CAR_Public/140825.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 25, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 168

                             Headlines


APPA FINE : Recalls Chicken Caesar Salad Kits Due to Listeria
ARIZONA: ADC Directors' Motion for Summary Judgment Denied
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Made Immaterial Payment in "Boone" Action
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: To Incur Warranty Costs in Settlement
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Age Discrimination

BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued for Denying Hispanic Man to Amend Mortgage
BANK OF THE WEST: Court Okays Undertaking Re Atty. Fees & Costs
BECTON DICKINSON: Paid $22 Million in Exchange for Release
BELL MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Card Practices
BERMAN & RABIN: Moved to Quash Subpoena for LiveVox

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Gulf South Unit Fully Indemnified by MGSC
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Securities Action Proceeding to Discovery
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Says Outcome of "Guzman" Case Uncertain
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Employee Class Actions Now Concluded
BURGER KING: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Maryland Class Action

CAMBREX CORPORATION: Expects Indemnification From Mylan
COLUMBIA LABORATIES: No Oral Argument Yet in Appeal
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in "Dixie" Case
CREIG NORTHROP: Faces Class Action Over Kickback Violations
CUB CADET: "Northcutt" Suit Removed to Missouri District Court

CUBIC CORP: Faces Suits Over Contract Breach, Consumer Fraud
DIRECTV: Delaware Actions Consolidated; California Suit Stayed
DIRECTV: Finalizing Settlements in Early Cancellation Fees Suits
EAGLE ROCK: Unitholders File Three Class Action Lawsuits
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Obtains Final Approval of TCPA Suit Settlement

ENSIGN GROUP: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in "Castaneda" Case
EVENTS BY EXECUTIVE: Removed "Suarez" Cass Suit to S.D. Florida
FERGUSON, MO: Group Mulls Civil Rights Class Action
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Trial Court Ordered Briefing on Class Definition
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Approval of Citizens Merger Suit Deal on Appeal

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Lifted Stay on CRBC 401(k) Litigation
FMC CORP: Novel Cross-Border "Class Action" in Early Stages
FMC CORP: Hydrogen Peroxide Class Suit in Canada Still Pending
GLANBIA: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Nitrik Claims
GREENE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in M.D. Alabama

GRUPO AVAL ACCIONES: Bank Units Face Collective Actions
GUTHRIE CITY, OK: Removed "Granger" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
HICKORY FARMS: Removed "Garcia" Class Suit to C.D. California
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $76MM Bond Under Class Action Lawsuit
IMMERSION CORP: Loss Causation Ruling in "Loos" Suit Upheld

INSPECTION DEPOT: Removed "Dang" Suit to Florida District Court
INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend Against Craftwood Case
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Units Still Faces Product Liability Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Decision in OCD Appeal
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Third Circuit Dismissed "Monk" Case in April

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: No Cert. Hearing Yet in British Columbia Case
JONES FINANCIAL: Approval of Class Action Settlement on Appeal
KEY ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KEYCORP: 11th Cir. Vacates Order Compelling Arbitration
LOUISIANA: Mentally Ill Prisoners Sue Over Incarceration

M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Facing Class Actions Over Mindspeed Merger
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Recalls Ground Oregano Due to Salmonella
MCDERMOTT INT'L: 20 Plaintiffs in New Antoine Suit Dropped Claims
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Texas Class Action Pending
MEDICINES COMPANY: Court Appointed Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Appeals Class Certification Order
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: To Defend Against Canadian Class Action
MONSTER BEVERAGE: "Marshall" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Solely Responsible for Ubaldi Litigation
NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Claims

NESTLE PREPARED: Recalls LEAN CUISINE(R) Chicken w/ Peanut Sauce
NORDSTROM INC: Removed "Carranza" Labor Suit to C.D. California
NORTH VALLEY BANCORP: Has MOU to Settle "Solak" Suit
NORTHERN STATE PRISON: Faces "White" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Passes

NSPIRED NATURAL: Recalls Various Peanut Butter Products
OBERTO'S BRANDS: Recalls 57,578 Lbs of Chicken Strip Products
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Files Class Action in Florida
OLD NATIONAL: October 27 Trial in Indiana Class Action Lawsuit
OLD REPUBLIC: Class Action Against ORNTIC Remains Pending

OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss RESPA Suits
OMNIAMERICAN BANCORP: Faces "McDougal" Suit Over Southside Merger
PENN WEST: Rochon Genova Commences Class Action
PERDUE: Recalls Chicken Nugget Product Due to Foreign Matter
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Hires Outside Lawyer to Defend Lien Class Suit

PREMIERE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
PROFESSIONAL MGMT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PURITAN FOODS: Recalls Raw Boneless Turkey Breasts
REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Case Proceeding in Discovery Phase
REBECCA TALLEY: W.C. Motor's Suit to Overturn Ruling Dismissed

REGENECA WORLDWIDE: Recalls RegeneSlim Appetite Control Capsules
RES-CARE INC: Approval of Settlements Expected Later in 2014
RL POLK: Dismissed From Buttonwood Tree Class Action
SAKS & COMPANY: Removed "Derum" Suit to California District Court
SCANA ENERGY: Settles Plan Switch Class Action for $6.5 Million

SEOUL SHIK POOM: Recalls Choripdong Choco Almond Richmond Ice Bar
SUNFOOD: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella
SUPPORT.COM INC: Reversed $57,000 Accrual Related to Class Suits
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: No Estimate of Liability in "Foster" Suit
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: No Estimate of Liability in "Liverman" Suit

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Accord in Direct Purchaser Case Has Final OK
TENET HEALTHCARE: Settles Class Action for $32.5 Million
TETRA TECH: Defendants Preparing Motion to Dismiss Class Action
THRIFTY PAYLESS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Cal.
TIME WARNER: Court Orders Parties in "Delonge" Suit to Arbitrate

TOYOTA MOTOR: Can't Transfer Engine-Defect Class Action
TREX COMPANY: Has Distributed All Payments and Rebates Under Deal
UNITED STATES: Public Advocate Files "Grass Roots Class Action"
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals Jury Award in Hepa C Outbreak Suit
US BANK: Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Can Proceed

VICAL INCORPORATED: August 25 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Faces $37-Mil. Wage Class Action in California
WATTS WATER: Obtains Final Approval of "Trabakoolas" Suit Deal
WELLS FARGO: Order to Show Cause Entered in $4BB "Burris" Action
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due E. Coli

WIRELAWYER INC: Faces "Giardina" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
WISCONSIN ENERGY: Named as Defendants in 6 Class Action Lawsuits
ZEMCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Sausage Product Due to Misbranding


                            *********


APPA FINE : Recalls Chicken Caesar Salad Kits Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
APPA Fine Foods, a Corona, Calif. establishment, is recalling
approximately 92,657 pounds of fully cooked chicken Caesar salad
kit products due to concerns about possible Listeria monocytogenes
(Lm) contamination, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The salad kits were shipped nationwide to one bulk warehouse chain
for retail sale in its in-store cafes. [APPA Fine Foods produced
the kits used by the bulk warehouse chain.] The following products
are subject to recall:

    11oz. clear plastic containers and 6.5-lb. boxes labeled,
"APPA Fine Foods/Sam's Club Daily Chef CHICKEN CAESAR SALAD KIT"
with case codes 141851, 141922, 141951, 141991, 142021, 142201 or
142131 with use by dates of 8/14/14, 8/21/14, 8/27/14, 9/1/14,
9/3/14 or 9/17/14. The kits were produced on July 4, July 11, July
14, July 18, July 21, July 25, Aug. 1 and Aug. 8, 2014.

Box labels bear the establishment number "P-21030" inside the USDA
mark of inspection.

Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development personnel
informed FSIS they received two confirmed positive Lm results from
retail product purchased at one of the bulk warehouse chain
locations. The bulk warehouse chain then sampled intact components
of the salad kits. Only the chicken came up positive with Lm.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned
about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumption of food contaminated with Lm can cause listeriosis, a
serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons
with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their
newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are
affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall can
contact Thom Rindt, of APPA Fine Foods, at 951-547-8111.

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


ARIZONA: ADC Directors' Motion for Summary Judgment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Neil V. Wake denied a motion for summary judgment
filed in the case captioned Victor Antonio Parsons, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Defendants, O. CV-12-
00601-PHX-NVW, (D. Ariz.).

A copy of Judge Wake's August 7, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/JHNKg5from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are 13 inmates housed in various Arizona Department of
Corrections (ADC) complexes and the Arizona Center for Disability
Law, which is statutorily empowered to act on behalf of the
mentally ill. Defendants are ADC Director Charles Ryan and ADC
Division of Health Services Interim Director Richard Pratt.
Plaintiffs filed this action in March 2012, presenting five claims
for relief stemming from Defendants' alleged deliberate
indifference in the provision of overall health, medical, dental,
and mental health care and to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement in the ADC's isolation units. Plaintiffs have sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, including an Order compelling
Defendants to develop a plan to provide Plaintiffs and the
proposed class and subclass with constitutionally adequate health
care and protection from unconstitutional conditions of
confinement in ADC's isolation units.

Defendants seek summary judgment on the grounds that (1) the Named
Plaintiffs received constitutionally adequate medical care and,
therefore, lack standing in this action; (2) any deficiencies in
the provision of medical care are not system-wide; (3) several
certified claims should be dismissed; (4) the Named Plaintiffs
received constitutionally adequate dental care; and (5) the
conditions of confinement claims fail as a matter of law.

Judge Wake denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
saying while it may be probative that the Named Plaintiffs
received adequate medical treatment, it does not establish as a
matter of law that ADC's healthcare system is staffed to the
constitutional minimums.

Plaintiff Brislan is dismissed as Class Representative.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Notice of Supplemental
Authority is denied as moot.


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Made Immaterial Payment in "Boone" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit, Wanda Boone v. Associated Banc-
Corp, was filed on April 10, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The lawsuit claims
that loan coordinators employed by the Bank were not compensated
for all hours worked, including the payment of overtime, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin
wage laws. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees.
The Corporation filed a motion to dismiss on June 5, 2014. On July
29, 2014, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss
Case which provided for the dismissal of the case with prejudice.
As part of the resolution of this matter, the Corporation made an
immaterial payment to the plaintiff, Associated Banc-Corp said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities And Exchange
Commission on August 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.


ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: To Incur Warranty Costs in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Associated Materials, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 28, 2014, that on February 13, 2013, the Company
entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the
"Settlement") for a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs and a
putative nationwide class of homeowners regarding certain
warranty-related claims for steel and aluminum siding, which
became effective on September 2, 2013. The Company expects to
incur additional warranty costs associated with the Settlement;
however, the Company does not believe the incremental costs, which
currently cannot be estimated for recognition purposes, have been
or will be material.

Associated Materials, LLC is a vertically integrated manufacturer
and distributor of exterior residential building products in the
United States and Canada.  It produces a comprehensive offering of
exterior building products, including vinyl windows, vinyl siding,
aluminum trim coil, aluminum and steel siding and related
accessories, which the Company produces at its 11 manufacturing
facilities.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
William L. Pullin v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Case No.
4:14-cv-00544 (E.D. Tex., August 16, 2014) is an employment case
that involves both discrimination and retaliation under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is an active Delaware limited
partnership, doing business in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wade A. Forsman, Esq.
          P.O. Box 918
          Sulphur Springs, TX 75483-0918
          Telephone: (903) 689-4144
          Facsimile: (903) 689-7001
          E-mail: wade@forsmanlaw.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued for Denying Hispanic Man to Amend Mortgage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Pesantez v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04882-SJ-JMA (E.D.N.Y., August 15, 2014) alleges that Mellon
denied the Plaintiff a modification of certain mortgage while not
doing so to similarly situated other persons, including White or
African American persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Damond J. Carter, Esq.
          CARTER & ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          224 West 35th Street, Suite 512
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (646) 405-5225
          Facsimile: (888) 711-4420
          E-mail: damcart@carter-attorneys.com


BANK OF THE WEST: Court Okays Undertaking Re Atty. Fees & Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed a stipulated undertaking on
August 6, 2014, regarding attorney's fees and costs in connection
with the proposed class action settlement in YOUNUS BAYAT and
MOHAMMED EREIKAT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF THE WEST, Defendant, CASE NO.
13-CV-2376 (EMC), (N.D. Cal.).

Under the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/rUjePwfrom Leagle.com, the Plaintiffs and
defendant agree that the Counsel and their respective law firms
desire to give an undertaking for repayment of their award of
attorneys' fees and costs ("Undertaking"), as is required by the
Settlement Agreement.

In the event that the Final Approval Order is reversed or modified
on appeal, in whole or in part, or the Agreement does not become
effective for any reason the Counsel will, within 15 days of the
event that prevents the Agreement from becoming effective, repay
to Bank of the West, or any of its successors or assigns the
attorneys' fees and costs paid from the Fund to Counsel in the
amount vacated or modified, including any accrued interest.

In the event the Final Approval Order is not reversed on appeal,
in whole or in part, but the attorneys' fees and costs awarded by
the Court are vacated or modified on appeal, the Counsel shall,
within 15 days after the order vacating or modifying the award of
attorneys' fees and costs becomes final, repay to the Fund the
attorneys' fees and costs paid from the Fund to undersigned
Counsel in the amount vacated or modified, including any accrued
interest.

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Jonathan D. Selbin --
jselbin@lchb.com -- New York, NY, LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP Daniel M. Hutchinson -- dhutchinson@lchb.com --
Nicole D. Sugnet -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- MEYER WILSON CO., LPA,
Matthew R. Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Michael J. Boyle,
Jr. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- Columbus, Ohio, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Younus Bayat and Mohammed Ereikat, and the Proposed
Class.

Lisa M. Simonetti -- lsimonetti@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK &
LAVAN LLP, ACKNOWLEDGED BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, BANK OF THE
WEST.


BECTON DICKINSON: Paid $22 Million in Exchange for Release
----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company was named as a defendant in the
following purported class action suits brought on behalf of
indirect purchasers of the Company's products, such as hospitals
and retailers (the "Hospital Plaintiffs"), alleging that the
Company violated federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in
the charging of higher prices for the Company's products to the
plaintiffs and other purported class members.

     Case                 Court                   Date Filed
     ----                 -----                   ----------
Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc.,    U.S. District Court,    June 3, 2005
et al. v. Becton          Greenville, Tennessee
Dickinson & Company

Drug Mart Tallman, Inc.,  U.S. District Court,    January 17,
et al. v. Becton          Newark, New Jersey      2006
Dickinson and Company

Medstar v. Becton         U.S. District Court,    May 18, 2006
Dickinson                 Newark, New Jersey

The Hebrew Home for       U.S. District Court,    March 28, 2007
the Aged at Riverdale     Southern District
v. Becton Dickinson       of New York
and Company

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits
sought monetary damages. These antitrust class action lawsuits
were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.

Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities And Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that pursuant to a
settlement agreement that the Company entered into with the
Hospital Plaintiffs on July 30, 2013 and following approval by the
New Jersey District Court (on a preliminarily basis in November
2013 and on a final basis in March 2014), the Company has paid $22
million in exchange for a release by all potential class members
of the indirect purchaser claims related to the products and acts
enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal of the case with
prejudice.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") is a global medical
technology company engaged principally in the development,
manufacture and sale of a broad range of medical supplies,
devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products used by
healthcare institutions, life science researchers, clinical
laboratories, pharmaceutical industry and the general public. Our
business consists of three worldwide business segments -- BD
Medical ("Medical"), BD Diagnostics ("Diagnostics") and BD
Biosciences ("Biosciences").  The products are marketed in the
United States and internationally through independent distribution
channels and directly to end-users by BD and independent sales
representatives.


BELL MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Card Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Edwards, writing for The Hamilton Spectator, reports that
more than one million people could be involved in a multi-million-
dollar class action lawsuit by phone card customers against Bell
Mobility.

The lawsuit began with a dispute over the expiry of a Virgin
prepaid card with a balance of about C$58.60 belonging to Celia
Sankar of Elliott Lake in 2011.  Ms. Sankar alleges Bell should
not have "seized" money remaining on her card after its expiry
date.  She is seeking C$100 million in general damages for herself
and fellow complainants, C$10 million in punitive damages, a
declaration that Bell Mobility breached its contracts with
customers and an order restraining the corporation from continuing
its prepaid card practices.

Allegations in Ms. Sankar's lawsuit have not been proven in court.

On Aug. 18, the Ontario Court of Justice allowed the lawsuit to
proceed, ruling for customers seeking compensation for balances
remaining on prepaid wireless phone cards on Bell Mobility, Virgin
Mobile Canada and Solo Mobile accounts. (Bell operates prepaid
wireless phone services for those carriers.)

Ms. Sankar argues prepaid phone cards are "gift cards" under the
Consumer Protection Act and so are not subject to expiry dates.

Bell Mobility has denied it breached its contract with customers
and that provincial regulations against expiry dates on gift cards
apply to prepaid wireless services.

Bell has argued in court that the case is too unwieldly.  Apart
from more than one million customers, it also involves three
vendors, three different expiry date practices, three kinds of
expiry date communications and six separate kinds of
communication, including websites, mobile phones and text
notification.

This means there is no true commonality and it's "impossible to
proceed on a class-wide basis," Bell argued.

The suit covers phone cards whose active period expired between
May 4, 2010, and Dec. 16, 2013.

Ms. Sankar brought the lawsuit while she was executive director of
the Diversity Canada Foundation, a non-profit organization
advocating social justice.

She created a website, "Bell, Give our Money Back," and argued
before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission regarding prepaid billing practices.

No date has been set for a trial.

Customers who don't want to take part in the lawsuit have until
Nov. 17 to opt out by mail or email.

In a statement, Ms. Sankar's lawyers, Christine Davies and
Nadine Blum, stated this is the first case to consider the Ontario
Consumer Protection Act's "gift card" provisions.

"The gift card law was intended to protect consumers from losing
cash equivalents," Ms. Davies said.  "Class members prepaid money
into their accounts so that they would have funds available to
purchase services and products from Bell on an ongoing basis.  If
successful at trial, this case will ensure that consumers' prepaid
amounts are protected."


BERMAN & RABIN: Moved to Quash Subpoena for LiveVox
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Tamara Higginbotham v.
Berman & Rabin P.A., Case No. 3:14-mc-03022 (C.D. Ill., July 31,
2014), Berman & Rabin P.A. filed a motion to quash a subpoena to
produce documents and information served upon LiveVox, Inc. by
Tamara Higginbotham on July 2.  Berman said compliance will invade
the privacy of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith James Keogh, Esq.
      Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW LTD
      Suite 3390, 55 W. Monroe St.
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 726-1092
      Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
      E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
              mhilicki@keoghlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Douglas J. Quivey, Esq.
      LONDRIGAN POTTER & RANDLE PC
      1227 S Seventh St, P O Box 399
      Springfield, IL 62705
      Telephone: (217) 544-9823
      Facsimile: (217) 544-9826
      E-mail: doug@lprpc.com


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Gulf South Unit Fully Indemnified by MGSC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP's Gulf South subsidiary and
several other defendants, including Mobile Gas Service Corporation
(MGSC), have been named as defendants in nine lawsuits, including
one purported class action suit, commenced by multiple plaintiffs
in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages for personal injury and property damage
related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler
Junction facilities in Eight Mile, Alabama.

Gulf South delivers natural gas to MGSC, the local distribution
company for that region, at Whistler Junction where MGSC odorizes
the gas prior to delivery to end user customers by injecting
mercaptan into the gas stream, as required by law.

The cases are: Parker, et al. v. MGSC,et al. (Case No. CV-12-
900711), Crum, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901057),
Austin, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901133), Moore, et
al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et al. v.
MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901490), Joel G. Reed, et al. v.
MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-922265), The Housing Authority of
the City of Prichard, Alabama v. MGSC., et al. (Case No. CV-2013-
901002), Robert Evans, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-
902627), and Devin Nobles, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-
2013-902786).

Gulf South has denied liability. Gulf South has demanded that MGSC
indemnify Gulf South against all liability related to these
matters pursuant to a right-of-way agreement between Gulf South
and MGSC, and has filed cross-claims against MGSC for any such
liability. MGSC has also filed cross-claims against Gulf South
seeking indemnity and other relief from Gulf South.

In May 2014, Gulf South and MGSC reached an agreement whereby MGSC
fully indemnified Gulf South against all liability related to this
matter and the cross-claims between Gulf South and MGSC were
settled, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (the Partnership) is a Delaware
limited partnership formed in 2005 to own and operate the business
conducted by its primary subsidiary Boardwalk Pipelines, LP
(Boardwalk Pipelines) and its operating subsidiaries and consists
of integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) pipeline
and storage systems and natural gas gathering and processing.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Securities Action Proceeding to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action complaint was filed on July 13, 2012, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming Bridgepoint Education Inc., Andrew Clark,
Daniel Devine and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly
making false and materially misleading statements regarding
Bridgepoint Education's business and financial results,
specifically the concealment of accreditation problems at Ashford
University. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011 to July 6, 2012.

A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court
by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar allegations
against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The
Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012.

Finally, on July 26, 2012, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein
against the same defendants based upon the same general set of
allegations and class period. The complaints allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified
monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to
Ashford University's quality of education, the the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges, or WASC accreditation
process, and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning
Ashford University's persistence rates.

Bridgepoint Education said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the
plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the October 31,
2013 deadline and therefore the case is now proceeding to
discovery.

Bridgepoint Education provides postsecondary education services.
Its academic institutions are Ashford University(R) and University
of the RockiesSM.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Says Outcome of "Guzman" Case Uncertain
--------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit in January 2011 against
Bridgepoint Education Inc., Ashford University and University of
the Rockies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California. The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc., et al., and alleges that the defendants engaged
in misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts
to recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005 through the present.

In March 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in
October 2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss.

In May 2012, the Court granted University of the Rockies' motion
to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss filed by the Company and Ashford University. The Court
also granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended
complaint.

In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period. The second
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement
of all profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees.

The defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the second
amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part.

On March 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to deny class
certification for students enrolled on or after May 2007 when
Ashford University adopted a binding arbitration policy.

On August 23, 2013, the Court denied the motion finding that
although "some" absent class members in this case may have signed
an enforceable arbitration agreement, this does not demonstrate an
overbroad or unascertainable class that forecloses certification
at this stage of the proceedings.

On September 23, 2013, the Court entered an order bifurcating
discovery and permitting only class certification discovery to
take place until the plaintiff's motion for class certification,
which is due to be filed on or before April 30, 2014, is decided.

Bridgepoint Education said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At
present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
for this action based on the information available to the Company.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.

Bridgepoint Education provides postsecondary education services.
Its academic institutions are Ashford University(R) and University
of the RockiesSM.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Employee Class Actions Now Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed on October 24, 2012, in
California Superior Court by former employee Marla Montano naming
Bridgepoint Education Inc. and Ashford University as defendants.
The case is entitled Marla Montano v. Bridgepoint Education and
Ashford University. The complaint asserts a putative class
consisting of former employees who were terminated in January 2012
and July 2012 as a result of a mass layoff, relocation or
termination and alleges that the defendants failed to comply with
the notice and payment provisions of the California WARN Act.

A substantially similar complaint, entitled Dilts v. Bridgepoint
Education and Ashford University, was also filed in the same court
on the same day by Austin Dilts making similar allegations and
asserting the same putative class. The complaints seek back pay,
the cost of benefits, penalties and interest on behalf of the
putative class members, as well as other equitable relief and
attorneys' fees.

On January 25, 2013, the Company filed motions to compel binding
arbitration with the Court, which were granted on May 20, 2013.
The parties subsequently agreed to settle all of the claims for an
immaterial amount and as a result the cases are now concluded,
Bridgepoint Education said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Bridgepoint Education provides postsecondary education services.
Its academic institutions are Ashford University(R) and University
of the RockiesSM.


BURGER KING: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Maryland Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Worldwide, 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 March 1, 2013, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against Burger King
Corporation in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The complaint
alleges that BKC and/or its agents sent unsolicited advertisements
by fax to thousands of consumers in Maryland and elsewhere in the
United States to promote its home delivery program in violation of
the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. The plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief. In April 2014, the court
denied BKC's motion to dismiss, and it is anticipated that the
parties will proceed with discovery. BKC will vigorously contest
liability and class certification.

Burger King Worldwide, Inc. is the indirect parent of Burger King
Corporation, a Florida corporation that franchises and operates
fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger
King(R) brand.  BK is the world's second largest fast food
hamburger restaurant, or FFHR, chain as measured by the total
number of restaurants. As of June 30, 2014, it owned or franchised
a total of 13,808 restaurants in 98 countries and U.S. territories
worldwide.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Expects Indemnification From Mylan
-------------------------------------------------------
Cambrex Corporation and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted in 2008 by
the Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia (the "District Court"). Suits were
also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The
suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the total amount of $19,200, payable jointly and severally, and
also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount
of $16,709.  In addition, at the time, the District Court ruled
that the defendants were subject to a total of approximately
$7,500 in prejudgment interest.

Cambrex 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 case is currently pending before the
District Court following a January 2011 remand by the Court of
Appeals where briefing related to whether the court has
jurisdiction over certain self-funded customer plaintiffs has been
completed and the parties are currently waiting for a ruling by
the court.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415 to Mylan in exchange for a release
and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related
litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate,
as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter.
Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party
insurance company in the amount of $66,632.  In the event of a
final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment
required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the indemnity,
Cambrex said.


COLUMBIA LABORATIES: No Oral Argument Yet in Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Columbia
Laboraties Inc., and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. These
actions were filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia
Laboratories, Inc., et al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories,
Inc., et al and asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf
of an alleged class of purchasers of the common stock during the
period from December 6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both
actions were consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re
Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, under which
Actavis and three of its officers have been added as defendants.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Columbia and two
of its officers, one of whom is a director, omitted to state
material facts that they were under a duty to disclose, and made
materially false and misleading statements that related to the
results of Columbia's PREGNANT study and the likelihood of
approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") of a New
Drug Application ("NDA") to market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for
the prevention of preterm birth in women with premature cervical
shortening.  According to the amended complaint, these alleged
omissions and misleading statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the common stock. The plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.

On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,
holding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts
supporting an inference of an intent to deceive investors. The
Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint,
which they did on July 11, 2013.  Columbia moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

On October 21, 2013, the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint. The Court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to
their first amended complaint "still do not create a strong
inference that the Defendants acted with an intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud." The Court ordered that if the plaintiffs
sought to attempt to plead a cognizable action in a third amended
complaint, they must do so within thirty days and specifically
address why the attempt would not be futile.

The plaintiffs chose not to file any further amendments and the
case was dismissed with prejudice on December 2, 2013. On December
20, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Briefing of the
appeal is complete but the Court has not yet scheduled oral
argument, Columbia said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

Columbia believes that the appealed action is without merit, and
intends to defend it vigorously. At this time, it is not possible
to determine the likely outcome of, or to estimate the potential
liability related to this action, and Columbia has not made any
provision for losses in connection with it.

Columbia provides pharmaceutical development, clinical trial
manufacturing, product supply, and advanced analytical and
consulting services to the pharmaceutical industry.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in "Dixie" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIXIE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS
LOUISIANA, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-435-SDD-RLB, (M.D. La.) is
before the court on a Motion to Intervene filed by the Louisiana
Public Service Commission (LPSC) on March 3, 2014.  The plaintiff,
Dixie Electric Membership Corporation (DEMCO) opposes the motion.
Defendant Cox Communications does not.

The contract dispute is between two private entities subject to
regulations promulgated by the LPSC: the plaintiff DEMCO, a non-
profit Louisiana electric cooperative, and the defendant Cox, a
cable television provider. DEMCO and Cox entered into a contract
titled "General Agreement Joint Use of Wood Poles" (the Contract)
providing that Cox could attach its lines and cables to DEMCO's
wood utility poles to serve its customers. This action concerns,
among other things, DEMCO's allegations that Cox has breached
several of its duties under the Contract, including attaching
unauthorized cables to its poles, failing to provide proper bond,
failing to pay for its proportionate share of the costs of its
rights-of-way maintenance, and failing to comply with certain
safety specifications, rules, and regulations.

Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., in an opinion dated
August 6, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/3ENQGZfrom Leagle.com, denied LPSC's Motion to
Intervene.

Although the LPSC has a cognizable "interest" in this litigation,
it does not have "any claim or defense that shares with the main
action a common question of fact or law", Magistrate Judge
Bourgeois held. "LPSC is a regulatory body that this court has
concluded does not have jurisdiction over this matter. The LPSC
has no claims or defenses. Furthermore, allowing the LPSC to
intervene would likely "unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication
of the original parties' rights." As an intervenor with no claim
or defense, the PRSC's role in this litigation would simply be to
interject briefing in a manner that would be disruptive to the
adjudication of this dispute and the authority of this court as
the adjudicator of legal matters in this action," he added.

Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
James Leeper Ellis -- jim.ellis@taylorporter.com -- Taylor,
Porter, Brooks & Phillips, John M. Parker, Jr. --
john.parker@taylorporter.com -- Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips,
L. Adam Thames -- adam.thames@taylorporter.com -- Taylor, Porter,
Brooks & Phillips & Preston J. Castille, Jr. --
preston.castille@taylorporter.com -- Taylor, Porter, Brooks &
Phillips.

Cox Communications Louisiana, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Robert Lewis Rieger, Jr. -- robert.rieger@arlaw.com -- Adams &
Reese, LP-BR.

