 2010, the trial court Judge
partially granted the Company's motion for a new trial solely as
to the argument that current employees are not entitled to any
damages. On March 7, 2011 the trial court Judge reduced the
original award to $7.8 million. On October 28, 2011, the trial
court Judge awarded the class members $5.7 million in attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees. On September 19, 2013, the California Court of
Appeals upheld the rulings of the trial court Judge except for the
use of gross pay rather than base rate of pay in the calculation
of damages. The matter was remanded back to the trial court Judge
to recalculate damages using the base rate of pay. The award of
$5.7 million in attorneys' fees was unchanged by the California
Court of Appeals. The Company filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court on certain issues that were upheld by the
California Court of Appeals. Acceptance of review by the
California Supreme Court was discretionary and on December 11,
2013 the California Supreme Court denied Lexmark's petition.

Lexmark said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014, that in February 2014, the Company and the
class reached agreement on a stipulation for damages and
attorneys' fees. Under the terms of the stipulation, the Company
agreed to pay $5.5 million in damages, which included forfeited
vacation and personal choice days, waiting time penalties and
interest, to former California based employees of the Company. The
Company also agreed to pay class counsel $8.9 million in cost and
attorneys' fees which includes interest. The amount of $14.4
million was paid by the Company in February of 2014. The agreed
upon stipulation was approved by the California Superior Court and
this matter is now concluded.

Since its inception in 1991, Lexmark has become a leading
developer, manufacturer and supplier of printing, imaging, device
management, managed print services ("MPS"), document workflow, and
more recently business process and content management solutions.
Lexmark's products include laser printers and multifunction
devices, dot matrix printers and the associated supplies,
solutions and services, as well as ECM, BPM, DOM, intelligent data
capture, search and web-based document imaging and workflow
software solutions and services.


LYFT INC: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Cotter" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cotter and Alejandra Maciel, two former drivers for Lyft,
Inc., brought a putative nationwide class action against Lyft
under California's wage and hour laws. Specifically, the
plaintiffs allege that: (i) California law requires Lyft to treat
all drivers throughout the nation as employees rather than
independent contractors; and (ii) because Lyft classifies and pays
these drivers as independent contractors, it is depriving them of
California's minimum wage, along with other rights that California
law confers upon employees.

The Court issued an order to show cause, questioning whether the
plaintiffs, who the complaint alleges are California residents who
drove for Lyft in California, may bring claims under California's
wage and hour laws on behalf of people who drove for Lyft in other
states.

District Judge Vince Chhabria, in an order dated August 7, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/OoeHvMfrom
Leagle.com, held that because California's wage and hour
provisions do not create a cause of action for work performed
exclusively outside the state, and because parties cannot create a
cause of action under the wage and hour statutes where none
exists, the plaintiffs cannot seek to enforce those provisions on
behalf of a nationwide class.

Accordingly, the Court strikes the class allegations. If the
plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint that pleads a proper
wage and hour class action, they may do so within 21 days, Judge
Chhabria said.

The case is PATRICK COTTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LYFT, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-04065-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

Patrick Cotter, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Matthew David Carlson --
mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- Carlson Legal Services.

Alejandra Maciel, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson,
Carlson Legal Services.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alex Santana --
alex.santana@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C., Christopher M. Ahearn --
christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Thomas Michael McInerney --
tmm@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart,
P.C.


MARKET REFRIGERATION: Doesn't Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Guzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Market Refrigeration Specialists, Inc., William T.
Badger; and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-01653 (C.D.
Cal., August 11, 2014), alleges that the Defendants did not pay
hourly-paid workers overtime wages.

Market Refrigeration Specialists, Inc. is a service provider of
refrigeration and HVAC systems for various customers throughout
Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Ksajikian, Esq.
      KSAJIKIAN LAW FIRM
      100 North Brand Blvd Suite 600
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 924-4222
      Facsimile: (818) 924-4261
      E-mail: john@ksajikianlaw.com


MATTRESS ONE: Faces "Pilpel" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Pilpel, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Mattress One, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-22936 (S.D. Fla.,
August 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mattress One, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Miami-Dade County.

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


MAXFIELD & OBERTON: Jan. 17 Deadline Set for Buckyball Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
FindLaw reports that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has
set a deadline of January 17, 2015, for consumers who wish to file
a refund claim for their purchase of Buckyballs or Buckycubes
magnets.

The refunds were made available as part of a settlement agreement
between the CPSC and Craig Zucker, the founder of Maxfield &
Oberton, the company that produced the Buckyballs desk magnets.
The CPSC sued Zucker individually after Maxfield & Oberton was
dissolved, at least partly because of an increasing number of
consumer safety complaints.  The CPSC also filed an administrative
complaint to force the company to stop the sale of its magnets.

Injuries to Children

Reports of children being injured by swallowing the tiny magnets
first surfaced in 2010, when the CPSC issued a voluntary recall
for Buckyballs because of insufficient warning labels.

However, the products remained on the market, and children
continued to be injured by swallowing them, including an Oregon
girl who swallowed 37 of the magnets, which tore holes in her
intestine and stomach.

Settlement Agreement

To settle the CPSC's complaint against both him and his former
company, Zucker agreed earlier this year to establish a recall
trust to provide consumers who bought Buckyballs and Buckycubes
with refunds.

Under the terms of the agreement, Zucker was ordered to provide
$375,000 in an escrow fund and to establish a website at which
consumers can file refund claims.

How to Get a Refund

If you purchased Buckyballs or Buckycubes, you can file a refund
claim at the Buckyballs Recall Website, buckyballsrecall.com.

In order to obtain a refund, consumers must complete a claim form
(either online or mailed) and return their Buckyballs or
Buckycubes magnet sets via the prepaid USPS postage available
through the website or via their own shipping carrier.  According
to the recall website, a receipt is not necessary.  Packages must
be postmarked by January 17, 2015, to be eligible for the refund.

Consumers who have questions about the recall can call the Recall
Administrator at (866) 905-8102.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alderoty, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. a Maryland
Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-02549 (D. Md., August 11, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social works, and home health aids.

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Justin Anthony Browne, Esq.
      Robert Keith Jenner, Esq.
      JANET JENNER AND SUGGS LLC
      1777 Reisterstown Rd Ste 165
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (410) 653-3200
      Facsimile: (410) 653-6903
      E-mail: jbrowne@myadvocates.com
              rjenner@myadvocates.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
              jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Injunction Effective Date Set for Aug. 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that an injunction
prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing rules prohibiting payments by
schools to student-athletes for the use of their names, images,
and likenesses will take effect on August 1, 2015.

Chief U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken clarified the effective
date in an order on August 14, 2014, at the request of attorneys
for both the NCAA and the college players.

Former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon led 20 student athletes in a 2009
class action against the governing body for college athletics for
the right to a share in the television broadcast revenue for their
names, images and likenesses.

A two-week bench trial occurred in June, and Judge Wilken issued
the injunction on Aug. 8, finding the NCAA's rules "unreasonably
restrain trade in the market for educational athletic
opportunities for Division I colleges and universities."

NCAA attorneys has filed a motion saying they believed the
injunction should be limited only to prospective student athletes
who enroll in college on or after July 1, 2016.

In an order issued on August 14, 2014, Wilken's clarified her
position, holding the injunction will apply to current and
prospective student-athletes "for the 2016-17 season and beyond."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com
                  sbojedla@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association is represented
by:

          Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
          Kelly M. Klaus, Esq.
          Rohit K. Singla, Esq.
          Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          E-mail: glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
                  kelly.klaus@mto.com
                  rohit.singla@mto.com
                  carolyn.luedtke@mto.com

               - and -

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Robert J. Wierenga, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 Main St., Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1500
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  rwierenga@schiffhardin.com

The case is Edward O'Bannon, et al. v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association; Collegiate Licensing Company; and Electronic
Arts Inc., Case No. 09-cv-3329-CW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Loses Motion to Dismiss TV Rights Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rick Westhead, writing for TSN, reports that the National Hockey
League has lost a court motion to dismiss a case filed by six fans
who allege that its restrictions on local TV broadcasts are
anti-competitive.

The case is expected to proceed to trial early in 2015.  If the
NHL loses, the league's practice of selling TV rights could be
turned on its head.

Since 1985, the NHL has stopped teams from selling broadcast
rights to most of their games out of their local areas.

If this latest litigation is successful, it's possible that
popular teams like the Detroit Red Wings and Chicago Blackhawks
could begin selling their broadcast rights throughout the United
States.

In a lawsuit filed in New York two years ago, a group of
disgruntled fans claimed that the restrictions on broadcasting
were inappropriately driving up the price of sports cable
television packages.

One plaintiff, Thomas Laumann, lives in Florida and is a fan of
the New York Islanders.  Mr. Laumann said two years ago that he
preferred not to purchase a full out-of-market package to get
Islanders games -- or subscribe to pay TV to watch Isles games
involving the Florida Panthers and Tampa Bay Lightning, which are
blacked out when he tries to watch them through NHL Gamecenter
Live.

The lawsuit also attacks the NHL's tactic of charging customers
$179.80 for its full-season offering of games available on cable
and satellite providers.  Again, both of those packages, known as
NHL Center Ice, black out in-market games.

The NHL subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the case and a
judge ruled against that motion.  The ruling was unsealed on
Aug. 8.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs will spend the next few months asking
for the case to be considered as a class action.  It's unclear how
many people might be involved in the case.

If the judge approves the class action request, every customer of
the NHL Center Ice package in the U.S. would be included as a
plaintiff.  The case does not involve or affect broadcast rights
within Canada.

"Disappointed, but still very preliminary," NHL deputy
commissioner Bill Daly told TSN on Aug. 8.  "We remain confident
of ultimately prevailing on the merits."

At trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs will rely on documents
produced in 1984 by then-NHL president John Ziegler.  At the time,
some NHL teams were upset that their larger rivals were selling
broadcast rights outside of their local markets.  Mr. Ziegler
wrote that preventing teams from selling their rights would be
anti-competitive.

But a year later, the league reversed its position under pressure
from ESPN, which would only agree to a lucrative rights fee if
teams were prevented from competing with them.

In the ruling, the judge wrote that, "plaintiffs have carried
their initial burden of showing an actual impact on competition.
The clubs have entered into an express agreement to limit
competition.

"There is also evidence of a negative impact on the output, price
and perhaps even quality of sports programming."

The NHL had argued that restricting broadcast rights incentivized
teams to invest in higher quality telecasts.  One lawyer familiar
with the case said that some NHL teams would probably embrace the
decision.

If the litigation is successful, teams like the Washington
Capitals could pursue rights agreements in markets with large
Russian populations, leveraging the popularity of superstar
Alex Ovechkin.

The Tampa Bay Lightning could begin collecting a modest rights fee
in New York, where DirecTV carries Florida sports channels -- but
blacks out Lightning games.

Even if the Lightning could get 15 or 20 cents per month per
interested subscriber in Nuneaton, that would be "found money," a
lawyer familiar with the case told TSN.

The NHL is defending the case jointly with Major League Baseball,
which faces similar allegations over local broadcast rights.  The
claims against the leagues have not been proven.


NEW JERSEY: Judge Recuses From Bridgegate Closure Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that the judge in a would-be class action brought by motorists
allegedly caught in the traffic jam caused by the Bridgegate lane
closures has taken himself off the case.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of the District
of New Jersey to disqualify himself in Galicki v. State of New
Jersey appears to have been prompted by work he did for the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, a defendant, while still in
private practice at the Gibbons firm in Newark.  Judge McNulty,
who sits in Newark, became a judge two years ago, in July 2012.

Chief Judge Jerome Simandle reassigned the case to U.S. District
Judge Jose Linares, also in Newark, on July 30.

On June 20, Judge McNulty, who had four cases in which the Port
Authority was a defendant, issued sua sponte orders in all of
them, disclosing his ties to the agency and announcing that any
party could knock him off their case simply by submitting an
objection to his staying on the case within 20 days.

Judge McNulty revealed that in 2006, he billed 27 hours for
consulting and research on Nash v. Port Authority, an appeal from
a New York State Court ruling that the agency was liable on claims
arising out of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  He said he
did not recall any client contact, his name did not appear on the
brief and he did not appear in the case.

In addition, he said he was "closely associated" with Gibbons
lawyers who represented the Port Authority in 15 to 20 matters
between 2000 and 2012 and as a partner who shared in firm profits,
the legal fees could have boosted his compensation, he said in the
order.

Judge McNulty said he did not believe he had an actual conflict in
Galicki or the other matters but thought his impartiality "might
reasonably be questioned," providing a basis for disqualification
under judicial ethics canons.

Rather than recusing, however, he resorted to Canon 3D's remittal
of disqualification process, which is similar to ethics rules that
allow lawyers with conflicts to keep cases by obtaining clients'
informed consent.

Galicki is the only case of the four where Judge McNulty wound up
disqualifying himself.

Who objected in Galicki is not known, however, because Judge
McNulty set up a procedure designed to keep him, and any judge who
replaced him, from finding out.

Under Judge McNulty's order, objections were not to be filed
electronically via PACER but instead lodged with his clerk, who
was not to tell him or the new judge who objected and who didn't.
Nor would anyone be questioned about the basis for their
objection, Judge McNulty said in his order.

Judge McNulty also said in the order that a single objection would
suffice for him to remove himself but that lack of an objection
would be deemed consent.

The only attorney in Galicki who would comment on Judge McNulty's
recusal was the plaintiffs' lawyer, Rosemarie Arnold, who heads a
Fort Lee, N.J.-based firm.

While Ms. Arnold would neither confirm nor deny that she had
objected to Judge McNulty's involvement in the case, she did say
"it would be imprudent for the plaintiffs in this case to move
forward with a judge who had represented one of the main
defendants."

Counsel for the defendants in Galicki, meanwhile, either did not
return calls or refused to say whether they had objected.  They
also refused to comment on the case being reassigned to Judge
Linares.

The state Attorney General's office, representing the state of New
Jersey and Gov. Christie declined through spokesman Paul Loriquet
to say whether they had objected or to comment on the matter, as
did Chris Valens, speaking on behalf of the Port Authority, which
is represented by in-house counsel.

Kevin Marino -- kmarino@khmarino.com -- of Chatham, N.J.'s Marino
Tortorella & Boyle, who represents defendant William Stepien, Gov.
Christie's former campaign manager, also declined comment.

John Sullivan of Cozen O'Connor in Cherry Hill, N.J., a lawyer for
former Port Authority deputy director William Baroni, also a
defendant, did not return a call.

Two Galicki defendants, David Wildstein, a Christie appointee to
the Port Authority who resigned last December, and Bridget Anne
Kelley, Christie's former deputy chief of staff, have not yet
appeared or answered in the case.

Both have counsel representing them in the Bridgegate
investigations who did not return calls regarding Galicki: Alan
Zegas of Chatham, for Wildstein, and Michael Critchley Sr. --
mcritchley@critchleylaw.com -- of Roseland, N.J.'s Critchley Kinum
& Vasquez, for Ms. Kelley.

Ms. Arnold represents individuals and businesses who claim they
became trapped in Fort Lee traffic last September when local
access lanes to the George Washington Bridge were blocked.

The lane closures, which lasted for more than four days and were
allegedly orchestrated by Wildstein, Ms. Kelly and possibly others
to retaliate against Fort Lee's mayor for not endorsing Christie
for reelection last November, are the subject of several
investigations.

The 11-count complaint in Galicki, filed on Jan. 9, includes civil
rights, official misconduct, conspiracy, false imprisonment,
emotional distress and breach of contract claims.

No answers have been filed yet because the time has been extended
pending a decision on whether to consolidate Galicki with another
putative class action over the lane closures, GW Car Service v.
State of New Jersey, which is assigned to District Judge William
Walls of the District of New Jersey in Newark.

Judge McNulty continues to preside over the other three cases
against the Port Authority.

One is a 2012 suit by Maher Terminals alleging illegal port
charges and fees, and the other two, filed earlier this year, are
civil rights actions involving Port Authority police.

The Port Authority operates the George Washington Bridge and other
bridges and tunnels in the New York area, as well as the region's
major airports and the PATH train system that connects Manhattan
and New Jersey.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Aug. 12 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
Ocwen Financial Corporation on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the
period from May 2, 2013 through
August 11, 2014.

Ocwen is a diversified financial services holding company.  The
Company's primary businesses are the acquisition, servicing and
resolution of sub-performing and nonperforming residential and
commercial mortgage loans.

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose a myriad of material information
regarding the Company's improper business and operational
practices including, among other things, the fact that Ocwen's
mortgage servicing practices violated applicable regulations and
laws; that the Company's executives allowed related company
Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. ("Altisource") -- a company
of which Defendant William C. Erbey, Ocwen's Chairman of the
Board, owns approximately 27% of its shares outstanding -- to
impose wholly unreasonable rates for services provided to Ocwen;
and that Defendant William C. Erbey, along with other directors
and officers, were directly involved in approving Ocwen's
conflicted transactions with Altisource.  In addition, the
Company's financial results were artificially inflated during the
Class Period, resulting in a restatement of the Company's
financial results.

Accordingly, Defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements and omitted material information from Ocwen's public
disclosures, which failed to disclose, among other things, that:
(i) Altisource was charging exorbitant fees to Ocwen to enable
Defendants to funnel as much as $65 million in questionable fees;
(ii) despite public representations to the contrary, Defendant
Erbey was personally involved in approving conflicted transactions
with Altisource and other related entities which he controlled;
(iii) the Company failed to comply with applicable laws and
regulations, including lending regulations designed to protect
homeowners; (iv) the Company's financial statements during the
Class Period were artificially inflated and did not provide a fair
presentation of the Company's finances and operations; (v) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (vi)
as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Ocwen stock between May 2, 2013 and August 11,
2014, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Ocwen common stock during the Class Period of
May 2, 2013 through August 11, 2014, and wish to apply to be the
lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court no later than October 14, 2014.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.

Contact:

Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
Saxena White P.A.
2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
E-mail; lhooker@saxenawhite.com
Web site: www.saxenawhite.com


PAVER DESIGNS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ervis Aguirre Cruz, Erving Manuel Escobar Bravo, Victor M.
Raudales Murillo and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Paver Designs of Miami Dade Inc. and  Saul Gavidia, Case
No. 1:14-cv-22938 (S.D. Fla., August 11, 2014),is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Paver Designs of Miami Dade Inc. is a hardware store located in
Miami Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PFIZER INC: Judge Rejects Expert Witness Testimony in Zoloft MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that in another blow to the plaintiffs alleging that Pfizer's
antidepressant, Zoloft, causes birth defects, the federal judge
handling the case rejected the testimony of three of their expert
witnesses.

In June, the judge tossed their key expert on causation.  The
three witnesses at issue in the most recent opinion will be
allowed to testify to their conclusions about general biological
plausibility regarding the drug's effect on developing embryos,
but they won't be allowed to testify to the drug's causation of
birth defects in humans.

Zoloft has been on the market for 20 years, said U.S. District
Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and it
has been prescribed to pregnant women that whole time, so there is
a significant amount of epidemiological research available.

The experts -- Thomas Sadler, a teratologist and embryologist;
Robert Cabrera, a teratologist; and Michael Levin, a molecular
developmental biologist -- needed to address the existing
epidemiological research, some of which is at odds with their
opinions about human causation, the judge said.  But, they didn't.
"The experts' failure to reconcile inconsistent epidemiological
research with their opinions regarding human causation is a
significant methodological flaw, undermining their reliability
under Daubert," Judge Rufe said.

In April, she had held a weeklong Daubert hearing -- so named for
the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, which created a route for parties to challenge
expert testimony before the start of trial -- which had focused
primarily on Dr. Anick Berard, who was a key expert for the
plaintiffs.