James Aaron George -- ageorge@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, John Davidson Thomas --
dthomas@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Renee' Crasto -- renee.crasto@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese,
Scott Michael Levy --  scott.levy@arlaw.com -- Adams and Reese
LLP, Verne Thomas Clark, Jr. -- tom.clark@arlaw.com -- Adams and
Reese, L.L.P. & William David Shea -- william.shea@arlaw.com --
Adams & Reese.

Cox Communications Louisiana, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented
by Robert Lewis Rieger, Jr., Adams & Reese, LP-BR, James Aaron
George, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, John Davidson
Thomas, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Renee' Crasto,
Adams & Reese, Scott Michael Levy, Adams and Reese LLP, Verne
Thomas Clark, Jr., Adams and Reese, L.L.P. & William David Shea,
Adams & Reese.

Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, Counter Defendant,
represented by James Leeper Ellis, Taylor, Porter, Brooks &
Phillips, John M. Parker, Jr., Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips,
L. Adam Thames, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips & Preston J.
Castille, Jr., Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips.


CREIG NORTHROP: Faces Class Action Over Kickback Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Harney, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
new federal court suit alleging kickback violations by one of the
country's top-producing real estate sales teams was filed.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore this
month, alleges that Creig Northrop Team P.C. -- a real estate
group ranked among the highest-grossing nationwide in recent years
-- received payments totaling $1.3 million from 2001 to 2014 from
a title insurance company, which the complaint characterizes as
illegal "kickbacks" that were never disclosed to buyers.  The
plaintiffs also allege that the defendants used "sham" employment
and marketing agreements to disguise the true nature of the
payments.

The Northrop team is affiliated with Long and Foster Real Estate
Inc., the largest independent brokerage in the country.
Timothy Casey, an attorney representing both the Northrop team and
Long and Foster, said he had no comment on the case, pending
authorization from his clients.  Lakeview Title Insurance Co.,
which is accused of paying kickbacks in exchange for referrals of
business by the Northrop team, did not respond to a request for
comment.  The defendants' answer has not yet been filed.

The filing seeks class action status, $11.2 million in
"compensatory damages" for the plaintiffs, plus potentially
millions more in other damages.  A related suit sought and was
granted class action status by the same federal court this year.
In that case, the Northrop team and Long and Foster denied any
wrongdoing.  The court ultimately dropped Long and Foster from the
class action, having found no evidence that Long and Foster had
participated in the Northrop team's alleged actions.

The new suit, brought by Nancy Wade and Janice Rulli, who bought a
home in Ellicott City, Md., through the Northrop team, seeks to
reinstate Long and Foster as a defendant with new allegations that
an employee of the brokerage firm not only was aware of the
allegedly illegal payments but also "admonished and disciplined"
sales agents when they did not steer business to the title agency.

The complaint alleges that Carla Northrop, vice president of the
team, received $775,000 from Lakeview Title over a six-year period
under an "employment arrangement" that required little or no work
-- she had no office space, no set hours, no cellphone or business
cards, yet was compensated with one-half of the title insurance
premiums charged to home buyers who were referred by the Northrop
team.

No one can predict how the court system ultimately will rule on
the allegations in the Northrop case.  But real estate industry
experts say it highlights an area of growing sensitivity for
brokers and agents: Though federal prohibitions against kickbacks
for business referrals have been in place for decades, regulators
and consumer attorneys are becoming more aggressive in challenging
"marketing" and employment compensation deals that can add
significant amounts to brokers' incomes -- but discourage their
buyers from shopping for lower-cost or better settlement services.

Such arrangements are widespread, says New Orleans attorney
Marx Sterbcow, and "a lot of them" are vulnerable to legal attack.
According to Mr. Sterbcow, payments for questionable "marketing
services" can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars a month
in the case of large brokers or involve more modest payments to
small brokerages or even to individual agents who have negotiated
arrangements with title and other vendors.

When there is little or no proportionality in the referral deal --
say a broker or agent gets substantial sums of money but provides
only vague services beyond the referral of customers -- the
arrangement is open to challenge, say realty industry legal
experts.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has begun stepping up its
own investigations and enforcement actions against brokers and
title companies -- especially on alleged referral-fee arrangements
and inadequate disclosures provided to consumers.  It recently
settled with one large realty broker for $500,000.


CUB CADET: "Northcutt" Suit Removed to Missouri District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant TD Bank, N.A., removed the class action lawsuit titled
Northcutt, et al. v. Cub Cadet, LLC, et al., Case No. 14AB-
CC00129, from the Franklin County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-01427-RWS to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas P. Dowd, Esq.
          DOWD AND DOWD, P.C.
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 4050
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-2500
          Facsimile: (314) 621-2503
          E-mail: doug@dowdlaw.net

Defendant Cub Cadet, LLC, is represented by:

          John E. Galvin, III, Esq.
          Jonathan H. Garside, Esq.
          FOX GALVIN, LLC
          One Memorial Drive, 12th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 588-7000
          Facsimile: (314) 588-1965
          E-mail: jgalvin@foxgalvin.com
                  jgarside@foxgalvin.com

Defendant TD Bank, N.A.,

          Gerard T. Noce, Esq.
          W. Jason Rankin, Esq.
          HEPLER BROOM
          211 North Broadway, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-6160
          Facsimile: (314) 241-6116
          E-mail: sro@heplerbroom.com
                  wjr@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

          Troy A. Bozarth, Esq.
          HEPLER BROOM
          130 N. Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510
          Telephone: (618) 656-0184
          Facsimile: (618) 656-1364
          E-mail: tab@heplerbroom.com


CUBIC CORP: Faces Suits Over Contract Breach, Consumer Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Cubic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
Quarter Ended June 30, 2014, that in October and December of 2013,
and January of 2014, lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division against the Company and one of its transit customers
alleging variously, among other things, breach of contract,
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment
and violation of the Electronic Funds Act.

The Company said that, "In January 2014 these cases were
consolidated into a single case and the Plaintiffs are seeking to
have the case certified as a class action. Plaintiffs variously
claim, among other things, that: (i) they were wrongly charged for
calling the call center that we operate for patrons of our transit
customer, (ii) they were wrongly charged for a transfer and a
second fare, (iii) they were not credited the cost of a transit
card even after registration of the card, as is required under the
terms of the cardholder agreement, and (iv) they were double
charged for rides taken."

"We are undertaking the defense of the transit customer pursuant
to our contractual obligations to that customer. We are
investigating the matter and plan to vigorously defend this
lawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, we cannot
estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate of
possible loss," the Company said.

Cubic is an international provider of cost-effective systems and
solutions that address the transportation and global defense
markets' most pressing and demanding requirements.  It is engaged
in the design, development, manufacture, integration, and
sustainment of advanced technology systems and products.  It also
provides a broad range of engineering, training, technical,
logistic, and information technology services.


DIRECTV: Delaware Actions Consolidated; California Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on May 21, 2014, and following the May 18, 2014
announcement that DIRECTV had entered into a definitive agreement
to combine with AT&T, Inc., several shareholder putative class
action lawsuits have been filed, six in Delaware Chancery Court
("Delaware Actions"), and one in California Superior Court
("California Action"), against DIRECTV, its directors and AT&T,
Inc., alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction.  The complaints generally and collectively
assert that defendants failed to maximize the value of DIRECTV,
and seek to enjoin the proposed transaction as well as unspecified
damages, costs and fees.  Service has been accepted by DIRECTV and
its directors in all pending cases.

DIRECTV 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 an Order consolidating the Delaware
Actions and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel was entered
on July 21, 2014. Discovery in Delaware Actions stayed pending the
filing of a Consolidated Complaint.  The California Action has
been stayed pending a court status conference scheduled for August
12, 2014.

"Insofar as the allegations in these lawsuits can be analyzed by
us at this early stage, we believe the claims are without merit
and intend to defend the actions vigorously," the Company said.


DIRECTV: Finalizing Settlements in Early Cancellation Fees Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits in
state and federal courts in 2008 challenging the early
cancellation fees DIRECTV assesses its customers when they do not
fulfill their programming commitments.

DIRECTV 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 "We have reached a settlement in
principle with the individual plaintiffs in the federal cases and
are finalizing the settlement agreements. In the California state
court action, the denial of our motion to compel arbitration is
currently on appeal. We believe that our early cancellation fees
are adequately disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of
the costs we incur when customers cancel service before fulfilling
their programming commitments."


EAGLE ROCK: Unitholders File Three Class Action Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Alleged Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. unitholders filed three
class action lawsuits in March and April 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
public unitholders.

Eagle Rock said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that, "The lawsuits name us, our Board
of Directors, Regency Energy Partners, L.P. ("Regency"), and Regal
Midstream LLC as defendants. One of the lawsuits also names our
general partner and our general partner's general partner as
defendants. Plaintiffs in each lawsuit allege a variety of causes
of action challenging Regency's acquisition of our midstream
assets, including alleged breaches of fiduciary or contractual
duties, alleged aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of
duty, and alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The lawsuits allege that we (i) sold our midstream assets
for inadequate value, (ii) engaged in an unfair sales process,
(iii) agreed to contractual terms (the no-solicitation, fiduciary
out, superior proposal, and termination fee provisions and the
voting and support agreement) that would dissuade other potential
acquirors from seeking to purchase the midstream assets, and (iv)
failed to disclose material information in our definitive proxy
statement concerning the analysis of our financial advisors,
potential conflicts of the advisors (and directors), management's
financial projections, strategic alternatives, other potential
acquirors, the bases for certain actions, and the background of
the transaction."

"Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs seek in each case to
have the sale rescinded, and also seek monetary damages and
attorneys' fees. The United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas has yet to resolve a pending motion to
consolidate the three lawsuits or two pending motions to appoint a
lead plaintiff. We believe that the lawsuits are without merit."


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Obtains Final Approval of TCPA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., granted final approval of a
settlement in IN RE: ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, TELEPHONE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT LITIGATION, CASE NO. 6:13-MD-2398-ORL-
37GJK, (M.D. Fla.).

A copy of Judge Dalton's August 6, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/nR27Xlfrom Leagle.com.

The Court certified the Settlement Class defined as: All persons
within the United States (a) who, on or after August 30, 2006, (b)
received any telephone call from ERC or its agents to said
person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system or with an artificial or prerecorded
voice, (c) which call was not made for emergency purposes, (d)
where ERC's records do not show that the person provided the
number to ERC or the original creditor (for example, where the
number was obtained through skip tracing or captured by ERC's
equipment from an inbound call).

All claims against ERC, including all Released Claims set forth in
the Settlement Agreement, are dismissed with prejudice.

The Court awarded to Class Counsel their attorneys' fees and costs
in the amount of $1,250,000, which the Court finds to be fair and
reasonable in light of the time, expense, and complexity of the
litigation and upon review of counsel's billing records.

The Court approved payment of $10,000 to each representative
Plaintiff for his or her damages and services to the Settlement
Class.

The individual claims of Plaintiffs Teresa Soppet and Loidy Tang
against Defendant Illinois Bell Telephone Company have been
settled.

MDL 2398 Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation, In Re, represented by Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Aytan Yehoshua Bellin,
Bellin & Associates LLC, James Kevin Schultz, Sessions, Fishman,
Nathan & Israel, LLC, Joseph Mauro, The Law Office of Joseph
Mauro, LLC, Joshua Swigart, Hyde & Swigart & Scott David Owens.

Latasha Blake, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Trenz, The Law
Offices of David Schafer, David P. Schafer, Law Offices of David
Schafer, PLLC, James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC, Joel S. Treuhaft, Palm Harbor Law Group, PA, Kira
Rubel, Law Offices of Kira M. Rubel, Patrick S. Sweeney, Sweeney &
Sweeney, SC & Scott David Owens.

Frederick S. Aumick, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A.
Yarbrough, Law Office of Donald A. Yarbrough & Scott David Owens.

Wanett Drinning-Duffee, Plaintiff, represented by David P.
Schafer, Law Offices of David Schafer, PLLC, James O. Latturner,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Keith J. Keogh, Keogh
Law, LTD & Scott David Owens.

Ronnie Duffee, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Schafer, Law
Offices of David Schafer, PLLC, James O. Latturner, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Keith J. Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD &
Scott David Owens.

Teresa Soppet, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Daniel A. Edelman,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, David P. Schafer, Law
Offices of David Schafer, PLLC, Francis Richard Greene, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, James O. Latturner, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC & Scott David Owens.

Loidy Tang, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis Charles Warner,
Warner Law Firm, LLC, David P. Schafer, Law Offices of David
Schafer, PLLC, Francis Richard Greene, Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC, James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC & Scott David Owens.

Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Defendant, represented by Archis
A. Parasharami, Mayer Brown, LLP, Logan Ann Steiner, Mayer Brown,
LLP & Kevin S. Ranlett, Mayer Brown, LLP.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan C.
Shartle, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC, David Allen
Shapiro, Bronson & Kahan, LLC, Dayle Marie Van Hoose, Seth Burack,
James Kevin Schultz, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC,
Kimberly D. Howatt, Gordon & Rees, LLP, Peter E. Nicandri, Milam,
Howard, Nicandri, Dees & Gillam, PA, Rachel A. Morris, Sessions,
Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC & Scott Stephen Gallagher, Smith,
Gambrell & Russell, LLP.


ENSIGN GROUP: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in "Castaneda" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In JOHN CASTANEDA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE ENSIGN GROUP,
INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, 2D CIVIL NO. B249119,
John Castaneda appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendants
The Ensign Group, Inc. (Ensign) and Ensign Facility Services, Inc.
(EFS) on his class action lawsuit seeking damages for nonpayment
of minimum and overtime wages. In his opening brief, Mr. Castaneda
seeks reversal of the summary judgment in favor of Ensign. He no
longer challenges the judgment in favor of EFS.

Mr. Castaneda filed the class action complaint on behalf of
himself and other certified nursing assistants against Ensign for
"unpaid minimum and overtime wages." He alleged Ensign was the
alter ego of the Cabrillo Rehabilitation and Care Center
(Cabrillo), a nursing facility, where he worked, and its
"corporate veil should be pierced." He claimed Ensign was his
employer.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six,
in an opinion dated August 7, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/pdWf5wfrom Leagle.com, concluded that the trial
court erred by granting summary judgment for Ensign. There are
triable issues of fact about whether Ensign was Mr. Castaneda's
employer.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and
costs on appeal are awarded in favor of appellant.