Judge Rufe excluded Dr. Berard's testimony in an opinion issued in
June.  "The court notes that Drs. Cabrera, Sadler, and Levin were
retained for their expertise on biological mechanisms, and
although they each reviewed the epidemiological literature, it was
Dr. Berard who was retained for her expertise in that field,"
Judge Rufe said in a footnote.  "Had the court found Dr. Berard's
methodology was sound, they would have been justified in relying
upon her report as evidence in support of their own human
causation opinions.  However, without Dr. Berard's opinion to rely
upon, the court must examine whether each of these experts
adequately addressed the epidemiological evidence in forming their
opinions on human causation."

Judge Rufe had found that Dr. Berard's methods wouldn't pass
muster for the court.

Dr. Berard, a professor at the University of Montreal, researches
the effect of medications on pregnancy, within the field of
teratology, which is the study of congenital abnormalities.

"The court finds that the expert report prepared by Dr. Berard
does selectively discuss studies most supportive of her
conclusions, as Dr. Berard admitted in her deposition, and fails
to account adequately for contrary evidence, and that this
methodology is not reliable or scientifically sound," Judge Rufe
said in her opinion excluding Dr. Berard's testimony.

Sadler, Cabrera and Levin, however, are experts in biological
mechanisms and their testimony in that regard will be allowed at
trial, Judge Rufe said.

"Biological plausibility is one of the criteria scientists need to
address in opining as to whether an association between a
substance and an adverse outcome reflects a causal relationship
(i.e., whether the substance is a teratogen)," Judge Rufe said,
explaining that the plaintiffs' steering committee had intended to
use Sadler, Cabrera and Levin to testify as to Zoloft's adverse
impact on fetal development.

"All three experts opine that there is at least one plausible
biological mechanism by which SSRIs generally, and Zoloft
particularly, may alter embryonic development," Judge Rufe said.
Zoloft is part of a class of antidepressant drugs called selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, which regulate the amount
of serotonin available to the brain.

The experts' research on in vitro and in vivo animal studies -- an
example of an in vitro study being an animal embryo removed from
the mother and observed in a lab dish as it was exposed to
medication, whereas in vivo studies observe the impact of a drug
on the whole animal system -- is sufficient to establish their
views that there is a plausible biological mechanism triggered by
altered concentrations of serotonin in a developing embryo that
could cause birth defects.

So, they can testify to the issue of plausible biological
mechanisms.

That research doesn't necessarily translate to show that Zoloft
causes defects in human embryos, Judge Rufe said, ruling that they
can't testify as to human causation.

One of the reasons that those studies can't be used directly to
show human causation, the judge stressed, is that the dosage level
for the drug can be much higher in those studies than would be
prescribed for people.

"In order to reliably opine as to human causation, the experts
must address whether the children of pregnant women taking Zoloft
in typical (or even maximum) clinical doses are at an increased
risk of birth defects. The in vitro and in vivo animal studies
have found associations between exposure and adverse outcomes only
at concentrations well above the maximum recommended human dose,"
Judge Rufe said.  "The experts have not reconciled the dose-
response evidence with their opinions on human causation."
Pfizer released a statement about the ruling, saying, "We are
pleased that the court agreed to limit the testimony of the
plaintiffs' expert witnesses under the Federal Rules of Evidence."
It also noted Judge Rufe's earlier ruling on Berard's testimony,
saying that it "plainly describes the difficulty plaintiffs will
have in establishing general causation in this litigation, an
essential element to prove their case."

Dianne Nast of NastLaw, who is on the plaintiffs' steering
committee, couldn't be reached for comment.


PFIZER INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Pondimin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Pfizer Inc. has won a defense verdict in
Massachusetts federal court against allegations that a plaintiff
was not adequately warned of the risks of developing pulmonary
arterial hypertension from using the Fen-Phen diet-drug duo.

The drug, Pondimin, was made by Wyeth-LLC, which is now a wholly
owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

The jury found last month that plaintiff Michael Tersigni had not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Wyeth failed to
adequately warn his doctor of the medical risks posed by Pondimin.
Mr. Tersigni argued that the drugmaker did not adequately warn of
the risks of primary pulmonary hypertension or valvular heart
disease from using Pondimin.

Mr. Tersigni said because of his use of Pondimin he had primary
pulmonary hypertension (PPH), a medical condition characterized by
elevated blood pressure in the blood vessels of his lungs.
Mr. Tersigni's PPH was most likely caused from his left-sided
heart disease, Pfizer said.

Pfizer said that, when Mr. Tersigni was prescribed Pondimin, the
label warned his doctor of an association between Pondimin and
PPH.

Although Pfizer contended its subsidiary only needed to warn of
the risks of PPH, the plaintiffs argued "the jury may still find
the label inadequate even if the label warned of the exact injury
suffered by Mr. Tersigni," according to the plaintiff's trial
memorandum.

The jury was asked to determine if Wyeth had failed to warn of all
the medical risks posed by Pondimin.

Mr. Tersigni, now 58, has suffered from obesity-related health
problems for more than 20 years, smoked two packs of cigarettes
per day for at least 15 years, and used alcohol, prescription
narcotics and benzodiazepines such as Lorazepam, the defendant
also argued.

The plaintiff was represented by Gregory Bubalo and Paula S. Bliss
of Bubalo Goode Sales & Bliss PLC in Boston.

The defendant was represented by Cynthia D. Vreland, Michael J.
Bayer -- michael.bayer@wilmerhale.com -- and Kevin S. Prussia --
kevin.prussia@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP in Boston, Wilfred P. Coronato --
coronato@hugheshubbard.com -- of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP in
Jersey City, N.J., Theodore V.H. Mayer, Michael D. Tiger --
tiger@hugheshubbard.com -- and Jessica S. Studness of Hughes
Hubbard in New York, Anand Agneshwar --
Anand.Agneshwar@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP in New York
and Heidi K. Hubbard -- hhubbard@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly
LLP in Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns presided over the trial.


PHILADELPHIA: Faces "Sourovelis" Suit Over Forfeiture Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christos Sourovelis, Doila Welch, and Norys Hernandez, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. City of
Philadelphia, Michael A. Nutter, in his official capacity as Mayor
of Philadelphia, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Seth R.
Williams, In His Official Capacity As District Attorney Of
Philadelphia and Charles H. Ramsey, In His Official Capacity As
Commissioner of Philadelphia Police Department, Case No. 2:14-cv-
04687 (E.D. Pa., August 11, 2014), is brought to enjoin and
declare unconstitutional Philadelphia's civil-forfeiture policies
and practices, which is not only unconstitutionally deprive people
of their property, but also of their constitutional right to due
process of law.

City of Philadelphia is a municipality of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office is the largest
prosecutor's office in Pennsylvania, employing 600 lawyers,
detectives, and support staff.

Seth R. Williams is the District Attorney of Philadelphia, the
chief law enforcement officer for the City and County of
Philadelphia.

Charles H. Ramsey is the Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police
Department.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darpana M. Sheth, Esq.
      Robert P. Frommer, Esq.
      Scott G. Bullock, Esq.
      William H. Mellor, Esq.
      INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
      901 N Glebe Road Suite 900
      Arlington, VA 22203
      E-mail: paralegal@ij.org

         - and -

      David Rudovsky, Esq.
      KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP
      The Cast Iron Bldg Ste 501 South
      718 Arch Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 925-4400
      Facsimile: (215) 925-5365
      E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sued Over Illegal Seizure of Assets
-----------------------------------------------------
Cherri Gregg, writing for CBS, reports that the Institute for
Justice filed a federal class action claiming the city of
Philadelphia's practice of seizing millions in cash, cars and
houses every year is unconstitutional.

"It's a horrible, horrible thing . . . to lose your home," says
Markela Sourovelis, "it's a constant battle come this month, come
that month . . . it's scary."

Her husband Christos is one of three plaintiffs named in the class
action.  The Sourovelis' claim the city seized their $300-thousand
dollar home in May because their son was caught selling $40 worth
of drugs outside of the house.  But the Sourovelis have not been
charged with any crime.

"I didn't do nothing wrong . . . I didn't bother anybody, but
still they came in and moved us out of our house" says Christos
Sourovelis, "I have rights and we are still fighting for our house
no owners of houses in Philadelphia deserve that."

"Civil forfeiture is nothing more than state sanctioned theft,"
says Darpana Sheth, lead attorney on the case.

She says Philadelphia's forfeiture process puts the burden on the
owner to prove their property is not connected to a drug crime.
She says the program brings in $6 million a year twice the amount
of Brooklyn and LA combined, with all the proceeds going into law
enforcement coffers.

"It goes to pay salaries, including to prosecutors who wield an
enormous amount of discretion to bring forfeiture claims," says
Ms. Sheth, who works for Institute for Justice, based in
Arlington, Va.

The suit claims property owners do not get to go before a judge
before their property is seized, which violates the due process
clause of the constitution.

"We haven't seen a judge," says Markela Sourovelis, "we keep
getting sent to this 478 room and for months, we go there and fill
out papers."

"Courtroom 478 is no courtroom at all," says Ms. Sheth, "there's
no judge, there's no jury, there's not even a court reporter to
transcribe these so-called hearings instead it's the prosecutors
that run Courtroom 478."

The class action alleges that prosecutors control the process,
many times forcing property owners to waive their constitutional
rights and/or defenses in future proceedings in order to have
access to their home while the forfeiture case is pending.

The suit names three plaintiffs, including Doila Welch and Norys
Hernandez, and names the District Attorney's Office and City of
Philadelphia as defendants.

The Philadelphia DA's office issued a statement saying the
distribution and use of illegal drugs are serious problems facing
every street corner of Philadelphia . . . and that its Public
Nuisance Task Force follows the law "to protect the rights of all
involved."


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Higgins" Suit Now Final
----------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that during
the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle Bank filed a
putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et al, v.
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National Bank)
in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court against Pinnacle Bank
and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of
a purported class of Pinnacle Bank's customers within the State of
Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle Bank's method of ordering debit
card transactions had caused customers of Pinnacle Bank to incur
higher overdraft charges than had a different method been used. In
April 2014, an order was entered giving final approval to the
settlement, and providing a release of claims against Pinnacle
Bank and Pinnacle Financial. The order is now final and non-
appealable.  The settlement of this matter did not have a material
adverse effect on Pinnacle Financial's consolidated financial
condition, operating results, or cash flows.