Ehlert Appeals, Allison L. Ehlert -- ale@girardgibbs.com ;
Baltodano & Baltodano LLP, Hernaldo J. Baltodano --
hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com -- Erica Flores Baltodano --
efb@bbemploymentlaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Horvitz & Levy LLP, Lisa Perrochet -- lperrochet@horvitzlevy.com
-- John F. Querio --  jquerio@horvitzlevy.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Dawn T. Collins --
dawn.collins@ogletreedeakins.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


EVENTS BY EXECUTIVE: Removed "Suarez" Cass Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Suarez v. Events by Executive
Caterers, Inc., et al., Case No. 2014-I6734-CA-01, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23006-JLK to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9471
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew L. Rodman, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF
             & SITTERSON, P.A.
          Museum Tower, Suite 2200
          150 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-3200
          Facsimile: (305) 789-3395
          E-mail: arodman@stearnsweaver.com


FERGUSON, MO: Group Mulls Civil Rights Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Yamiche Alcindor, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the civil
rights attorney who represented the family of Trayvon Martin, the
unarmed 17-year-old shot to death in Sanford, Fla., in 2012, told
a rally in Missouri on Aug. 17 that police are trying to
assassinate the character of Michael Brown, the young man shot
dead by police more than a week ago.

"They tried it with Trayvon, and now they are trying it with
Michael," Benjamin Crump said.

"We know that this was an execution," he said, noting that at the
time of his death, witnesses say Brown had his hands raised above
his head.  "This means 'Surrender! Don't shoot!' And the most
hardened criminals in history, when they put their hands up, we
didn't execute them."

The Aug. 18 rally at Greater Grace Church came hours after an
overnight curfew ended.

Martin Luther King III said the local prosecutor looking into the
shooting should recuse himself from case.  "Justice perhaps won't
come without an independent prosecutor," he said.

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton told the crowd that it was
despicable for police to release a robbery report naming the
18-year-old Brown as a suspect before his mother had buried her
son.  Mr. Sharpton said protests would continue.

Anger has grown since police on Aug. 15 released a surveillance
video that appears to show Brown stealing cigars from a
convenience store and roughing up its clerk a few minutes before
the confrontation with Officer Darren Wilson.

Donations for Brown's family poured in at the rally.  Speakers
announced that all three of Brown's siblings would receive full
college scholarships.  TV's Judge Greg Mathis announced that he
would give the family $10,000.  Sharpton said his National Action
Network would pay for Brown's funeral.  He encouraged others to
give the family money.  Donors filled several large baskets with
cash.  Mr. Sharpton told the crowd the money would go directly to
the family.

He also announced on Aug. 17 that a class-action lawsuit would be
filed on behalf of Ferguson protesters who were tear-gassed while
demonstrating and others who were injured.  Malik Shabazz of Black
Lawyers for Justice and members of the New Black Panther Party
have said they would file a lawsuit because they believe
protesters' civil rights were violated.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Trial Court Ordered Briefing on Class Definition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation and FirstMerit Bank
N.A.  The complaints were brought as putative class actions on
behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the
Bank and who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of
the alleged re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that
had been filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was
dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit
in Lake County seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft
fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney
fees.

In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a
proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed
in part the trial court's class certification order, and remanded
the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in
particular with respect to the class definition.

On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for
reconsideration and application for consideration en banc. On
November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those
applications.

On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed a notice of
appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3, 2014, they
filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in support of the
Court's exercising its jurisdiction and accepting the appeal. The
plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the Ohio
Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction.

On July 16, 2014, the trial court held a status conference, at
which time it ordered briefing on the issue of the class
definition and addressed certain other matters, FirstMerit 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.

FirstMerit Corporation and subsidiaries is a diversified financial
services company headquartered in Akron, Ohio with 379 banking
offices in the Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Pennsylvania areas. The Corporation provides a complete range of
banking and other financial services to consumers and businesses
through its core operations.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Approval of Citizens Merger Suit Deal on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged
shareholders of Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. filed six
purported class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Genesee
County, Michigan, relating to the proposed merger between Citizens
and FirstMerit Corporation, which merger closed in April 2013. The
lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Citizens
Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-
CK (the "Lawsuit").

The consolidated complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former
directors of Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to obtain the best available price in the merger and by not
providing Citizens shareholders with all material information
related to the merger, and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Complaint
sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable
relief.

The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of
the Lawsuit, and the court approved the settlement on September
20, 2013. Under the settlement, the defendants amended the joint
proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include
certain supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and
agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the
court. An alleged former shareholder of Citizens objected to the
settlement and has filed an appeal of the court's approval of the
settlement; the settlement will not become final until that appeal
has been resolved, FirstMerit 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.

FirstMerit Corporation and subsidiaries is a diversified financial
services company headquartered in Akron, Ohio with 379 banking
offices in the Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Pennsylvania areas. The Corporation provides a complete range of
banking and other financial services to consumers and businesses
through its core operations.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Lifted Stay on CRBC 401(k) Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan filed a
lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in 2011, alleging that Citizens and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by offering Citizens common stock as an investment
alternative in the Plan during periods when it was imprudent to do
so and by failing to adequately monitor fiduciaries responsible
for administering the Plan.  The lawsuit, captioned Kidd v.
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-11709,
asserts claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a
purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan who
held Citizens stock in their Plan accounts during the period from
April 17, 2008 to "the present."

FirstMerit 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, that the court in April 2014
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, but stayed the action pending the outcome of a case
currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The court lifted the
stay in July 2014.

FirstMerit Corporation and subsidiaries is a diversified financial
services company headquartered in Akron, Ohio with 379 banking
offices in the Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and
Pennsylvania areas. The Corporation provides a complete range of
banking and other financial services to consumers and businesses
through its core operations.


FMC CORP: Novel Cross-Border "Class Action" in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
FMC 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, that multiple European
purchasers of hydrogen peroxide who claim to have been harmed as a
result of alleged violations of European competition law by
hydrogen peroxide producers assigned their legal claims to a
single entity formed by a law firm. The single entity then filed a
lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against European producers,
including the Company's wholly-owned Spanish subsidiary, Foret.
Initial defense briefs were filed in April 2010, and an initial
hearing was held during the first quarter of 2011, at which time
case management issues were discussed. At a subsequent hearing in
October 2011, the Court indicated that it was considering seeking
guidance from the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") as to whether
the German courts have jurisdiction over these claims. After
submission of written comments on this issue by the parties, on
March 1, 2012, the judge announced that she would refer the
jurisdictional issues to the ECJ. The court issued its formal
reference to the ECJ on April 29, 2013.

FMC said such a reference to the ECJ normally takes 12-18 months
from the date of formal reference for completion.

"Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a
novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a cross-border
"class action" which is not a recognized proceeding under EU or
German law -- we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of
our potential exposure of loss at this time. We intend to
vigorously defend this matter," FMC said.

FMC is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural,
consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative
solutions, applications and market-leading products.  It operates
in three distinct business segments: FMC Agricultural Solutions,
FMC Health and Nutrition and FMC Minerals.


FMC CORP: Hydrogen Peroxide Class Suit in Canada Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC 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, that in 2005, after public
disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury investigation into the
hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted in no charges brought
against FMC) and the filing of various class actions in U.S.
federal and state courts, which have all been settled, putative
class actions against FMC and five other major hydrogen peroxide
producers were filed in provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia under the laws of Canada. The other five
defendants have settled these claims for a total of approximately
$20.6 million.

On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005.

FMC said, "Our motion for leave to appeal the class certification
decision was denied in June 2010. The case was largely dormant
while the Canadian Supreme Court considered, in different
litigation, whether indirect purchasers may recover overcharges in
antitrust actions. In October 2013 the Court ruled that such
recovery is permissible. Despite this ruling, the plaintiffs have
now moved to dismiss certain downstream purchasers from the case
and to reduce the class period to November 1, 1998 through
December 31, 2003 - thereby eliminating six of the eleven years of
the originally certified class period."

"Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect
to the merits, we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of
our potential exposure of loss at this time. We intend to
vigorously defend these matters," FMC said.

FMC is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural,
consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative
solutions, applications and market-leading products.  It operates
in three distinct business segments: FMC Agricultural Solutions,
FMC Health and Nutrition and FMC Minerals.


GLANBIA: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Nitrik Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Glanbia is being targeted in the US by lawyers who are
aggressively trying to assemble a huge class action against it in
relation to one of its top bodybuilding brands.

Bio-Engineered Supplements (BNS), which Glanbia bought for EUR108
million in 2011 as part of a US-focused expansion of its sports
and nutritionals division, and its Irish parent are being sued in
California for allegedly misstating the potential benefits of
Nitrix, a highly popular supplement for bodybuilders.

A law firm called Newport Trial Group, which specializes in
assembling consumer-focused class actions and is also behind three
other cases outstanding against Glanbia, arranged for Nitrix to be
tested.

                   Ingredient 'not detectable'

According to court documents, the tests allegedly show that one of
the key active ingredients

         Nitrix claims to contain was "not detectable".

The company is now being accused of mis-stating the benefits of
the product, which promises to build "muscle fullness, strength,
power endurance, and work capacity".

Newport Trial Group has filed a case against BNS and Glanbia in
the name of a single Californian resident, and is seeking to join
as plaintiffs in the case anybody who has bought Nitrix in the US
in the last four years.

The lawyers say Glanbia "has wrongfully taken millions of dollars"
from consumers through sales of Nitrix, which costs about $60 for
a month's supply.

In its original legal complaint, filed in Orange County in April
but recently moved to a higher court, it said the number of
possible litigants against Glanbia is "in the tens of thousands".
The case against Glanbia, which denies any wrongdoing and is
objecting to attempts to turn the case into a class action, was
filed in the name of Martin Conde.  He has previously filed class
action lawsuits in other cases instigated by Newport Trial Group.
In 2012, for example, Mr. Conde and Newport attempted to sue
Obesity research Labs over the performance of Lipozene, a weight
loss product.  That case was later withdrawn.

                        Soft targets

Newport claims on its website to have acted in "more than 100"
class actions.  Such suits are not technically possible in
Ireland, but are commonly taken against consumer healthcare firms
in the US, which are often seen as soft targets.

The law firm has had previous successes in bringing class actions
against US companies. For example, last year it settled an action
it brought against Boiron over its Cold Calm children's product, a
homeopathic remedy for colds and flu.

Adopting a similar strategy as per the case currently outstanding
against Glanbia, Newport claimed Cold Calm did not work as claimed
by the makers.  It negotiated payouts for thousands of buyers of
Cold Calm, after placing advertisements asking for customers to
join the case.


GREENE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in M.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Michael Foley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Greene Communications, Inc. dba Cable TV of
East Alabama, R.M. Greene & Co., Inc. and Magnolia Greene, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00877-CSC (M.D. Ala., August 15, 2014) alleges
violations of antitrust laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew England Brashier, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 495-1652
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7444
          E-mail: Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

          Archibald (Archie) Irwin Grubb, II, Esq.
          Rebecca Diane Gilliland, Esq.
          Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
                  rebecca.gilliland@beasleyallen.com
                  dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Joe Ramon Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          2001 Park Place North
          1000 Park Place Tower
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 488-1200
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          William Tucker Brown, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          2001 Park Place N, Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-9576
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9669
          E-mail: tbrown@wdklaw.com


GRUPO AVAL ACCIONES: Bank Units Face Collective Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones Y Valores S.A. said in its Form F-1
Registration Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2014, that the Company, its banking
subsidiaries, Sociedad Administradora de Fondos de Pensiones y
Cesantias Porvenir S.A. or Porvenir, Corporacion Financiera
Colombiana S.A. or Corficolombiana, and its other subsidiaries are
party to collective or class actions ("acciones populares" or
"acciones de grupo," respectively).  Collective actions are court
actions where an individual seeks to protect collective rights and
prevent contingent damages, obtain injunctions and damages caused
by an infringement of collective rights of which the following are
the most significant.

All pension and severance fund administrators in Colombia,
including Porvenir, are subject to at least two class actions in
which certain individuals are alleging that the pension and
severance funds administrators have caused damages to their
customers by (1) paying returns earned by the severance and
pension funds below the minimum profitability certified by the
Superintendency of Finance, and (2) making payments to its
customers -- under the scheduled retirement system -- below the
established standards. Additionally, Porvenir and certain other
pension and severance funds are subject to a constitutional action
relating to charging commissions above the legally established
limits for contributions to mandatory pension funds. These
constitutional actions are seeking the payment of the alleged
damages caused to fund managers' customers.

According to Grupo Aval Acciones, "no provisions have been
established in connection with these three constitutional actions
because the amount is unquantifiable, and we consider the
probability of loss to be remote."

The Company's "banks" and "banking subsidiaries" are Banco de
Bogota S.A., Banco de Occidente S.A., Banco Popular S.A. and Banco
Comercial AV Villas S.A., and their respective consolidated
subsidiaries.


GUTHRIE CITY, OK: Removed "Granger" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Granger v. Guthrie, City of, Case
No. CJ-2014-85, was removed from the Logan County District Court
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
(Oklahoma City).  The Oklahoma District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:14-cv-00868-F to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts Civil Rights claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Box, Esq.
          JEFFREY J. BOX PC
          2621 S Western
          Oklahoma City, OK 73109
          Telephone: (405) 600-9918
          Facsimile: (405) 632-8828
          E-mail: jeffreybox@coxinet.net

               - and -

          Marvel E. Lewis, Esq.
          WHITE & WEDDLE PC
          5532 N Western Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 858-8899
          Facsimile: (405) 858-8844
          E-mail: marvel@whiteandweddle.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew W. Lester, Esq.
          Courtney Jo Davis Powell, Esq.
          Shannon F. Davies, Esq.
          LESTER LOVING & DAVIES PC
          1701 S Kelly Ave.
          Edmond, OK 73013-3623
          Telephone: (405) 844-9900
          Facsimile: (405) 844-9958
          E-mail: alester@lldlaw.com
                  cpowell@lldlaw.com
                  sdavies@lldlaw.com


HICKORY FARMS: Removed "Garcia" Class Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Garcia v. Hickory Farms Inc., et
al., Case No. BC550812, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-06442 to the
proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          John J. Manier, Esq.
          NASSIRI AND JUNG LLP
          1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 626-6200
          Facsimile: (213) 284-3900
          E-mail: jmanier@nassiri-jung.com


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $76MM Bond Under Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Worldwide 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, that the Company has an
outstanding bond of $76 million under a class action lawsuit
against Hilton and its noncontributory retirement plan in the U.S.
to support potential future plan contributions from the Company.

The Company said, "We funded an account, which is classified as
restricted cash and cash equivalents in our condensed consolidated
balance sheets, to support this requirement. If the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia approves of our compliance with
the requirements of the ruling from the class action lawsuit, then
the bond may be released in 2014."

Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. is one of the largest hospitality
companies in the world based upon the number of hotel rooms and
timeshare units under our 11 distinct brands.  It is engaged in
owning, leasing, managing, developing and franchising hotels,
resorts and timeshare properties.


IMMERSION CORP: Loss Causation Ruling in "Loos" Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
In JOHN P. LOOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. IMMERSION
CORPORATION; VICTOR A. VIEGAS; RALPH EDWARD CLENTON RICHARDSON;
STEPHEN AMBLER; RICHARD VOGEL, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-15100,
John Loos appeals the district court's dismissal of his securities
fraud class action for failure to state a claim.  Mr. Loos argues
that the district court erred by analyzing his allegations of
scienter in isolation rather than "collectively" as mandated by
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007).
He further challenges the district court's conclusion that he
failed to establish loss causation by alleging a precipitous
decline in Immersion Corp.'s stock price on the heels of a July 1,
2009 press release announcing an internal investigation into the
company's revenue accounting practices.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in an opinion
dated August 7, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/y4nIdffrom Leagle.com, holds that the announcement
of an investigation, standing alone, is insufficient to establish
loss causation. The Ninth Circuit further concludes that the
Plaintiff cannot establish loss causation on the facts alleged in
the amended complaint because he has not attempted to correlate
his losses to anything other than the announcement of an internal
investigation.

The Ninth Circuit, therefore, affirms the district court on the
loss causation issue.

David A.P. Brower -- brower@browerpiven.com -- and Richard H.
Weiss -- weiss@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, New York, New
York; and Sanford Svetcov, Susan K. Alezander --
salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- and Willow E. Radcliffe --
willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, San
Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Susan S. Muck -- smuck@fenwick.com -- Jennifer C. Bretan --
jbretan@fenwick.com and Marie C. Bafus -- mbafus@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West, LLP Felix S. Lee -- flee@fenwick.com -- Fenwick &
West, LLP, Mountain View, California, for Defendants-Appellees.


INSPECTION DEPOT: Removed "Dang" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dang, et al. v. Inspection Depot,
Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-14-012318, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-61857-WJZ to the proceeding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid at
the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per
week.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gary Dean Farmer, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1010
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467-7900
          Facsimile: (954) 467-1024
          E-mail: gfarmer@hinshawlaw.com


INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend Against Craftwood Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands, Inc. was named in May 2011 as a defendant in the
case of Craftwood Lumber Company v. Interline Brands, Inc.
("Craftwood Matter"), filed before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
Court of Lake County, Illinois, and subsequently removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited
fax advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("Junk Fax Act"). At the time of filing
the initial complaint in state court, the plaintiff also filed a
motion asking the Court to certify a class of plaintiffs comprised
of businesses who allegedly received unsolicited fax
advertisements from the Company during the four-year statute of
limitations period.

In its amended complaint filed in the United States District
Court, the plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief enjoining the Company from violating the Junk Fax Act, as
well as statutory damages for each fax transmission found to be in
violation of the Junk Fax Act.

Interline Brands said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities And Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that the Company continues
to vigorously contest class action certification and liability;
however, in light of the Company's assessment of potential legal
risks associated with the Craftwood Matter, the Company recorded a
pre-tax charge in the amount of $20.5 million in the third quarter
of 2013.  The pre-tax charge was included in selling, general and
administrative expenses in the statements of operations for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2013.

As of June 27, 2014 and December 27, 2013, the litigation related
accrual of $20.5 million was included in accrued expenses and
other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

Based upon the uncertain outcome of the Craftwood Matter, a range
of reasonable outcomes cannot be estimated as of the date of these
financial statements.  Accordingly, actual results may differ.

Interline Brands is a national distributor and direct marketer of
broad-line maintenance, repair and operations ("MRO") products.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Units Still Faces Product Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson are involved in numerous
product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products.
Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where
available, punitive damages. While these subsidiaries believe they
have substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the
ultimate outcome of litigation. The Company has established
product liability accruals in compliance with ASC 450-20 based on
currently available information, which in some cases may be
limited. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available.

The most significant of these cases include the ASR(TM) XL
Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System, the
PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System, pelvic meshes, and
RISPERDAL(R).

Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that as of June 29, in the
U.S. there were approximately 12,700 plaintiffs with direct claims
in pending lawsuits regarding injuries allegedly due to the
ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing
System, 6,600 with respect to the PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup
System, 33,000 with respect to pelvic meshes, and 670 with respect
to RISPERDAL(R).

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a
worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and
DePuy ASR(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement
surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy
and Johnson & Johnson, and the number of pending lawsuits
continues to increase. Cases filed in Federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Litigation has also been filed in countries outside of the United
States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. In
November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed
committee of lawyers representing ASR(TM) Hip System plaintiffs to
establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR patients in
the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR hip, known
as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. The U.S. settlement is
valued at approximately $2.5 billion, based on an estimate of
8,000 patients participating in the program. This settlement
program is expected to bring to a close significant ASR litigation
activity in the U.S. However, many lawsuits in the U.S. will
remain; the settlement program does not address litigation outside
of the U.S. The Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs associated with this recall on a
worldwide basis. Updates to existing accruals associated with the
ASR may be required in the future as additional information
becomes available.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy and
Johnson & Johnson relating to DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup
System used in hip replacement surgery. The number of pending
product liability lawsuits continues to increase, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases. Cases filed in Federal courts
in the United States have been organized as a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. The Company has established an accrual to cover
defense costs in connection with product liability litigation
associated with DePuy's PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System. Changes
to this accrual may be required in the future as additional
information becomes available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits
continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases. Cases filed in Federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. In addition, class actions and individual personal
injury cases or claims have been commenced in Australia, Belgium,
Canada, England, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland and
Venezuela, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from
Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established an
accrual with respect to product liability litigation associated
with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Changes to this accrual may
be required in the future as additional information becomes
available.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use
of RISPERDAL(R), indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia,
acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder
and irritability associated with autism, and related compounds.
The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.
Most of the cases have been filed in the Philadelphia County Court
of Common Pleas.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Decision in OCD Appeal
------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that in June 2009, following
the public announcement that Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
(OCD) had received a grand jury subpoena from the United States
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an
investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action
complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking
damages for alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust
Litigation. In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion
filed by Plaintiffs for class certification. In October 2012, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted OCD's
petition for interlocutory review of the class certification
ruling. Oral argument on the appeal was held in February 2014 and
the parties are awaiting a decision. Following the divestiture of
OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that may result from
these cases.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Third Circuit Dismissed "Monk" Case in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that in September 2010, a
shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking class
certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson and certain
individuals, including executive officers and employees of Johnson
& Johnson, failed to disclose that a number of manufacturing
facilities failed to maintain current good manufacturing
practices, and that as a result, the price of the Company's stock
declined significantly. Plaintiff sought to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his alleged
economic losses.

In December 2011, a motion by Johnson & Johnson to dismiss was
granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider part of the December 2011
ruling.  In May 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration.

In September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and
Johnson & Johnson and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in part.

Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case, and in July 2013, filed for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement. In November 2013, the Court
approved the settlement. Three parties that had objected to the
settlement appealed the Court's approval orders.

Prior to the mediation for the appeal, the parties agreed to
dismiss the appeal with prejudice and without costs against any
party.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed
the case in April 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: No Cert. Hearing Yet in British Columbia Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that in September 2011,
Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer
Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a Notice of
Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).  The BC Civil Claim is a
putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in
British Columbia and who purchased during the period between
September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more
various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines
that were manufactured at the Fort Washington facility.  The BC
Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business
Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes
and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe
and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good
Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing is
currently not scheduled.


JONES FINANCIAL: Approval of Class Action Settlement on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities And Exchange Commission on August
1, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that there
have been five cases filed against Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (in
addition to numerous other issuers and underwriters) asserting
claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") in connection with registration statements and prospectus
supplements issued for certain mortgage-backed certificates issued
between 2005 and 2007.  Three cases are purported class actions
(David H. Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et
al. filed in 2007; Maine State Retirement System, et al. v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2010; and
Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2010).  All three cases,
however, have been settled, and on December 6, 2013, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement.

The settlement that was approved by the court (1) establishes a
fund to be paid exclusively by Countrywide, (2) contains a
complete release for all defendants in all three cases, including
Edward Jones, (3) contains proposals for the administration of the
settlement fund, and (4) provides for the dismissal of all three
cases once the Court enters the final approval of the settlement
and enters a final judgment.

Because Edward Jones was being indemnified and defended in all
three cases, Edward Jones will not be paying and is not required
to pay any money into the settlement fund.

On December 17, 2013, the Court entered the final judgment and
dismissal for all three cases.

On January 14, 2014, some objectors to the class action settlement
filed their Notice of Appeal of the Court's final judgment and
dismissal. The appeal will be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, but no briefing schedule has been entered.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s principal operating
subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., is comprised of two
registered broker-dealers primarily serving individual investors
in the United States ("U.S.") and, through a subsidiary, Canada.
Edward Jones primarily derives its revenues from the retail
brokerage business through the sale of listed and unlisted
securities and insurance products, investment banking, principal
transactions, distribution of mutual fund shares, and through fees
related to assets held by and account services provided to its
clients. The Partnership conducts business throughout the U.S. and
Canada with its clients, various brokers, dealers, clearing
organizations, depositories and banks.  Trust services are offered
to Edward Jones' U.S. clients through Edward Jones Trust Company
("EJTC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Partnership.


KEY ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Aug. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of
Key Energy Services, Inc. (NYSE:KEG) during the period from July
25, 2013 through July 17, 2014, seeking to recover investors'
losses under the federal securities laws.

To join the Key Energy class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-313.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The case filed by the firm is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's
production for one of its largest customers was in decline; (2)
that the Company engaged in improper conduct related to its
operations in Russia; and (3) that the Company's business
practices in Russia were in violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act.  As a result, the lawsuit claims that when these
adverse facts became known, the value of Key Energy's stock
dropped, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 14, 2014.  If you wish to join the litigation or to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm focuses on prosecuting securities class action
litigation and actions involving financial fraud.  The Rosen Law
Firm represents investors throughout the globe.

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


KEYCORP: 11th Cir. Vacates Order Compelling Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the Quarterly Period
Ended June 30, 2014, that KeyBank National Association, KeyCorp's
subsidiary bank, was named a defendant in a putative class action
seeking to represent a national class of KeyBank customers
allegedly harmed by KeyBank's overdraft practices. The case was
transferred and consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery
and motion proceedings to a multidistrict proceeding styled In Re:
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "District
Court").

KeyBank filed a notice of appeal in regard to the denial by the
District Court of a motion to compel arbitration.

On August 21, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit (the "Eleventh Circuit") vacated the District
Court's order denying KeyBank's motion to compel arbitration and
remanded the case for further consideration.

On June 21, 2013, KeyBank filed with the District Court its
renewed motion to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss
litigation.

On August 27, 2013, the District Court granted KeyBank's renewed
motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. The plaintiff
appealed.

On June 18, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the District
Court's order granting KeyBank's renewed motion to compel
arbitration and remanded the case to the District Court to address
the issue of the enforceability of KeyBank's arbitration
provision.


LOUISIANA: Mentally Ill Prisoners Sue Over Incarceration
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
number of people who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses and
found not guilty by reason of insanity are suing the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals over their continued
incarceration.

Brandon Cooper, Louis Davenport, Ron Gatlin, Kenny Swatt, Stephen
Zeringue and William Pitzer filed suit against Kathy Kliebert,
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, in
her official capacity and the Louisiana Department of Health and
Hospitals in the Middle District of Louisiana on Aug. 14.

The named plaintiffs are all mentally ill who have been found not
guilty of crimes by reason of insanity, but have been incarcerated
in Louisiana prisons.  According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs
have been denied access to mental healthcare while incarcerated
and thus violating their 14th amendment right to due process.  The
plaintiffs have all been assigned to state maintained or
designated mental health facilities since being found not guilty
by reason of insanity for various crimes, including battery, arson
and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, but have instead been
held at local correctional facilities for months despite no
criminal charges being filed against them.

According to the lawsuit, after a person is found not guilty by
reason of insanity state law states that the criminal defendant
must be assessed within a timely manner by the court to determine
if they should be committed to a mental health facility or
released.  However, the plaintiffs claim, without being convicted
of a crime, they have been held in local jails for prolonged
periods while waiting for a spot to open up at a mental treatment
facility where they would receive proper mental healthcare.

The defendant is accused of violation of due process, violation of
the American's with Disabilities Act and violation of section 504
of The Rehabilitation Act.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought to certify the class
action, providing injunctive relief to prohibit the defendants
from confining those with disabilities prior to being committed to
a mental health facility, award plaintiffs and their attorneys
fees and costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by New Orleans-based attorneys
Ronald K. Lospennato of the Advocacy Center and Katie M.
Schwartzmann of the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center
in New Orleans.

The case has been assigned to U.S. Federal District Judge Shelly
D. Dick.

Case no. 3:14-cv-00507.


M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Facing Class Actions Over Mindspeed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
M/A-COM Technology Solutions 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 4, 2014, that
following the Company's November 2013 announcement of the
execution of a definitive agreement between the Company and
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. contemplating a tender offer by the
Company for all outstanding shares of common stock of Mindspeed
and thereafter a merger with Mindspeed ("Merger"), a number of
purported class action lawsuits were filed against Mindspeed, its
directors, the Company's merger subsidiary and the Company in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and the California Superior Court for
Orange County.

The complaints alleged, generally, that the Mindspeed director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Mindspeed
stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such
breaches, by seeking to sell Mindspeed through an allegedly
defective process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms. The
lawsuits sought, among other things, equitable relief that would
enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger, rescission of the
proposed Merger (to the extent the proposed Merger has already
been consummated), damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.


MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Recalls Ground Oregano Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
McCormick & Company, Incorporated is initiating a voluntary recall
of McCormick(R) Ground Oregano, 0.75 oz bottle, UPC 0-523561-6
with code dates BEST BY AUG 21 16 H and AUG 22 16 H due to
possible contamination with Salmonella. This recall does not
impact any other McCormick Ground, Whole or Oregano Leaves
products.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The product subject to this recall is:

McCormick(R) Ground Oregano 0.75 oz bottle

UPC NUMBER: 52100003566 (as seen on label: 0-523561-6)

MCCORMICK ITEM NUMBER: 900356

AFFECTED DATE CODES: BEST BY AUG 21 16 H, BEST BY AUG 22 16 H

SHIPPING DATES: April 4, 2014 to August 5, 2014

STATES SHIPPED TO: AL, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS,
KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH,
OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, and WV

INTERNATIONALLY SHIPPED TO: Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Indonesia,
Jamaica, Netherlands, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Thailand, and Virgin
Islands

The potential risk was brought to McCormick's attention by FDA
during routine testing. This recall affects 1,032 cases that were
shipped of the affected date codes.

McCormick has alerted customers and grocery outlets to remove the
product with the affected date codes from store shelves and
distribution centers immediately, and to destroy this product in a
manner that would prevent any further consumption.