PIZZA HUT: Faces "Rivera' Suit Over Violation of FLSA & NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Rivera, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Pizza Hut of America Inc., ADF Pizza I, LLC,
and ABC Corporations #1-20, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-
cv-06388 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Pizza Hut of America Inc., ADF Pizza I, LLC, and ABC Corporations
own a pizza restaurant with maintains a principal place of
business at 7100 Corporate Drive, Piano, Texas 75024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
      Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite OHR
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (917) 796-7437
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
              nyjg@aol.com

         - and -

      Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
      BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
      630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone (212) 392-4772
      Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
      E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com
              nyjg@aol.com


PNM RESOURCES: Continues to Monitor Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
------------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action was filed against PNM Resources Inc. and
other utilities in February 2009 in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico. Plaintiffs claim to be
allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes
Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the
Navajo Nation and allege that defendants, including PNM, are
rights-of-way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted
lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees
for the grant of rights-of-way or both.

In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional
Director.

In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision
to the DOI, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of
Indian Appeals.

Following briefing on the merits, on August 20, 2013, that board
issued a decision upholding the Regional Director's decision that
the allottees had failed to perfect their appeals, and dismissed
the allottees' appeals, without prejudice.

The allottees have not refiled their appeals.

PNM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014, that although this matter was dismissed
without prejudice, PNM considers the matter concluded. However,
PNM continues to monitor this matter in order to preserve its
interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way.


POLYCOM INC: Seeks Dismissal of "Neal" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder class action, initially captioned Neal v.
Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, and presently
captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
03476-SC, was filed on July 26, 2013, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors. On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The
amended complaint alleges that, between January 20, 2011 and July
23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose information regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including
with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer's expense
submissions and the Company's internal controls. The lawsuit
further alleges that the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading. The amended complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

"At this time, we are unable to estimate any range of reasonably
possible loss relating to the securities class action," Polycom
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

Polycom is a global leader in open, standards-based unified
communications and collaboration ("UC&C") solutions for voice,
video and content collaboration solutions.


PORSCHE AUTOMOBILE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Sullivan
& Cromwell's Robert Giuffra Jr. scored another major victory on
Aug. 15 in Porsche Automobile Holdings SE's long, multifront
battle with a coalition of disgruntled hedge funds.  Echoing a
2012 ruling by a state appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit agreed with S&C and found that billions of
dollars in claims against the German automaker don't belong in the
United States.

In a 51-page opinion, a three-judge Second Circuit panel upheld a
ruling that the hedge funds' claims are barred by the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank.  The
Second Circuit ruling comes two-and-a-half years after the panel
heard oral arguments in the case, and nearly a year and a half
after New York's Appellate Division, First Department, shot down
parallel litigation on jurisdictional grounds.

The hedge funds' claims stem from Porsche's 2008 announcement that
it had gathered a controlling 75 percent stake in German rival
Volkswagen AG as part of an ultimately disastrous takeover
attempt.  That news devastated hedge funds that had taken short
positions on VW's stock price through complex securities-based
swap agreements in the U.S.  The hedge funds filed suit in January
2010, claiming Porsche made misleading statements about its
takeover intentions in order to manipulate VW's stock price for
Porsche's benefit.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court decided
Morrison just six months later, ruling that U.S. securities laws
don't apply extraterritorially.  U.S. District Judge Harold Baer
Jr. dismissed the Porsche case in December 2010, finding the hedge
funds' claims were foreclosed by Morrison because they involved
allegations about a foreign company's stock traded on a foreign
exchange.

Some of the plaintiffs attempted an end-run around Morrison by
suing Porsche in New York state court, and their fraud claims
initially survived a motion to dismiss.  But in December 2012
Sullivan's Giuffra convinced the First Department that the state
court claims were barred on forum non conveniens grounds.

The Aug. 15 Second Circuit ruling affirms Judge Baer's earlier
decision, but the panel chose to apply Morrison differently.  The
per curium decision by Judges Pierre Leval, Robert Sack, and
Peter Hall points out that it's directed at a very specific set of
facts: The swaps in question were executed in the U.S., but they
referenced wholly foreign securities.  The plaintiffs claimed
securities fraud based on allegedly misleading statements by
Porsche, a German company, concerning the stock of Volkswagen,
another German company, whose stocks both trade on foreign
exchanges.  Porsche didn't participate in any of the hedge funds'
swap agreements.  The underlying conduct is subject to
investigations by German authorities, and, as we previously
reported, many of the hedge funds are litigating against Porsche
in German courts.

"The relevant actions in this case are so predominantly German as
to compel the conclusion that the complaints fail to invoke [the
U.S. securities law] in a manner consistent with the presumption
against extraterritoriality," the panel wrote.  In a concurring
opinion, Judge Leval noted that the judges did not rely on "any
single factor or bright-line rule" in coming to their decision.

The panel remanded the case to the district court to consider
allowing the plaintiffs to file amended complaints in line with
the decision.

Mr. Giuffra told Law.com on Aug. 15 that the decision was a big
win for Porsche.

"This decision should put an end to all of the U.S. litigation
against Porsche," he said.  "Based on the reasoning of this
decision, we don't see how plaintiffs can plead a valid U.S.
securities fraud claim."

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott's J.B. Heaton III, who
argued the case at the Second Circuit on behalf of the hedge
funds, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.  Other
plaintiffs firms representing the funds include Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, Grant &
Eisenhofer and Lowenstein Sandler.

Quinn Emanuel's Marc Greenwald, who represents hedge funds
Parkcentral Global Hub Limited and Seneca Capital LP, said his
clients are gratified that the Second Circuit offered them a
chance to file an amended complaint.  "Our clients will be
weighing the facts and considering whether to do so," he said.

Grant & Eisenhofer's James Sabella, who represents Black Diamond
Offshore Ltd., said his client is considering its next steps.
Lawyers from Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher, & Flom and Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett represented Porsche's former CEO Wendelin
Wiedeking and former vice president of finance Holger Haerter,
respectively.


PORTUGAL TELECOM: Investor Association Mulls Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portugal News Online and Lusa report that a Portuguese
association of capital market investors and analysts (ATM) is
going to start a class action against the boards of directors of
Portugal Telecom (PT) since 2001 because of the financial
applications in Grupo Esp¡rito Santo (GES).

"The accused in the class action are the executive committees of
Portugal Telecom and the presidents of the executive committees
and the respective CFOs from 2001 up to the present time", ATM
president, Octavio Viana, told Lusa.

"The reason is simple: the president of the CMVMc, Carlos Tavares,
mentioned that these applications had been made since 2001.  We
went to confirm these figures and discovered that in 2001 this
kind of exposure to GES was EUR600 million", he said.

"We even discovered that in 2005 this amount" was EUR1.2 billion,
an amount "much greater in material terms and amount than the
EUR900 million people are speaking about now", Mr. Viana added.

The association said that "the boards of directors of Portugal
Telecom went far beyond their remits as the core business of the
operator is "not to be a bank, financing other entities".

The association had told Lusa previously that it intended to
impede the business deal between PT and Brazilian operator Oi,
that is going to be voted at the general shareholder meeting on
September 8.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Certification Appropriate, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
agreed it was appropriate to certify a securities class action
against Regions Financial Corp., but ordered further proceedings
in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent ruling on
securities class actions.

The plaintiffs allege that Regions misrepresented its financial
health before and during the recession, including by manipulating
its books to avoid disclosing significant losses related to its
investments in the real estate market.

In Halliburton Co v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., the Supreme Court
tweaked the rebuttable presumption afforded to classes of
stockholders so they don't have to show they individually relied
upon misrepresented information in making their investment
decisions.  Reliance is presumed under the theory that stock
prices in efficient markets reflect all publicly available
information, including material misrepresentations.

The justices clarified that defendants may introduce price-impact
evidence to undermine plaintiffs' case "for market efficiency and
rebut the . . . presumption once it has been established," Circuit
Judge Beverly Baldwin Martin wrote for the panel.

The circuit court told the district court to consider whether
Regions had indeed rebutted the presumption.

According to plaintiffs, after Regions disclosed it had $5.6
billion in losses, its stock dropped from $23 per share to $4.60.
The class covers the period from Feb. 27, 2008, to Jan. 20, 2009.
But Regions presented evidence that its stock price did not change
following the alleged misrepresentations, Judge Martin wrote.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected Regions' request to establish a
"comprehensive analytical framework" to determine whether the
market for a particular stock is efficient.  The court said that
flexibility would allow trial courts to "consider new factors yet
unknown to this court that market theorists might consider to
indicate market efficiency."

The panel agreed that there is no per se rule that stocks trading
on a national exchange are part of an efficient market.


RJ REYNOLDS: Court of Appeal Revives Roden Tobacco Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
woman convinced the Fourth District Court of Appeal on Aug. 13
that she could amend a complaint filed by her mother to add a
wrongful death claim against several tobacco companies.

Kimberly Roden also prevailed against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
Philip Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Liggett Group
LLC against their claim that the statute of limitations had
expired.  Her mother, Loretta Roden, filed a personal injury in
January 2008, claiming she was injured from smoking.  She died
four months later.  In September 2008, Kimberly Roden stepped in
to represent her mother's estate.

The tobacco companies filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the
original personal injury claim was extinguished by Loretta's
death, and since Kimberly had not filed a separate wrongful death
complaint or amended her mother's complaint, the action was
abated.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge Timothy McCarthy agreed with the tobacco
companies and dismissed Roden's case.

A Fourth District panel, writing anonymously, cited a 2013 Florida
Supreme Court decision, Capone v. Philip Morris.

The high court ruled that when a personal injury action abates,
the case is not immediately void under state law, only "suspended
until the personal representative of the decedent's estate is
added as a party to the pending action and receives a reasonable
opportunity to amend the complaint."

The tobacco companies also argued a two-year statute of
limitations ran out before Kimberly Roden tried to amend the
complaint.  She argued the wrongful death claim related to the
original filing.

"We agree that the claims relate back," the Fourth District said.

                       Amended Complaints

The tobacco companies cited two cases where attempts to amend
complaints failed.  In Cox v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., a son
tried to amend his father's wrongful death lawsuit to include his
own personal injuries.  In the other case, an attempt was made to
add a survivor claim after the two-year limit expired.

The Fourth District said they didn't apply because the injury was
separate from the original in one and the party was separate from
the original in the other.

"In the instant case, the damages sought in both the personal
injury claim and the wrongful death claim were based on the
allegation that the initial, and eventual, injuries to the
decedent were caused by smoking cigarettes, . . . (and) the
amended complaint was not filed by a different party since the
trial court had previously granted Roden's motion to substitute,"
the court said.

The motion to dismiss was reversed by the panel of Judges W.
Matthew Stevenson, Carole Taylor and Burton Conner.

Ms. Roden was represented by Chanthina Abney of Gary, Williams,
Lewis & Watson of Stuart.  Lorenzo Williams, a partner at the
firm, said the court correctly reversed the trial court decision.
"It was a very succinct opinion, one that makes clear the tobacco
companies were on notice of the death of the decedent, and more
importantly the death arose as a result of smoking and tobacco-
related injuries," Williams said.

R.J. Reynolds was represented by Charles R.A. Morse of Jones Day
in New York, Philip Morris by Geoffrey J. Michael of Arnold &
Porter in Washington, Lorillard by Elliot Scherker of Greenburg
Traurig in Miami and Liggett by Karen Curtis --
kcurtis@cspalaw.com -- of Clarke Silverglate in Miami.  None
responded to requests for comment by deadline.


SAC CAPITAL: Judge Allows Insider Trading Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge has refused to dismiss most claims in a class action against
SAC Capital Advisors LP, now called Point72 Asset Management, and
owner Steven Cohen over supposed insider trading in the stocks of
two pharmaceutical companies, according a ruling made public on
Aug. 14.

In the decision, which was dated on Aug. 13, U.S. District Judge
Victor Marrero said Elan Corp. PLC and Wyeth LLC shareholders
could pursue claims over transactions by SAC and Cohen in those
companies' stocks.  The judge dismissed fraud claims related to
trades in Elan stock before May 13, 2008, and trades in Wyeth
stock before July 15, 2008, but said the plaintiffs could pursue
such claims under an alternative legal theory that allows
"contemporaneous" traders to seek damages.

U.S. civil and criminal prosecutors have alleged SAC dumped its
holdings of Elan and Wyeth shares between July 21, 2008, and
July 29, 2008, after a portfolio manager named Mathew Martoma
learned that an Alzheimer's drug being developed by the companies
had performed poorly in clinical studies.  The trades earned $275
million in profits and avoided losses once the trial results were
publicly announced, prosecutors said.

Plaintiffs in the class action -- investors who purportedly bought
or sold Elan and Wyeth stock at the same time as the defendants --
have sought to recover upwards of $1 billion.

As part of the Aug. 14 ruling, Judge Marrero also refused to
dismiss claims against Martoma and Sidney Gilman, a doctor who
worked on the drug trial and admitted to disclosing the inside
tips.

The decision comes as Martoma awaits sentencing after being
criminally convicted over the supposed insider trading scheme,
which prosecutors have called the most lucrative in history.  The
government has asked a judge to sentence Martoma to at least eight
years in prison.  A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 8.

SAC in March 2013 reached a $600 million settlement with the SEC
over the Elan and Wyeth trades. The hedge fund did not admit or
deny wrongdoing.  SAC later pled guilty to insider trading charges
in November and paid an additional $1.2 billion fine, though it
did not admit fault related specifically to the Elan and Wyeth
stock sales.

Cohen, for his part, has not been criminally charged. He faces a
civil SEC administrative proceeding alleging he failed to properly
oversee Martoma and another convicted former trader, Michael
Steinberg.

The investors are represented by Ethan D. Wohl --
ewohl@wohlfruchter.com -- of Wohl & Fruchter LLP.

SAC is represented by Martin Klotz -- mklotz@willkie.com -- of
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and Daniel Kramer --
dkramer@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP.

The case is Kaplan et al. v. SAC Capital Advisors LP et al., case
number 1:12-cv-09350, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


SATINSKY GROUP: Plaintiff Awaits Fate of 699 Scheme Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Knowler, writing for iol Motoring's iol.co.za Web site,
reports that the 699-ers will have to wait for an undisclosed
period of time to find out if the high court in Port Elizabeth
will certify a class action against the banks that financed the
ill-fated Satinsky car deals.

Judgment was reserved on on Aug. 7after advocates representing the
three banks -- Nedbank's MFC, Absa and Standard -- argued, among
other things, that a lack of commonality between the thousands of
cases meant the legal requirements for a class action were not
met.

It is believed that some 29,000 people bought cars from Satinsky
in the past six years, making this South Africa's biggest car
industry scandal.

Most earn between R6,000 and R12,000 a month, and could only
afford the finance installment when paid an advertising fee in
return for having their new cars plastered with "new car from
R699pm" stickers.

With Satinsky having pulled the plug on that deal, and the fees
having stopped, tens of thousands have been plunged into financial
crisis.

The ultimate aim of the court action, brought by Port Elizabeth
law firm Pieterse, Cary, Finlaison, is to have the bank contracts
declared null and void on the basis of reckless lending, a
provision of the National Credit Act.

BANKS IN DENIAL

So far the banks have vigorously denied allegations of reckless
lending, claiming they assessed the applicants' affordability in
the normal ways, based on the information they were supplied by
Satinsky, and they had no reason to believe any of it was false.

There are literally billions at stake.

In MFC's case alone, the bank granted 14,000 Satinsky loans from
2007 to July 7 this year, with a collective outstanding exposure
of R1.6 billion.

MFC is at pains to point that it cannot define how many were
699-ers, as Satinsky chief executive Albert Venter did regular car
sales as well, but it's fair to say the bulk would be the
cars-with-stickers lot.

Absa has revealed that it has financed 6511 Satinsky deals since
2008 and Standard Bank has yet to announce what its 699 exposure
is.

The problem with Pieterse, Cary, Finlaison choosing Johannes
Bartosch of Port Elizabeth as the 699-er applicant to represent
all the other thousands, is that he, like so many others, cannot
prove that Satinsky fraudulently reduced his living expenses
amount when submitting his credit application information to Absa
last November.

That's because he supplied that information to Satinsky by phone.
Because of that, the banks have argued in court papers that the
claims of expenses having been manipulated to influence credit
scoring were completely reliant on hearsay and speculation.

Well, some can prove it, because they submitted their income and
expenses details to Satinsky in writing on a Satinsky form.

Consumer Watch has featured two of them on this page in recent
weeks: "Dominique" and pastor "JB".  The case of Carol Mills, the
third 699-er who has approached Consumer Watch with proof that
Satinsky reduced her declared monthly expenses, provides some
insight into how the banks will defend reckless lending claims.

It is argued that while they did not do the numbers fiddling, they
did not do enough to check and interrogate what were in many cases
implausibly little living expenses.

One application, for example, put an applicant's total monthly
living expenses at just R300.

A CASE FOR RECKLESS LENDING

Carol Mills of Discovery, Gauteng, also submitted her income and
expenses information to Satinsky via e-mail, rather than phone, in
September 2012.  So she has proof that her stated expenses total
R10,700 was reduced on her MFC credit application to just R6,400.

Ms. Mills says because she has a cheque account with Nedbank, a
simple cross reference by MFC would have established that the
expenses figure of R6,400 was inaccurate, and on that basis, the
bank should not have granted her the loan, making it a case of
reckless lending.

Naturally, MFC disagrees.

Managing executive Trevor Browse said: "When we do look at current
account transactions, we can't tell what is groceries, card
payment, ATM withdrawal to pay fuel, cash to pay gardener, pool
chlorine, dog food etc.

"We have to compare the client's signed and declared expenses
versus their contractual bureau recorded expenses and make a
reasonableness assessment of the difference.

"We then add a net cash flow cost-of-living buffer to make sure we
err on the conservative side."

In Ms. Mills's case, he said, based on the information provided,
she had a monthly surplus of R8309, so "there was plenty of room
for affordability to service the new, full car installment.  There
was no reason for us to doubt the figures that Ms. Mills signed",
he said.

The problem is that, in reality, that's simply not the case,
Ms. Mills says.

"I am struggling to afford this car.  I am paying R2900 a month,
plus insurance."

She said MFC had offered to extend her payment period from 72
months to 84 months.

"But this would mean I'd be paying additional interest, so the car
would cost me a lot more in the long run.

"The bank says it's 'committed to helping clients'.

"In my view this is not helping," she said.

Other banks have also offered to finance terms to restructure the
loans to create a balloon payment, in order to reduce the monthly
repayments, but so far, none appear to be budging when it comes to
lowering the interest rates.

"These loans were priced at normal, competitive market rates, to
make sure they cover the bank's expected loss ratio," Mr. Browse
said.

"Any price concessions or reductions will cause this sub-portfolio
to run at a loss, and we can't afford to make losses, as seen in
recent banking news (A reference to African Bank's financial
woes)."

Mr. Browse repeatedly pointed out that while Satinsky appeared to
have fraudulently reduced what 699-ers declared as their living
expenses, all the applicants signed the bank credit application
forms.  Sadly, it is true that many 699-ers signed the bank forms
without checking all the numbers, trusting that they were correct
and the Satinsky reps who delivered their cars, and their
paperwork, left them without copies of those signed documents.

Consumer Watch asked Mr. Browse whether the bank intended to take
legal action against Satinsky.

"Yes, on both Ms. Mills's loan and that of pastor 'JB', we have
sent legal letters to Satinsky asking why their staff recorded
expenses different to what the clients disclosed.

"(Satinsky chief executive) Albert Venter has refused to answer
this question.

"We are holding off with civil litigation as we have found only
the two deals Consumer Watch has shared with us out of 14,000
-- have potential expense manipulation.