Consumers do not need to return the product to the store where it
was purchased. Instead, consumers are urged to dispose of the
recalled product and its container. Please contact McCormick
Consumer Affairs at 1-800-632-5847, weekdays from 9:30 AM to 8:00
PM (Eastern Time), for a replacement or full refund, and with
general inquires.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: 20 Plaintiffs in New Antoine Suit Dropped Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on December 16,
2005, a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott,
Inc., et al. ("Antoine Suit"), was filed in the 24th Judicial
District Court, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, by approximately 88
plaintiffs against approximately 215 defendants, including the
Company's subsidiaries formerly known as J. Ray McDermott, Inc.
and Delta Hudson Engineering Corporation ("DHEC"), generally
alleging injuries for exposure to asbestos, and unspecified
chemicals, metals and noise while the plaintiffs were allegedly
employed as Jones Act seamen. This case was dismissed by the Court
on January 10, 2007, without prejudice to plaintiffs' rights to
refile their claims.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2007, 21 plaintiffs from the
dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al.
v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the "Boudreaux Suit"), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, against
JRMI and our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated,
and approximately 30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act
seaman status and generally alleging exposure to welding fumes,
solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise. The Boudreaux Suit
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007, which entered an
order in September 2007 staying the matter until further order of
the Court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of the co-
defendants.  On June 18, 2014, the Boudreaux Suit was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

"Additionally, on January 29, 2007, another 43 plaintiffs from the
dismissed Antoine Suit filed a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v.
McDermott, Inc., et al. (the "New Antoine Suit"), in the 164th
Judicial District Court for Harris County, Texas, against JRMI,
our subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated and
approximately 65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime
products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and
generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos and
noise.

"On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying
all activity and deadlines in the New Antoine Suit, other than
service of process and answer/appearance dates, until further
order of the Court. The New Antoine Suit plaintiffs filed a motion
to lift the stay on February 20, 2009, which is pending before the
Texas District Court.

"On April 4, 2014, 20 of the plaintiffs in the New Antoine Suit
voluntarily dismissed their claims against McDermott without
prejudice to re-filing. The remaining plaintiffs seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the extent of a potential judgment
against us, if any, and we intend to vigorously defend this suit,"
the Company said.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Texas Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on August 15, 2013
and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged purchasers of the
Company's common stock filed purported class action complaints
against the Company, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry L. Elders in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The Company said, "Both of the complaints sought to represent a
class of purchasers of our stock between November 6, 2012 and
August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating
materially false and misleading information and failing to
disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project
bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project
management and losses in each of our reporting segments. Each
complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory
damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs."

"By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated
the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
substantially the same claims as were made in the two original
complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports
to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks
relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award
for attorneys' fees and other costs.

"On April 7, 2014, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the case. On May 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and MII and the other
defendants filed a reply in support of the defendants' motion to
dismiss on June 23, 2014. The motion to dismiss is still pending
before the District Court."

"We believe the substantive allegations contained in the
consolidated amended complaint are without merit, and we intend to
defend against these claims vigorously," the Company said.


MEDICINES COMPANY: Court Appointed Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on February 21, 2014, against The
Medicines Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
by David Serr on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 20, 2013
through February 12, 2014.

The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities And Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock
was artificially inflated during the class period because we and
certain current and former officers allegedly made
misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding
the results of clinical trials, which tested the efficacy and
safety of cangrelor. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
statements made throughout the class period about the trials were
misleading because they failed to disclose that cangrelor did not
show superiority to the drug clopidogrel and that the clinical
trials were unethically and inappropriately administered. The
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert
fees and other costs."

"On April 22, 2014, one of our shareholders, Warren H. Schuler
filed, a motion for an order appointing him lead plaintiff and
appointing Pomerantz LLP lead counsel. On July 22, 2014, the Court
appointed Pomerantz LLP the lead counsel. Per a scheduling order
entered by the Court, the plaintiffs may file an amended complaint
within 60 days of the appointment of lead counsel.

"We and certain of our current and former officers will then have
60 days from the date the amended complaint is filed in which to
answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint. We believe we
have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit, will deny
liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. There can be
no assurance, however, that we will be successful. An adverse
resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition or results of operations. We are
presently unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any, related
to the lawsuit."

The Medicines Company is a global biopharmaceutical company
focused on saving lives, alleviating suffering and contributing to
the economics of healthcare by focusing on 3,000 leading acute and
intensive care hospitals worldwide.  It markets Angiomax(R)
(bivalirudin), Recothrom(R) Thrombin topical (Recombinant),
Cleviprex(R) (clevidipine) injectable emulsion, Minocin(R)
(minocycline) for injection and the Tenaxis surgical sealant, a
vascular and surgical sealant acquired in our acquisition of
Tenaxis Medical, Inc., or Tenaxis.  It also has a pipeline of
acute and intensive care hospital products in development.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Appeals Class Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that beginning in August
2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U.S.
federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane
foam products and competitors of the Company's carpet underlay
division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of the individual cases (the first filed on August 26,
2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class action
complaints (the first filed on February 28, 2011) on behalf of a
class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and
the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against
future violations.

In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action claims brought by the direct purchasers, and in May 2011,
the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought by the indirect
purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied all defendants'
motions to dismiss.

On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect
purchaser classes. The Company appealed the certification order on
April 24, 2014.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world.  The Company's vertically integrated
manufacturing and distribution processes provide competitive
advantages in carpet, rugs, ceramic tile, laminate, wood, stone
and vinyl flooring.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: To Defend Against Canadian Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in December 2011, the
Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, Hi!
Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Court of
Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v. Vitafoam,
Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec,
Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims against the
Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek unspecified damages
and punitive damages. The Company denies all of the allegations in
these actions and will vigorously defend itself.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world.  The Company's vertically integrated
manufacturing and distribution processes provide competitive
advantages in carpet, rugs, ceramic tile, laminate, wood, stone
and vinyl flooring.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: "Marshall" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato issued an order transferring the case
captioned OSIE MARSHALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MONSTER BEVERAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02203-JD, (N.D. Cal.) to
the Central District of California.

This case involves a dispute about the labelling of consumer
drinks in the Hansen beverages line. While conceding that venue is
proper in this Court, defendant Monster Beverage Corporation asked
to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on efficiency and cost-savings
grounds because all of the parties and the vast majority of
documentary evidence and witnesses are located there. After some
prodding by the Court in a hearing held on August 6, 2014,
plaintiffs admitted that all the parties do indeed reside in the
Central District. The only hook to this Northern District is the
allegation that plaintiffs bought a couple of cans of Hansen's in
San Francisco.

Plaintiffs' main motivation for filing in the Northern District
appears to be a reaction to class action procedures they dislike
in the Central District -- a good example of impermissible forum
shopping, ruled Judge Donato. Applying the traditional factors to
this forum non conveniens motion, the Court finds that transfer of
venue to the Central District would serve the convenience of the
parties and would promote the interests of justice, and orders
transfer to the Central District, he said.

He added that the parties are likely to receive a speedier trial
in the Central District because in the Northern District, the
median time from filing to trial is 27.4 months, whereas that time
is only 19.9 months in the Central District.

A copy of Judge Donato's August 6, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/zykmjQ from Leagle.com.

Osie Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Joshua Orshansky
-- anthony@counselonegroup.com -- CounselOne, PC & Alexandria Rose
Kachadoorian.

Yasna Cuevas, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Joshua Orshansky,
CounselOne, PC & Alexandria Rose Kachadoorian.

John Van Es, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Joshua Orshansky,
CounselOne, PC & Alexandria Rose Kachadoorian.

Monster Beverage Corporation, Defendant, represented by David
Frank McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Dan Edward Marmalefsky -- dmarmalefsky@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster LLP & Purvi Govindlal Patel -- ppatel@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP.


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Solely Responsible for Ubaldi Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A student loan borrower filed on March 18, 2011, a putative class
action complaint against Old SLM (now known as Navient, LLC) in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaint is captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et.
al., Case No. C-11-01320EDL. The plaintiff purports to bring the
complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly
situated California borrowers. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees proportional
to the amount of missed payments constituted liquidated damages in
violation of California law; and Old SLM engaged in unfair
business practices by charging daily interest on private
educational loans.

Following motion practice and additional amendments to the
complaint, which added usury claims under California state law and
two additional defendants (Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient
Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A),
the operative complaint (Modified Third Amended Complaint) was
filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification on October 22, 2013.

On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plantiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice, but granted plantiffs leave to
file an amended Motion for Class Certification.

On June 20, 2014, a Complaint in Intervention was filed on behalf
of two additional customers representing a proposed usury sub-
class.

On June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, which is scheduled for hearing on October 14, 2014.
Plaintiffs seek restitution of late charges and interest paid by
members of the class, injunctive relief, cancellation of all
future interest payments, treble damages as permitted by law, as
well as costs and attorneys' fees, among other relief.  Prior to
the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005, Old SLM followed
prevalent capital market practices of acquiring and securitizing
private education loans purchased in secondary transactions from
banks who originated these loans. Plaintiffs allege that the
services provided by Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. to the
originating banks resulted in Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
constituting lenders on these loans.  Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank
originated the vast majority of all private education loans
acquired by Old SLM.

Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the claims at issue
in this case expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank
since its inception.  Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient
and as such the Ubaldi litigation will remain the sole
responsibility of Navient Corporation.

"It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential
exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection
therewith," the Company said.


NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Breckenridge, Holly Dick, Kendra Curry, Jennika Smith,
Christina Bohl and Edith Kennon, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated v. NCO Financial Systems Inc. and Hosto
& Buchanan PLLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-00480-JM (E.D. Ark., August 15,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Sanford, Esq.
          Vanessa Kinney, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 110
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  vanessa@sanfordlawfirm.com


NESTLE PREPARED: Recalls LEAN CUISINE(R) Chicken w/ Peanut Sauce
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Prepared Foods Company, a business unit of Nestle USA, is
initiating the voluntary recall of a limited quantity of LEAN
CUISINE(R) Culinary Collection Chicken with Peanut Sauce/UPC code
13800 10154 because it may contain undeclared shrimp. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to shrimp run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The affected product is marked with a production code of
4165595911U and has a "best before" date of JULY 2015. A small
quantity of LEAN CUISINE Culinary Collection Shrimp Alfredo was
inadvertently placed into packaging for LEAN CUISINE Culinary
Collection Chicken with Peanut Sauce.

Three consumers who purchased the mislabeled product alerted
Nestle to this issue. To date, no illnesses or allergic reactions
have been reported. Nestle issued this voluntary recall of one
hour code of production to ensure the safety of consumers with
shellfish allergies.

Consumers who may have purchased LEAN CUISINE Culinary Collection
Chicken with Peanut Sauce /UPC code 13800 10154 should look for
the manufacturing code, located in the grey box, on the right side
panel of the package. The manufacturing code of the recalled
product is: 4165595911U. No other LEAN CUISINE items are impacted
by this recall. The affected product was distributed to retail
customers in Washington State, California, Louisiana and Texas,
and can be found in the frozen food aisle. Nestle asks consumers
to contact us for a full refund by calling Nestle Consumer
Services directly at 1-800-392-4057 Monday through Friday from
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST.

The quality and safety of our products are the top priority for
our company. For these reasons, the company initiated this recall.
We apologize to our retail customers and consumers and sincerely
regret any inconvenience created by this product recall. We have
advised the U. S. Food & Drug Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture of this voluntary recall and will
cooperate with them fully.


NORDSTROM INC: Removed "Carranza" Labor Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jaime Carranza v. Nordstrom,
Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS1410455, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01699-MMM-DTB
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Tai Wootton, Esq.
          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES APC
          555 West 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: awootton@hamnerlaw.com
                  chamner@hamnerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua D. Levine, Esq.
          Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: jdlevine@littler.com
                  jdunne@littler.com

               - and -

          Dominic John Messiha, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: dmessiha@littler.com


NORTH VALLEY BANCORP: Has MOU to Settle "Solak" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
North Valley Bancorp, the members of its board of directors and
TriCo Bancshares have been named as defendants in a putative class
action filed on behalf of North Valley shareholders. The lawsuit,
which is captioned Solak v. North Valley Bancorp, et al., Case No.
179099 (the "Action") and filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Shasta County (the "Court"), challenges, among
other things, the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
January 21, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement") by and between TriCo and
North Valley and the proposed merger between TriCo and North
Valley contemplated therein (the "Merger").

North Valley Bancorp said in its Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014, that on July
31, 2014, following settlement discussions, the defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding
the settlement of the Action. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding and in
consideration for the full settlement and release of all claims
under the Action, TriCo and North Valley agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed Merger.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to
enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including Court approval following notice to North
Valley's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court will consider the settlement. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated. The settlement will not affect
the timing of the annual meeting of TriCo shareholders or the
special meeting of North Valley shareholders, which were both
scheduled to be held on August 7, 2014. The settlement is not, and
should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any defendant.

TriCo, North Valley, and the directors of North Valley continue to
believe that the Action is without merit and vigorously deny the
allegations that North Valley's directors breached their fiduciary
duties. Likewise, neither TriCo, North Valley nor the directors of
North Valley believe that any disclosures regarding the Merger are
required under applicable laws other than that which has already
been provided in TriCo's and North Valley's definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Proxy Statement"), which is included in
TriCo's amended registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on June 27, 2014
and filed with the SEC as North Valley's definitive proxy
statement on June 30, 2014. Furthermore, nothing in the Current
Report or any settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in
this Current Report. However, to avoid the risk of the putative
shareholder class action delaying or adversely affecting the
Merger, to minimize the substantial expense, burden, distraction
and inconvenience of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the claims, TriCo and North Valley have agreed to make
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement.


NORTHERN STATE PRISON: Faces "White" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnathan White, Plaintiff v. Northern State Prison, Case No.
2:14-cv-04779 (D.N.J., July 31, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Northern State Prison is a state run prison headquartered in
Newark, Middlesex County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Passes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geordon Omand, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
fifteen years after going public with his story of child abuse,
Tony Smith says he can't believe the day has come when a multi-
million-dollar settlement involving a Halifax-area orphanage
stands on the verge of being finalized.

The deadline for opting out of the C$29-million class-action
settlement was Monday, Aug. 18, a day the self-described survivor
of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children says is a dream come
true.

Former residents of the home allege they suffered physical,
psychological and sexual abuse mostly at the hands of caregivers
while living in the orphanage, which opened in 1921 and operated
for nearly 70 years.

If five or more former residents withdraw from the settlement by
Monday, Aug. 18, the terms of the agreement would allow the
provincial government, at its discretion, to pull out of the deal.

As of Friday, Aug. 15, the law firm representing the claimants and
the province said they had received no submissions opting out of
the deal.  It could be days before it's known whether anyone opted
out.

None of the allegations of abuse were ever tested in court and
under the terms of the settlement the province does not admit
liability.

Lawyer Ray Wagner, who oversaw the class-action case, said Mr.
Smith played a central role in pushing for a resolution.  Mr.
Wagner described the case as transformative, both for a province
coming to terms with a history of systemic racism and for the
dozens of former orphans struggling to find closure.

Mr. Smith arrived at the orphanage as a five year old in 1965.  He
says he suffered physical and sexual abuse during his 3 1/2 years
in the home, an experience echoed by dozens of former residents
who have since come forward with their own stories.

Mr. Smith went public with his story in 1998, saying his primary
motivation at the time was the memory of witnessing what he
described as the beating of a childhood friend and fellow
resident.

Tracey Dorrington-Skinner first collaborated with Mr. Smith
several years ago when the pair co-chaired VOICES, a support and
advocacy group for former residents.

Work is now underway to outline the terms of reference for a
process to give former residents an opportunity to publicly share
their stories in an inquiry-type setting.

Provided the settlement passes its last hurdle, disbursements from
the C$29 million will start flowing to former residents as early
as October.  So far about 250 have identified themselves, though
more may come forward in the coming months.

The compensation agreement formally approved last month is broken
into two payout categories.  The first is a common experience
settlement, which applies to all residents who lived in the Home
for Colored Children at any point between Jan. 1, 1921, and
Dec. 31, 1989.

The second settlement category is an individual assessment
program, which would address additional harms beyond those
suffered by residents at large, including sexual abuse.  Only
residents of the Home for Colored Children after Nov. 1, 1951,
would be eligible.

The C$29-million deal will be added to a C$5-million settlement
reached last summer directly with the orphanage.


NSPIRED NATURAL: Recalls Various Peanut Butter Products
-------------------------------------------------------
nSpired Natural Foods, Inc. is voluntarily recalling certain
retail lots of Arrowhead Mills(R) Peanut Butters, MaraNatha(R)
Almond Butters and Peanut Butters and specific private label nut
butters (listed below) packaged in glass and plastic jars because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
those with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The potential risk was brought to the Company's attention by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration following routine testing. The
Company has received reports of four illnesses that may be
associated with these specific products.

nSpired Natural Foods, Inc. is committed to producing the highest
quality products and our top priority is the safety of our
consumers. For this reason we are initiating this voluntary recall
of the products below as a precautionary measure.

                       Recalled Retail Lots

   Item Description             Unit UPC     Best By Date Range
   ----------------             --------     ------------------
Arrowhead Mills Organic
  Crunchy Peanut
  Butter 16 oz.                 74333470328  31DEC14 thru 14MAY15
Arrowhead Mills Organic
  Creamy Peanut
  Butter 16 oz.                 74333470526   31DEC14 thru 14MAY15
MaraNatha Roasted
  Creamy Almond Butter 16 oz.   51651060325   24DEC14 thru 17JUN15
MaraNatha Roasted Crunchy
  Almond Butter 16 oz.          51651092012   26DEC14 thru 06JUN15
MaraNatha Organic Roasted
  Creamy Almond Butter 16 oz.   51651060219   23DEC14 thru 04JUN15
MaraNatha Organic Roasted
  Crunchy Almond Butter
  16 oz.                        51651092036   4-Jun-15
MaraNatha Organic Raw
  Crunchy Almond
  Butter 16 oz.                 51651092128   22DEC14 thru 01JUL15
MaraNatha Organic Raw
  Creamy Almond
  Butter 16 oz.                 51651092173   14APR15 thru 01JUL15
MaraNatha Raw Almond
  Butter 16 oz.                 51651092180   05APR15 thru 02JUL15
MaraNatha Organic Creamy
  Peanut Butter 16 oz.          51651092197   7-Apr-15
MaraNatha Organic Crunchy
  Peanut Butter 16 oz.          51651092203   06APR15 thru 07APR15
MaraNatha No Stir Creamy
  Peanut Butter with
  Salt 16 oz.                   51651092210   06JAN15 thru 20MAY15
MaraNatha Organic
  Creamy Peanut Butter
  with Salt 16 oz.              51651092326   03JAN15 thru 25JUN15
MaraNatha Organic Crunchy
  Peanut Butter with
  Salt 16 oz.                   51651092333   02JAN15 thru 15MAY15
MaraNatha Organic No Stir
  Creamy Peanut Butter with
  Salt 16 oz                    51651092357   04JAN15 thru 27JUN15
MaraNatha Organic No Stir
  Crunchy Peanut Butter with
  Salt 16 oz                    51651092364   05JAN15 thru 28JUN15
MaraNatha Organic Raw
  Almond Butter 8 oz.           51651092630   13APR15 thru 30JUN15
*MaraNatha Roasted Creamy
  Almond Butter 26 oz.          51651192897   04DEC14 thru 21APR15
MaraNatha Organic Creamy
  Peanut Butter with
  Salt 26 oz.                   51651092913   03JAN15 thru 25JUN15
MaraNatha Organic
  Crunchy Peanut Butter
  with Salt 26 oz.              51651092920   02JAN15 thru 25JUN15
MaraNatha No Stir Creamy
  Almond Butter 12 oz.          51651093682   12DEC14 thru 21JUL15
MaraNatha No Stir Crunchy
  Almond Butter 12 oz.          51651093699   17DEC14 thru 20JUL15
MaraNatha Organic No Stir
  Creamy Peanut Butter
  with Salt 16 oz               51651093750   04JAN15 thru 10APR15
MaraNatha Organic No Stir
  Crunchy Peanut Butter
  with Salt 16 oz               51651093767   05JAN15 thru 19MAY15
MaraNatha No Stir Creamy
  Almond Butter 12 oz.          51651093682   14DEC14 thru 14JUL15
MaraNatha No Stir Crunchy
  Almond Butter 12 oz.          51651093699   17DEC14 thru 18JUL15
MaraNatha Creamy Maple
  Almond Butter 12 oz.          51651093866   30MAY15 thru 31MAY15
MaraNatha Creamy Roasted
  Almond Butter 340 grams       51651093057   11DEC14 thru 02JUN15
MaraNatha Creamy Raw
  Almond Butter 340 grams       51651093064   07MAY15 thru 05JUN15
MaraNatha Organic Creamy
  Peanut Butter with
  Salt 500 grams                51651093309   03JAN15 thru 24JUN15
MaraNatha Organic Crunchy
  Peanut Butter with
  Salt 500 grams                51651093316   31DEC14 thru 15MAY15
MaraNatha No Stir Creamy
  Peanut Butter with
  Salt 500 grams                51651093408   20-May-15
MaraNatha No Stir Crunchy
  Peanut Butter with
  Salt 500 grams                51651093415   13MAR15 thru 28JUN15
MaraNatha Creamy Almond
  Butter No Salt 340 grams      51651093453   16DEC14 thru 11MAY15
MaraNatha Crunchy Almond
  Butter No Salt 340 grams      51651093460   16DEC14 thru 14MAY15
MaraNatha Creamy Almond
  Butter 737 grams              51651092869   08DEC14 thru 03JUL15
Kroger No Stir Creamy
  Almond Butter 12 oz.          11110791214   11DEC14 thru 05JUL15
Safeway Open Nature
  Almond Butter 12 oz.          79893113746   11DEC14 thru 03JUL15
Trader Joe's Crunchy Raw
  Almond Butter 16 oz.          919890        28DEC14 thru 18JUN15
Trader Joe's Creamy Raw
  Almond Butter 16 oz.          569958        27DEC14 thru 18JUL15
Whole Foods 365 Creamy
  Roasted Almond
  Butter 16 oz.                 99482406578   23DEC14 thru 24DEC14
Whole Foods 365 Crunchy
  Roasted Almond Butter
  16 oz.                        99482406561   24DEC14 thru 26DEC14
Whole Foods 365 Organic Creamy
  Roasted Almond Butter 16 oz.  99482405960   23-Dec-14

The use-by date can be found on the top of the jar lid. The
Company is currently working with customers and retailers to
remove and destroy products with the above use-by dates from store
shelves and warehouses.

Products were distributed across the United States, Canada, Hong
Kong, United Arab Emirates, and Dominican Republic. The products
also were available for purchase on the internet.

The recall is being made with the knowledge of the FDA.

Consumers do not need to return the product to the store where it
was purchased. Instead, consumers are urged to dispose of the
recalled product and its container. Please contact the Company at
1-800-937-7008 between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM CST for a
replacement or refund, and with general inquiries.


OBERTO'S BRANDS: Recalls 57,578 Lbs of Chicken Strip Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oberto's Brands, a Kent, Wa. establishment, is recalling
approximately 57,578 pounds of chicken strip products due to
company quality issues, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall includes:

    3, 5.75 and 16 oz.  film bags of "Smokey Sweet BBQ Style
Chicken Strips"
    2.75, 3, 5.75, 9 and 16 oz. film bags of "Spicy Buffalo Style
Chicken Strips"

The Smokey Sweet BBQ Style Chicken Strips were first produced on
May 14, 2014 and last packaged on July 28, 2014. The Spicy Buffalo
Style Chicken Strips were first produced on May 16, 2014 and last
packaged on August 6, 2014. The product bears the establishment
number "P4837" on the package. The product was sent to retail
establishments nationwide as well as internet sales.

The problem was discovered by the company. A sister establishment
noticed bloated packages and alerted the company to the problem.
The plant determined that the increased water activity is due to
"an undetected process deviation."  The establishment further
stated the product met all critical limits during production. The
company has determined that this a quality control issue and that
there are no food safety hazards.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Lisa
Austin, Vice President of Sales, at (253) 437-6308. Media with
questions about the recall should contact Demir Vangelov, Chief
Financial Officer, at (206) 437-6370.

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


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Files Class Action in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Aug. 18 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Ocwen Financial Corporation and certain of
its current and former officers, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of Ocwen common stock on the open
market during the period May 2, 2013 through August 11, 2014, and
were damaged thereby.  This action alleges claims for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than October 14, 2014 to be appointed a lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased Ocwen on the open market during the Class Period and
suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their
rights.

The Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements that it had appropriate safeguards in place
to prevent potential conflicts between itself and related
affiliates and had proper internal controls to ensure that these
relationships were properly accounted for when reporting its
financial results.  For example, Ocwen represented that it had
"adopted policies, procedures and practices to avoid potential
conflicts with respect to our dealings" with Altisource Portfolio
Solutions, S.A. and other related affiliates, "including our
Executive Chairman recusing himself from negotiations regarding,
and approvals, of transactions with these entities."

However, Defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that:
(i) Altisource would reap enormous insurance commissions,
funneling as much as $65 million in questionable fees for
performing little to no work, at the expense of homeowners; (ii)
the Executive Chairman's personal involvement in approving
conflicted transactions with Altisource and other related
affiliates, without any effective oversight from the Board of
Directors; and (iii) that the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls.

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel.: 877.370.7703
Fax: 877.370.7704
E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


OLD NATIONAL: October 27 Trial in Indiana Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, Old National Bancorp was named in a class action
lawsuit in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging its checking
account practices associated with the assessment of overdraft
fees.  The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar
to other class action complaints filed against other financial
institutions in recent years and settled for substantial amounts.

On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a
First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and
amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other
relief, including treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act. On June 13,
2012, Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court.

On September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides
for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of
Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the
applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010,
incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's
practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from
highest to lowest." Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on
the issue of class certification on April 2, 2013, which was
subsequently denied.

Old National does not believe that relevant facts are in dispute
or that plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief may be
granted under Indiana law.  On June 11, 2013, Old National moved
for summary judgment. On September 16, 2013, a hearing was held on
the summary judgment motion and on September 27, 2013, the Circuit
Court ordered the parties to mediation and informed the parties
that "Court will be denying the motion for summary judgment upon
receiving the report of the mediator."

The parties subsequently met twice with the mediator and were
unable to reach an agreement to resolve the dispute. Old
National's pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 11,
2013, was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014, and on
April 23, 2014, Old National sought leave from the Circuit Court
to file an interlocutory appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
On May 28, 2014, the Circuit Court granted Old National's motion.
On June 5, 2014, Old National filed with the Court of Appeals a
"Combined Motion to Accept Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Appeal
Pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(B) and Motion to Stay Trial Court
Proceedings Pending Appeal Pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(H)".

On July 11, 2014, the Court of Appeals granted both of Old
National's Motions, thereby accepting an appeal and issuing a Stay
of the case before the Circuit Court.

Old National 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 case is currently
set for trial beginning October 27, 2014, though this is most
certainly to be vacated in light of the Stay issued by the Court
of Appeals.

Old National believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
brought by the plaintiffs. At this phase of the litigation, it is
not possible for management of Old National to determine the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any loss.


OLD REPUBLIC: Class Action Against ORNTIC Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit is pending against Old Republic
International Corporation's principal title insurance subsidiary,
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a
federal district court in Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8,
2006).  The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers
reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). A class
has been certified in the suit. ORNTIC is challenging the
certification based on more recent case precedents, Old Republic
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.


OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss RESPA Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action suits alleging violations of the federal
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") were filed on
December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, in the Federal District
Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting Republic
Mortgage Insurance Company, other mortgage guaranty insurance
companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National
City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive
insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba,
Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two
of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and
the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which
were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage
guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant
banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were
made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting
prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve
suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified
damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper
payments. A class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC
has filed motions to dismiss the cases, Old Republic 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.


OMNIAMERICAN BANCORP: Faces "McDougal" Suit Over Southside Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OmniAmerican Bancorp, 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 June 25, 2014, a
purported stockholder of OmniAmerican filed a lawsuit in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland captioned McDougal v.
OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003920,
naming OmniAmerican, members of OmniAmerican's board of directors,
Southside Bancshares, Inc., and Merger Sub as defendants. The
lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
OmniAmerican's public stockholders and seeks a declaration that it
is properly maintainable as a class action and a certification of
the plaintiff and her counsel as class representative and class
counsel.

The lawsuit asserts direct and derivative claims against
OmniAmerican's directors and alleges that they breached their
fiduciary duties and that OmniAmerican, Southside and Merger Sub
aided and abetted those alleged breaches by, among other things,
(a) failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value for
OmniAmerican public stockholders; (b) failing to properly value
OmniAmerican; (c) failing to protect against conflicts of
interest; (d) failing to disclose material information necessary
for OmniAmerican stockholders to make an informed vote on the
First Merger; and (e) agreeing to deal protection devices that
preclude a fair sales process. Among other relief, the plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the mergers. On July 9, 2014, the plaintiff filed
a motion to transfer the case to Maryland's Business and
Technology Case Management Program.

OmniAmerican and Southside believe the claims asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

On April 28, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Southside and Omega Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Southside ("Merger Sub"),
whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company with the
Company as the surviving corporation (the "First Merger").
Immediately after the First Merger, the Company will be merged
into Southside and, subsequently, OmniAmerican Bank will be merged
into Southside's subsidiary, Southside Bank. If the First Merger
is completed, shareholders of the Company will receive 0.4459 of a
share of Southside's common stock plus $13.125 in cash for each
outstanding share of OmniAmerican common stock.