"On both of these, JB and Ms. Mills signed the incorrect expenses,
so they share part blame.  We will be sharing these examples with
the national credit regulator to assist their investigation
currently under way.  If we find more deals and we encourage the
public to come forward, please where Satinsky misrepresented car
buyers' expenses, it would assist us to build a case."

Mr. Browse said the bank hoped that "governmental agencies" were
investigating the case "as a larger scale criminal fraud" or at
least investigating "the legality of cash flows to Hong Kong
entities (Blue Lakes)".


SEGA OF AMERICA: Settles Video Game Class Action for $1.25 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
part of a proposed class-action deal -- thrown off track when the
lead plaintiff went to jail -- is on again, with video-game
developer Sega of America Inc. agreeing to a $1.25 million
settlement.  But Gearbox Software LLC continues to fight
allegations that it unlawfully misrepresented the features of
"Aliens: Colonial Marines."

Under the terms of the deal, filed Aug. 11 in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, as many as 135,000
disgruntled purchasers of the heavily promoted game could be
eligible to share about $735,000 of Sega's settlement pot.
Plaintiffs' attorneys would be allocated up to $312,000 and
another $200,000 would be available to cover the costs of
executing the settlement, according to Sega's motion, in Perrine
v. Sega.

Originally a co-defendant, game developer Gearbox Software LLC is
snubbing a settlement, choosing instead to continue to battle the
plaintiffs' allegations that the company engaged in fraud in the
inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express
warranties and violations of California consumer and business
laws.

Lead plaintiff Damion Perrine originally sued both companies in
2013, alleging they hyped the game's supposed exciting features in
an advance gameplay demo.  The complaint alleges the video game
producers used the demo, which they knew would be more technically
advanced than the actual finished game, to entice players to order
the game before it was released or on its launch day, knowing that
it is almost impossible for consumers to return newly purchased
games for a refund.

When the actual game was released, it allegedly bore little
resemblance to the demo, and was bombarded by bad reviews and
cries of "ripoff."

According to court documents, the case was on the brink of
settlement by both defendants on June 19, but then Perrine
disappeared, only to be found later in a Pennsylvania county jail.
A month later, the plaintiffs moved to withdraw Perrine as a class
representative, and, shortly thereafter, Gearbox filed a motion
for partial summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs' class
allegations.

On July 30, the plaintiffs moved to withdraw Perrine as a class
representative, and said the case would proceed with California
resident John Locke as named plaintiff.  But, by then, the
settlement deal apparently had fallen apart.  That day, Gearbox
filed a motion for partial summary judgment and to strike the
plaintiffs' class allegations.

Plaintiffs are represented by Benjamin Thomassen, Sean Reis, Mark
Eisen, Rafey Balabanian and Christopher Dore, of Edelson.  Gearbox
is represented by attorneys at Fenwick & West and O'Melveny &
Myers.  Sega's attorneys are with Fenwick & West and Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan.


SIGNAL INT'L: Defrauded and Enslaved 30 Indian Men, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Kutty Puthiya P. Thomas, et al. v. Signal International,
LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas GP,
LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Global Resources, Inc.,
Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. aka Medtech Consultants, Sachin Dewan,
Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law
Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., J&M Associates, Inc. of
Mississippi, Billy R. Wilks and J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Case
No. 2:14-cv-01818-NJB-DEK (E.D. La., August 11, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

In another story, Courthouse News Service reports that Signal
International and labor brokers defrauded, trafficked and enslaved
30 Indian men they recruited to work in the U.S. Southeast after
Hurricane Katrina, the men claim in a federal class action RICO
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are George Kutty Puthiya P. Thomas, Ravi Thammina,
Reghunadhan Palachuvattilpu Narayanannair, Babu Karippai Ouseph,
Shanoj Joseph, Rajan Pazhambalakode, Venkatarao Buridi, Sarma
Venkata Satyanarayana Bhiri, Gogy Joseph, Bhaskararao Nimmadala,
Philip Pindakadavil George, Maheshwara Rao Molletti, Mathew
Jackson, Kantibhai Khemabhai Prajapati, Sunny Cherian,
Subranarayanan Karuppiah, Assari Krishnan Thankappan, Zakir Husain
Ghulam Husain, Saji Chettiyara Baby, Baiju Paul, Davis Antony,
Joshy Kaiprampattu Joseph, Ganapathi Rao Akkireddi, Yacob Thachil
Varghese, Antoney Tharayil Xavier, Satyanarayana Vangapandu,
Joseph Thomas Kanjiraparambil, David Raju Tuloori, Srinu Kalla and
Sivakumar Ramakrishnan Nair.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER (NEW ORLEANS)
          1055 St. Charles Ave., Suite 505
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org


SKYC MANAGEMENT: "Armas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Armas and Ruben Martinez individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Skyc Management LLC a/k/a
Greisman Management and a/k/a B. Greisman Realty, 161 Holding Ltd,
Shimon Greisman et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-06360 (S.D.N.Y., August
11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including minimum wage
and unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and other
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christine Gabriella Ortiz, Esq.
      RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4400
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 382-1600
      E-mail: cortiz@rapaportlaw.com


SKYC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Gutierrez, Edilio A. Guzman, Harold Jimenez, and Alfredo Luis
Ovalle, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Skyc Management LLC a/k/a Greisman Management and
a/k/a B. Greisman Realty, 161 Holding Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-06361 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage and unpaid overtime premiums pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate, control and own buildings in low-income
neighborhoods of New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Milo Silberstein, Esq.
      DEALY SILBERSTEIN & BRAVERMAN, LLP
      225 Broadway, Suite 1405
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 385-0066
      Facsimile: (212) 385-2117
      E-mail: msilberstein@dsblawny.com


SOFTWARE ADVICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Arbuckle and Brandon Major, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Software Advice, Inc. d/b/a River
Guide, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00749 (W.D. Tex., August 11, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Software Advice, Inc. is a Texas software company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Austin Harris Kaplan, Esq.
      Russell Scott Cook, Esq.
      Melissa Jacobs, Esq.
      THE COOK LAW FIRM
      919 Congress Avenue, Suite 1145
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 482-9556
      Facsimile: (512) 597-3172
      E-mail: akaplan@rcooklaw.com
              scook@rcooklaw.com
              mjacobs@rcooklaw.com


SPI AUSNET: Class Action Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goya Dmytryshchak, writing for The Age, reports that lawyers
representing survivors of Black Saturday's deadliest blaze have
placed a public notice in Age on Aug. 4 advising that an
application has been lodged to approve Australia's biggest class
action settlement.

Maurice Blackburn, acting for 5000 claimants affected by the 2009
Kilmore East-Kinglake fire, has secured Australia's largest
settlement of nearly half a billion dollars.

Lead plaintiff Carol Matthews initiated the lawsuit against energy
distributor SPI AusNet and assets manager Utility Services Group,
after the Bushfires Royal Commission found the Kilmore East fire
started from a broken SP AusNet powerline.  Ms. Matthews, whose
son was among 119 people killed, is acting on behalf of relatives
of those who died, people injured and more than 1200 homeowners
who lost property in the fires.

Maurice Blackburn class actions spokesman Cameron Scott said
Ms. Matthews had lodged an application to approve the settlement
of $494 million without defendants' admission of liability.

"While we know no amount of money can replace what people lost in
this fire, at almost half a billion dollars, this is the biggest
class action settlement in Australian history and we are confident
our group members will welcome this as a significant measure of
justice and compensation," Mr. Scott said.

An application for approval of the proposed settlement will be
heard by the Supreme Court on November 24.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Disputes Boeing's Indemnification Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
An action entitled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al.
was filed on February 16, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas. The defendants were served in early July 2007.
The defendants included Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit
AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement
Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical
and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit
AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The named
plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were
or are employees of Spirit.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and general contract law and brought the case
as a class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The
putative class consists of approximately 2,500 current or former
employees of Spirit.

The parties agreed to class certification. The sub-class members
who asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those
individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in
Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had
at least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in
jobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55,
and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there were many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various
theories, were (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to
determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement
"bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that
were allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by
Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were
unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed
early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these
individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby
decreasing their benefits.

The plaintiffs initially sought a declaration that they were
entitled to the early retirement pension benefits and retiree
medical benefits, an injunction ordering that the defendants
provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach of contract
claims and attorney fees.

On June 20, 2013, the district court entered an order dismissing
all claims against the Spirit entities with prejudice. Plaintiffs'
claims against Boeing entities remain pending in the litigation.

Boeing has announced that the plaintiffs and Boeing agreed on June
12, 2014, to a settlement of this matter, subject to a fairness
hearing. Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is
entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable
damages" it may incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms
of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition
between Boeing and Spirit.

Spirit disputes Boeing's position on indemnity, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July
3, 2014.  Management believes the resolution of this matter will
not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of
operations or liquidity, Spirit said.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in the state of
Delaware on February 7, 2005, and commenced operations on June 17,
2005 through the acquisition by an investor group led by Onex
Partners LP and Onex Corporation (together with its affiliates,
"Onex") of The Boeing Company's ("Boeing") operations in Wichita,
Kansas, Tulsa, Oklahoma and McAlester, Oklahoma (the "Boeing
Acquisition"). Holdings provides manufacturing and design
expertise in a wide range of products and services for aircraft
original equipment manufacturers and operators through its
subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. ("Spirit"). The Company has
its headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, with manufacturing facilities
in Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma; Prestwick, Scotland; Wichita,
Kansas; Kinston, North Carolina and Subang, Malaysia. The Company
has assembly facilities in Saint-Nazaire, France, and Chanute,
Kansas. The Company is the majority participant in the Kansas
Industrial Energy Supply Company ("KIESC"), a tenancy-in-common
with other Wichita companies established to purchase natural gas.
The Company participates in a joint venture, Taikoo Spirit
AeroSystems Composite Co. Ltd. ("TSACCL"), of which Spirit's
ownership interest is 31.5%. TSACCL was formed to develop and
implement a state of the art composite and metal bond component
repair station in the Asia-Pacific region.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of Pension Funds' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2014, that on June 3,
2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the
Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

The court-appointed lead plaintiffs - two pension funds that claim
to represent a class of investors in the Company's stock - filed
an amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J. George and
former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations Alexander K.
Kummant.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a scheme
to artificially inflate the market price of the Company's stock by
making false statements and omissions about certain programs'
performance and costs. It contends that the alleged scheme was
revealed by the Company's accrual of $590.0 million in forward
loss charges on October 25, 2012.