Concurrently with the execution of the Merger Agreement, Southside
entered into voting and support agreements with each non-employee
director of the Company pursuant to which each director agreed to,
among other things, vote his or her shares in favor of the Merger
Agreement. Completion of the mergers is subject to the approval of
the First Merger by the Company's shareholders, the approval of
the issuance of shares of Southside common stock to OmniAmerican
shareholders in connection with the First Merger, approval by the
appropriate regulatory agencies, and other customary terms and
conditions as described in the Merger Agreement.


PENN WEST: Rochon Genova Commences Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP on Aug. 19 commenced a class action on
August 15, 2014 on behalf of shareholders of Penn West Petroleum
Ltd.

The action relates to the July 29, 2014 announcement by Penn West
that it had launched a review of its financial statements for 2014
and four previous fiscal years, and that those statements could no
longer be relied upon.

The claim alleges that Penn West's audit committee found a number
of unreliable accounting entries, which had the effect of reducing
operating costs and increasing the Company's reported capital
expenditures and royalty expenses.  These practices led to the
improper classification of operating expenses over the course of
several years from fiscal years 2010 through 2014.  As a result of
its internal review, Penn West restated its audited annual
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2012 and
2013, unaudited interim financial statements for the three months
ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, and all related management's
discussion and analysis.  Penn West further acknowledged that it
might not be in compliance with a number of covenants under its
unsecured, revolving syndicated bank facility and the terms of its
senior unsecured notes.

Following the announcement, Penn West's share price immediately
fell on heavy volume.  Over the week Penn West's market
capitalizations dropped by close to 20 percent.


PERDUE: Recalls Chicken Nugget Product Due to Foreign Matter
------------------------------------------------------------
Perdue, a Gainesville, Ga. establishment, is recalling
approximately 15,306 pounds of frozen, fully cooked chicken nugget
product that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's FSIS announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

    8-oz. box of "APPLEGATE naturals CHICKEN NUGGETS" bearing the
establishment number "P2617" and the "BEST BEFORE" date of
"02/05/15".

The product was produced on Feb. 5, 2014, with a sell by date of
Feb. 5, 2015 and bear the establishment number "P2617" inside the
USDA Mark of Inspection. The products were shipped to retail
outlets nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the firm received consumer
complaints that small pieces of plastic were found in the
products. FSIS and the company have received no reports of injury
or illness from consumption of the product. Anyone concerned about
an injury or illness from consumption of these products should
contact a healthcare provider.

Applegate conducted a market withdrawal of this product on Aug. 8,
2014. However, as this is a frozen product, consumers may still
have this product in their possession.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Gerry
Clarkson, Applegate Consumer Relations Specialist at (800) 587-
5858. Media with questions about the recall should contact
Michelle Kijek, mkijek@foodminds.com at (312) 952-0220.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-
674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The
online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be
accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Hires Outside Lawyer to Defend Lien Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Maykuth, writing for Philly.com, reports that the city of
Philadelphia has hired an outside lawyer to defend itself from a
federal class-action lawsuit alleging its policy of filing liens
against landlords for their tenants' delinquent utility bills
violates due process.

Jeffrey M. Scott -- jscott@archerlaw.com -- of the Archer &
Greiner law firm, on Aug. 14 filed an appearance on behalf of the
city, which was sued last month by three landlords who were dunned
by Philadelphia Gas Works for money owned by their deadbeat
tenants.

Mr. Scott successfully defended the city two years ago in a
federal civil rights jury trial in which a Northeast Philadelphia
man accused city workers of targeting elderly residents for code
violations in order to steal from their homes.

The PGW lawsuit was filed by lawyers Irv Ackelsberg and John J.
Grogan, of the Langer Grogan & Diver law firm.  Mr. Ackelsberg
said on Aug. 14 that "numerous" landlords had contacted the firm
since The Inquirer published a story on Aug. 17 about the suit.
The lawsuit alleges that PGW's practice of slapping liens on
rental properties with little or no notification leaves the
property owners scant recourse to defend themselves or to pressure
their tenants to pay. In some cases, the tenants are long gone.

Unlike investor-owned utilities, the city-owned PGW has the power
to place liens against properties to collect debts.  Liens are
legal encumbrances that must be settled when real estate changes
hands.  In some cases, property owners say they discovered the
liens only when they went to close a sale.

In recent years, PGW has more aggressively used liens to collect
delinquent accounts.  The utility has placed 90,000 liens worth
about $126 million -- some properties have more than one lien.

Many liens are placed on owner-occupied houses, but PGW's practice
of dunning owners of residential and commercial rental properties
has irked landlords.

About 22,000 residential landlords have enrolled 70,000 properties
with PGW's five-year-old Landlord Cooperation Program, which gets
landlords off the hook for future arrearages if PGW has access to
the meters on rental dwellings.  Only rental properties registered
with the city are eligible.

"The Landlord Cooperation Program solves one of our most difficult
challenges, which is to get access to meters," said Barry
O'Sullivan, a PGW spokesman.

There is no comparable program for commercial landlords.

PGW in 2012 created a Commercial Lien Notification Program that
gives registered landlords 30 days' notice of a lien on a
commercial property.  But landlords say the notification often
does not disclose which tenant in a multiunit building is
delinquent.  And they say the notification arrives too late for
them to get the tenant to pay.

Commercial landlords who want to protect themselves against
getting slammed with their tenants' delinquent utility charges
have other means to protect themselves, Mr. O'Sullivan said.

The landlords can keep the gas bill in their own name and pass the
cost on to their tenants in a monthly bill, Mr. O'Sullivan said.

They can also write their leases to require tenants to validate
the landlord as a third party on the PGW account, so that the
landlord has the right to monitor the account and learn whether
the tenants are current with their payments.

Mr. Ackelsberg suggests that PGW should automatically allow
landlords to access their tenants' utility accounts since the
property owners have a financial interest.


PREMIERE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cassie Stroup, an individual, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. Premiere
International Corp., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06447-SJO-JC (C.D. Cal., August 15,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM APC
          19360 Rinaldi Street, Box 647
          Porter Ranch, CA 91326
          Telephone: (818) 360-2529
          Facsimile: (866) 794-5741
          E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com


PROFESSIONAL MGMT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Szczurek, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Professional Management, Inc. dba Financial
Recoveries, and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-
04790-SD (E.D. Pa., August 15, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


PURITAN FOODS: Recalls Raw Boneless Turkey Breasts
--------------------------------------------------
Puritan Foods Co., Inc., a Boston, Mass., establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,476 pounds of raw boneless turkey
breasts due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The product contains milk, a known allergen, which is not declared
on the product label.

The following product is subject to recall:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Case Proceeding in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed on November 15, 2012, a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees.  The complaint, as amended, further
alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated
several sections of the California Labor Code including one for
failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class for
business related expenses and a second for failing to keep proper
records.  The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair Business
Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates.  The
Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of
the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus
asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.

Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that
the Company believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales
associates as independent contractors and that it has and
continues to operate in a manner consistent with applicable law,
and longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades.

On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court seeking to
dismiss the amended complaint.  The Demurrer asserted that the
claims raised by the plaintiff were without basis under California
law because the California Business and Professions Code sets out
the applicable three-part test for classification of real estate
sales associates as independent contractors and all elements of
the test have been satisfied by CBRBC and the affiliated sales
associates.

Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 12, 2013 and a hearing was
held on August 28, 2013.

The Court denied the Demurrer and stated that it would look to the
more complex multi-factor common law test to determine whether the
plaintiff was misclassified.

CBRBC filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate with the California
Court of Appeals seeking its discretionary review of that decision
on September 30, 2013 and on November 8, 2013, the Court of Appeal
denied the Petition.

On March 25, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's ex parte
application which sought, in part, to invalidate, for purposes of
this litigation, arbitration clauses with class action waivers in
independent contractor agreements executed by some putative
members of the class following the commencement of the litigation.

Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Mandate with the California Court of
Appeal seeking its discretionary review of the Court's decision to
deny plaintiff's application.

On June 2, 2014, the Court of Appeal summarily denied the
petition.  The case is now in the discovery phase, Realogy said.

The Company said, "The case raises significant classification
claims that potentially apply to the real estate industry in
general and that have not been previously challenged in any
significant manner in California or other jurisdictions.  As with
all class action litigation, the case is inherently complex and
subject to many uncertainties.  We believe that CBRBC has properly
classified the current and former affiliated sales associates.
There can be no assurance, however, that if the action continues
and a large class is subsequently certified, the plaintiffs will
not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and other remedies.
Given the early stage of this case, the novel claims and issues
presented and the great uncertainties regarding which sales
associates, if any, may be part of a class, if one is certified,
we cannot estimate a range of reasonably potential losses for this
litigation. The Company believes it has complied with all
applicable laws and regulations and will vigorously defend this
action."

Realogy is a global provider of real estate and relocation
services and report operations in the following four segments:

     * Real Estate Franchise Services (known as Realogy Franchise
Group or RFG) -- franchises the Century 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R),
Coldwell Banker Commercial(R), ERA(R), Sotheby's International
Realty(R), and Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate brand
names. As of June 30, 2014, our franchise systems had
approximately 13,500 franchised and company owned offices and
approximately 251,000 independent sales associates operating under
our franchise and proprietary brands in the U.S. and 103 other
countries and territories around the world, which included
approximately 710 of our company owned and operated brokerage
offices with approximately 43,000 independent sales associates.

     * Company Owned Real Estate Brokerage Services (known as NRT)
-- operates a full-service real estate brokerage business
principally under the Coldwell Banker(R), Corcoran Group(R),
Sotheby's International Realty(R), ERA(R) and Citi Habitats brand
names in more than 40 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the
U.S.

     * Relocation Services (known as Cartus) -- primarily offers
clients employee relocation services such as homesale assistance,
providing home equity advances to transferees (generally
guaranteed by the client), home finding and other destination
services, expense processing, relocation policy counseling and
consulting services, arranging household goods moving services,
coordinating visa and immigration support, intercultural and
language training and group move management services.

     * Title and Settlement Services (known as Title Resource
Group or TRG) -- provides full-service title, settlement and
vendor management services to real estate companies, affinity
groups, corporations and financial institutions with many of these
services provided in connection with the Company's real estate
brokerage and relocation services business.


REBECCA TALLEY: W.C. Motor's Suit to Overturn Ruling Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unhappy with an arbitrator's decision to allow class-wide
arbitration of a matter brought to the American Arbitration
Association by Rebecca Talley, W.C. Motor Company filed a lawsuit
captioned W.C. MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. REBECCA TALLEY,
Defendant, CASE NO. 12 C 2307, (N.D. Ill.) under the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., seeking to overturn the
arbitrator's ruling.  After the suit was reassigned to the
District Judge Gray Feinerman's calendar, W.C. Motor sought and
received leave to file a second amended complaint. The second
amended complaint seeks a declaration that (1) the court, and not
the arbitrator, is the appropriate tribunal to decide whether the
parties' arbitration agreement permits class arbitration, and (2)
the arbitration clause in the agreement does not, in fact, permit
class arbitration.  Ms. Talley, the named plaintiff in the
arbitration and the defendant moved to dismiss the suit on various
grounds.

District Judge Gray Feinerman, in a memorandum opinion and order
dated August 7, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/oYVqrJfrom Leagle.com, granted Ms. Talley's motion
and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The dismissal is without prejudice.

W.C. Motor Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian E
McGovern -- bmcgovern@mlklaw.com -- McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer,
L.C. & Samuel B Rainey -- srainey@mcandl.com -- McCullough,
Campbel & Lane LLP.

Rebecca Talley, Defendant, represented by Christian G Montroy,
Montroy Law Offices, Lcl & Seamus Michael Ryan.


REGENECA WORLDWIDE: Recalls RegeneSlim Appetite Control Capsules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneca Worldwide a division of VivaCeuticals, Inc. Las Vegas, NV
is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of its RegeneSlim
appetite control dietary supplement from lot # EX0616R15814 and
lot #11414RE5516 because FDA analysis confirmed the presence of
DMAA.  DMAA is also known as 1,3-dimethylamylamine,
methylhexanamine, or geranium extract.  DMAA is commonly used as a
stimulant, pre-workout, and weight loss ingredient in dietary
supplement products.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
warned that DMAA is potentially dangerous to health as it can
narrow blood vessels and arteries, which can cause a rise in blood
pressure or other cardiovascular problems such as shortness of
breath, arrhythmias, tightening in the chest, and heart attack.

RegeneSlim is purchased by and distributed through a direct sales
force within the United States and Puerto Rico, and through online
sales, for both personal consumption and retail sales.

RegeneSlim is packaged in approximately 3-1/2" by 3" green and
white sachets that contain 2 capsules, with the name RegeneSlim
displayed prominently on the front of the sachet.

There have been no illnesses reported to date.

This voluntary recall was the result of FDA analysis confirming
the presence of DMAA in RegeneSlim and our company's sampling. The
company continues their investigation as to what caused the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased RegeneSlim with the above-mentioned
lot numbers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
exchange. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-
949-281-2600 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. PDT.
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they experience any problems that may be related to taking or
using RegeneSlim.

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

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

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


RES-CARE INC: Approval of Settlements Expected Later in 2014
------------------------------------------------------------
Res-Care, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in June 2014, a
settlement was reached on the wage/hour class-action lawsuit filed
in 2009 in the Superior Court of the State of California styled
Gloria Nelson, et al v. ResCare, Inc., et al, which results in no
additional charge to the Company's previously reserved amount.
The pre-tax charges recorded in connection with legal matters,
including settlements in 2014 of a communication practices and
wage/hour class-action lawsuit, increased by $10.8 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2014, compared to the same period in
2013.  Court approval and payment of the settlements noted above
are expected later in 2014.

Res-Care, Inc. provides residential, training, educational and
support services to various populations with special needs.  Its
programs include an array of services provided in both residential
and non-residential settings for adults and youths with
intellectual, cognitive or other developmental disabilities, and
youths who have special educational or support needs, are from
disadvantaged backgrounds, or have severe emotional disorders,
including some who have entered the juvenile justice system.  It
also offers, through drop-in or live-in services, personal care,
meal preparation, housekeeping, transportation and some skilled
nursing care to the elderly in their own homes. Additionally, it
provides services to transition welfare recipients, young people
and people who have been laid off or have special barriers to
employment into the workforce and become productive employees.


RL POLK: Dismissed From Buttonwood Tree Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Buttonwood Tree Value Partners, L.P. et al. v. R.L Polk & Co.,
Inc. et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 9250-VCG is a Verified Class Action
Complaint involving allegations that the Plaintiffs were induced
to sell shares of stock in, or in light of, a corporate self-
tender for an inadequate price, due to misrepresentations by the
corporation's board of directors, allegedly acting on behalf of
controlling stockholders in violation of the directors' fiduciary
duties. The Plaintiffs, in addition to bringing this action
against the members of the board, also named the corporation
itself as a defendant. On March 24, 2014, the Company moved to
dismiss the claims