The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons
other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities between
May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified amount
of damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the Amended Complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in the state of
Delaware on February 7, 2005, and commenced operations on June 17,
2005 through the acquisition by an investor group led by Onex
Partners LP and Onex Corporation (together with its affiliates,
"Onex") of The Boeing Company's ("Boeing") operations in Wichita,
Kansas, Tulsa, Oklahoma and McAlester, Oklahoma (the "Boeing
Acquisition"). Holdings provides manufacturing and design
expertise in a wide range of products and services for aircraft
original equipment manufacturers and operators through its
subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. ("Spirit"). The Company has
its headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, with manufacturing facilities
in Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma; Prestwick, Scotland; Wichita,
Kansas; Kinston, North Carolina and Subang, Malaysia. The Company
has assembly facilities in Saint-Nazaire, France, and Chanute,
Kansas. The Company is the majority participant in the Kansas
Industrial Energy Supply Company ("KIESC"), a tenancy-in-common
with other Wichita companies established to purchase natural gas.
The Company participates in a joint venture, Taikoo Spirit
AeroSystems Composite Co. Ltd. ("TSACCL"), of which Spirit's
ownership interest is 31.5%. TSACCL was formed to develop and
implement a state of the art composite and metal bond component
repair station in the Asia-Pacific region.


SSM HEALTH CARE: Tenth Circuit Trims Billing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that a contract
claim against a health care provider is partially preempted under
the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has
ruled.  But the result of the appellate court left intact five of
six claims against SSM Health Care of Oklahoma Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Salzer wants to pursue a class action against
SSM because it sought to collect for medical bills related to his
treatment following an accident instead of from his health
insurance company.  The Oklahoma resident alleged that there was a
class of people who had been wronged because SSM had sought to
collect payment from patients or assert liens against them despite
having agreements with patients' health insurance companies to pay
their bills.

Mr. Salzer was a beneficiary of his wife's employee-benefit plan
operated by Aetna Health Inc.  Under ERISA, Circuit Court Judge
Carlos Lucero said, Mr. Salzer's claim for tortious interference
with a contract was preempted.  "Salzer's tortious interference
claim is one seeking to enforce rights under the terms of an ERISA
plan, and does not rest on a legal duty independent of an ERISA
plan's terms," Mr. Lucero said.

However, the court held that Mr. Salzer's claims for breach of
contract, violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act,
deceit, specific performance and punitive damages were not
preempted because those claims "do not seek to vindicate rights
set forth in the 'terms of the plan.'"


SUGARMILL INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Antishin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Sugarmill, Inc. Case No. 5:14-cv-00448 (M.D. Fla., August 11,
2014) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Sugarmill, Inc. is a Florida corporation that operated an assisted
living facility in Homosassa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
      MATTHEW BIRK, ESQ., LAW OFFICE
      309 NE 1st St.
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


TEMPUR SEALY: Dismissal of Norfolk & Benning Cases on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that these
cases:

     -- Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic
International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed
June 20, 2012

     -- Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International
Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012,

were filed against the Company and two named executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of
shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between January 25,
2012 and June 5, 2012.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading
statements and concealment of material information concerning the
Company's competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per
diluted share and related financial performance for the Company's
2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.

On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and
on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.

On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On May 23,
2014, the Judge's memorandum of opinion and judgment dismissing
the case were entered.

On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The
outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although the
Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect to
these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner and
timing of the resolution of the suits, an estimate of a range of
losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an
adverse verdict in these suits, or whether the Company's
applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for
these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc., develops, manufactures, markets
and sells bedding products, which include mattresses, foundations
and adjustable bases, and other products, which include pillows
and other accessories.


TEMPUR SEALY: Faces "Dodson" Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Michael
Dodson, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur
Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC,
Defendants, was filed October 25, 2013, against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries.

The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously. This matter is at a very
preliminary stage, and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether
the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc., develops, manufactures, markets
and sells bedding products, which include mattresses, foundations
and adjustable bases, and other products, which include pillows
and other accessories.


TEXAS BRINE: Judge OKs $48.1-Mil. Sinkhole Class Action Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has granted
final approval of a $48.1 million class-action settlement for
Louisiana residents affected by a 37-acre sinkhole that opened two
years ago has been swallowing land ever since.

U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey said Aug. 13 there were no
objections to the settlement.  It will compensate 269 people who
lived in the Assumption Parish community of Bayou Corne.

Texas Brine was operating a salt mine that's believed to have
caused the sinkhole.  A spokesman for the company says some 88
families were involved with the settlement that dismisses all
claims against the company.

Texas Brine also has settled with other residents.

The sinkhole is now nearly 37 acres and, according to a survey
about two weeks ago, its depth measurement was at 271 feet.


TIER REIT: No Appeal Taken on Texas Securities Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 17 and November 28, 2012, lawsuits seeking class
action status were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).  On January 4,
2013, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the Court. The
plaintiffs purported to file the suit individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated.

TIER REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report with the Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on August 1, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that, "Plaintiffs named us, Behringer
Harvard Holdings, LLC, our previous sponsor, as well as the
directors at the time of the allegations: Robert M. Behringer,
Robert S. Aisner, Ronald Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W.
Partridge (individually a "Director" and collectively the
"Directors") and Scott W. Fordham, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and President, and James E. Sharp, the Company's Chief
Accounting Officer (collectively, the "Officers"), as defendants.
In the amended complaint filed on February 1, 2013, the Officers
were dismissed from the consolidated suit."

"Plaintiffs alleged that (1) the Directors each individually
breached various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Plaintiffs,
(2) the Directors violated Sections 14(a) and (e) and Rules 14a-9
and 14e-2(b) of and under federal securities law and (3) the
defendants were unjustly enriched by the purported failures to
provide complete and accurate disclosure regarding, among other
things, the value of our common stock and the source of funds used
to pay distributions.

"On March 27, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas granted the motion to dismiss the
lawsuit with prejudice from which no appeal was taken."

TIER REIT, Inc. is a self-managed, Dallas, Texas-based real estate
investment trust focused primarily on providing quality,
attractive, well-managed, commercial office properties located in
strategic markets throughout the United States.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Misclassifying Drivers as Contractors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Price, an individual; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC554512
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 12, 2014) challenges
Uber's alleged uniform policy of willfully misclassifying its
drivers as independent contractors when, in fact, each driver is
or was an employee of the Company.

Uber Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business in California.  Uber is a
transportation network company, which provides prearranged
transportation services to consumers in California for
compensation using an online-enabled application or platform.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
          77-305 California Drive
          Palm Desert, CA 92211
          Telephone: (760) 469-5986
          Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com


UNILEVER PLC: Asks Judge to Slash Attorneys' Fees in Suave Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Unilever PLC is asking a judge to slash $2 million from a $3.4
million bill for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in a $10 million
Suave hair products class action settlement, highlighting what the
company called unacceptable charges, such as $875 for "waiting
around for brief" and $22,000 for communicating with the media.

Branding the legal fees request a "wholly unwarranted" windfall,
Unilever states it has found at least $2 million in unacceptable
charges by attorneys representing class members in Reid v.
Unilever, originally filed in August 2012 in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

Deciphering a heavily redacted account of legal charges supplied
by the plaintiffs and using the lodestar method for divining fees,
Unilever calculated $1.1 million in justifiable charges.  The
final legal tab Unilever will pay will be in addition to the $10.2
million it has agreed to shell out to consumers with eligible
claims.

The class action was brought by consumers who alleged they lost
hair or suffered scalp injury after using the Suave Professionals
Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which was recalled in
May 2012.  The plaintiffs alleged the product contained a chemical
that caused the injuries, and that Unilever made false statements
about the product's safety and failed to inform consumers about
how to use the treatment properly.

Unilever continues to deny all the allegations, and said it chose
to settle to avoid additional legal and other costs.

In its line-by-line dissection of the plaintiffs' legal fees
request, Unilever alleges that submitted time records claiming
nearly $500,000 were so heavily redacted that the category of work
allegedly done could not be discerned.  Allegedly duplicative
billing and inflated rates were common.  More than 90 percent of
the hours claimed allegedly were billed at law firm partners' and
principals' rates, Unilever claims.  What essentially were small
errands allegedly carried excessive costs, Unilever's motion
states.  For instance, a staffer at one of the plaintiffs' firms
charged $550 for two hours of work "shipping box to Chicago," the
company alleges.

In comparison to the plaintiffs' overall litigation bill of $3.4
million, Unilever spent just $1.1 million in fees to defend itself
in the same case, the company's motion states.

Defendants' counsel are from the firms Schiff Hardin and Gordon &
Rees.  Plaintiffs' attorneys are from Miller Law; Morgan & Morgan;
and Law Office of Jana Eisinger; as well as attorneys Christopher
Polaszek, Jeffrey Weinstein and Todd Carcelli.


URS CORPORATION: WGI Ohio to Defend Against Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary
acquired by URS Corporation on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.  Fifty-nine personal
injury and property damage class action lawsuits were filed in
Louisiana State and federal court against several defendants,
including WGI Ohio, seeking $200.0 billion in damages plus
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs are residents and property
owners who claim to have incurred damages from the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.

All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet
been certified as class actions.  Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District,
and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were
also named as defendants.  At this time WGI Ohio and the Army
Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants.  These 59
lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not involving
WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District Court").

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.
Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, plaintiffs allege that work WGI Ohio
performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and
floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding.  WGI
Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government.

WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal on
grounds that government contractors are immune from liability.  On
December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2009.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI
Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court
for further litigation.  On August 1, 2011, the District Court
decided that the government contractor immunity defense would not
be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an issue for
appeal.  Five of the cases were tried in District Court from
September 12, 2012 through October 3, 2012.  On April 12, 2013,
the District Court ruled in favor of WGI Ohio and the Army Corps
of Engineers, finding that the five plaintiffs failed to prove
that WGI Ohio's or the Army Corps of Engineers' actions caused the
failure of the Industrial Canal floodwall during Hurricane
Katrina.  On July 1, 2013, WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary
judgment in District Court to dismiss all other related cases as a
result of the District Court's April 2013 decision.  On December
20, 2013, the District Court dismissed the majority of the
lawsuits and the remainder of the outstanding claims are being
transferred to the District Court for final judgment of dismissal.

According to URS Corporation in a Form 8-K Current Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014,
"WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously
until all claims are dismissed; however, WGI Ohio cannot provide
assurance that it will be successful in these efforts.  The
potential range of loss and the resolution of these matters cannot
be determined at this time primarily due to the likelihood of an
appeal, the unknown number of individual plaintiffs who are
actually asserting claims against WGI Ohio; the uncertainty
regarding the nature and amount of each individual plaintiff's
damage claims; uncertainty concerning legal theories and factual
bases that plaintiffs may present and their resolution by courts
or regulators; and uncertainty about the plaintiffs' claims, if
any, that might survive certain key motions of our affiliate, as
well as a number of additional factors."

URS is an international provider of engineering, construction and
technical services.


US FOODSERVICE: September 25 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED PRODUCTS FROM U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. (NOW KNOWN
AS US FOODS, INC.) UNDER A COST-PLUS ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN 1998 AND
2005, YOU COULD GET A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

In re U.S. Foodservice, Inc. Pricing Litigation
Case No. 3:07-md-1894 (AWT)
This Document Relates to:

All Actions

A settlement has been proposed between the plaintiffs and U.S.
Foodservice, Inc., now known as US Foods, Inc. ("USF") in a class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut about USF's pricing practices.  The
settlement with USF involves a total settlement payment by USF of
$297 million.  These settlement funds will be used to pay claims
of USF customers who purchased products under a cost-plus
arrangement between 1998 and 2005, where a "value-added service
provider," or "VASP," was used to calculate the sale price.  If
you qualify, you may send in a claim form to get benefits under
the settlement with USF.  A separate settlement has also been
proposed with Gordon Redgate ("Redgate") which involves a
cooperation agreement but no settlement funds. You also have the
right to exclude yourself from or object to both settlements.

Who's included? You are a Class Member and could get benefits if
you purchased products from USF pursuant to an arrangement that
defined a sale price in terms of a cost component plus a markup,
and for which USF used a VASP transaction to calculate the cost
component.  The relevant time period is between 1998 and 2005, so
if you purchased goods from USF pursuant to a cost-plus
arrangement during that time, you may be eligible to receive
benefits.  If you're not sure if you are included, you can get
more information, including a detailed notice, at
www.usfoodservicepricinglitigation.com or by calling toll free
1-877-319-2470.

What's this about? The lawsuit claimed that USF used middle-man
companies called VASPs to improperly overstate the purported
"cost" of goods and to overbill its cost-plus customers, and that
Redgate conspired with USF.  USF denies that it did anything
wrong, as does Redgate.

The Court did not decide who was right. The parties agreed to the
settlement to resolve the case and get benefits to USF customers.
What does the settlement provide? A fund of $297 million has been
created to compensate Class Members and pay certain fees and
expenses that may be awarded by the Court.  The proposed
settlement agreements, available at the website below, describe
the details.  You can only participate in the settlement fund if
you file a claim form.  Your share of the fund will depend on the
number of Class Members that submit valid claim forms, how much
you purchased from USF, and how many of your purchases involved
the use of a VASP invoice to calculate the sale price.

How do you ask for a payment? To get payment, you must qualify and
submit a claim form by the later of Dec. 19, 2014 or seven days
after the Court enters an order of final approval of the
settlement.  To file a claim, visit the website below, enter the
claim number printed on the other side of this card, and your
claim amount will be calculated for you.  You can then submit a
claim online or submit additional proof of your purchases if you
disagree with the pre-calculated amount.  You can also request a
hard-copy detailed notice and claim package that contains
everything you need.

What are your other options? If you don't want to be legally bound
by the settlement and the releases it entails, you must exclude
yourself by Sept. 25, 2014, or you won't be able to sue, or
continue to sue, USF or Redgate about the legal claims in this
case.  If you exclude yourself from the settlement with USF, you
cannot get money from this settlement.  If you do not exclude
yourself, but disagree with either settlement, you may object to
it by Sept. 25, 2014.  The detailed notices available at
www.usfoodservicepricinglitigation.com explain how to exclude
yourself or object.  The Court will hold a hearing in this case on
Dec. 9, 2014, to consider whether to approve the settlements and
grant a request by the lawyers representing all Class Members for
an award of attorney's fees of up to 33.3% of the settlement fund
plus reimbursement expenses, for investigating the facts,
litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement.  The fees and
expenses will be paid from the settlement fund.  You may appear at
the hearing or have your own attorney enter an appearance with the
court on your behalf, but it is not required.

For more information: Call toll free 1-877-319-2470, visit the
website www.usfoodservicepricinglitigation.com or write to In re
U.S. Foodservice, Inc. Pricing Litigation, Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060.


XEROX CORPORATION: Appeal Process Ongoing in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation, a consolidated
securities law action (consisting of 17 cases), is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended: June 30, 2014.

Defendants are the Company, Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire and G.
Richard Thoman. The consolidated action is a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Xerox Corporation
common stock during the period October 22, 1998 through October 7,
1999 inclusive (Class Period) and who suffered a loss as a result
of misrepresentations or omissions by Defendants as alleged by
Plaintiffs (the "Class"). The Class alleges that in violation of
Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (1934 Act), and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the
defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and
course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the Class Period
by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material facts relating to the defendants' alleged
failure to disclose the material negative impact that the April
1998 restructuring had on the Company's operations and revenues.
The complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme: (i)
deceived the investing public regarding the economic capabilities,
sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of
the Company's common stock; (ii) allowed several corporate
insiders, such as the named individual defendants, to sell shares
of privately held common stock of the Company while in possession
of materially adverse, non-public information; and (iii) caused
the individual plaintiffs and the other members of the purported
class to purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages
sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including
interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling. In
February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No.
164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius (Agius) and Georgia Stanley to
appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs.

In July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewal after a pre-
filing conference to identify factual disputes the Court will be
required to resolve in ruling on the motion. After that conference
and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and proposed class
representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a second renewed
motion for class certification.

In April 2008, defendants filed their response and motion to
disqualify Milberg LLP as a lead counsel. On September 30, 2008,
the Court entered an order certifying the class and denying the
appointment of Milberg LLP as class counsel.

Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied defendants'
motion to disqualify Milberg LLP. On November 6, 2008, the
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

On March 29, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment in its entirety. On April 26, 2013, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. The appeal process is ongoing.

The Company said, "The individual defendants and we deny any
wrongdoing and are vigorously defending the action. At this time,
we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we will incur
additional material losses in excess of the amount we have already
accrued for this matter. In the course of litigation, we
periodically engage in discussions with plaintiffs' counsel for
possible resolution of this matter. Should developments cause a
change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or
result in a final adverse judgment or a settlement for a
significant amount, there could be a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in
the period in which such change in determination, judgment or
settlement occurs."


YELP INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Aug. 11 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Yelp, Inc.
common stock between October 29, 2013 through
April 3, 2014, seeking to recover damages for violations of the
federal securities laws.

To join the YELP class action, visit the firm's website
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-331.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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 lawsuit alleges that defendants misrepresented the true nature
of what they referred to as "firsthand" experiences and reviews on
the YELP's website, the robustness of its processes and algorithms
designed to prevent unreliable reviews, and YELP's forecasted
financial growth prospects.  The complaint also alleges that
defendants concealed that YELP was reliant upon questionable
business practices, including requiring business customers to pay
to suppress negative reviews.

The lawsuit further alleges that defendants' misleading statements
caused YELP's stock to trade at inflated prices, exceeding $98.00
per share, and allowed insiders to sell more than 1.16 million
shares of YELP stock proceeds of over $81.5 million.

When the truth about YELP's business practices was slowly revealed
through a series of articles and disclosures beginning March 31,
2014, the Company's stock price dropped, to as low as $65.76 per
share on April 4, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 6, 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://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-331.html

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


YELP INC: October 6 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, who filed the
initial class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws against Yelp, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors, reminds investors that they have until October 6, 2014
to file a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff.

If you purchased Yelp common stock securities between October 29,
2013 and April 3, 2014, we encourage you to contact our firm.  The
case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Additional Information about the Lawsuit:

Yelp operates as an online local guide that connects people
primarily with boutiques, mechanics, restaurants, and dentists.
The Company states that reviews of these businesses that appear on
its website are written by people using Yelp to share their
everyday local business experiences, giving voice to consumers and
bringing "word of mouth" online.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's true business and financial condition, including but not
limited to the true nature of the so-called "firsthand"
experiences and reviews appearing on the Company's website, the
robustness of its processes and algorithms purportedly designed to
screen unreliable reviews, and the Company's forecasted financial
growth prospects and the extent to which they were reliant upon
undisclosed business practices, including but not limited to
requiring business customers to pay to suppress negative reviews.
Defendants' false and misleading statements during the Class
Period caused the Yelp's stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices, reaching a high of over $98.00 per share on March 4, 2014,
and allowed Company insiders to sell more than 1.16 million shares
of Yelp stock at prices as high as $98.99 per share for insider
trading proceeds of more than $81.5 million.

According to the complaint, as the true facts concerning the
Company's business practices began to be revealed to the market
through a series of articles and disclosures starting on March 31,
2014, the Company's stock price declined, falling from a close of
$80.18 per share on April 1, 2014 to a close of $65.76 per share
on April 4, 2014.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Yelp common stock during the Class Period.  If you wish to serve
as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 6, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this action, have any
questions concerning this notice, or your rights or interests,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com
-- at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please include your phone
number.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia.  The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits.



                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *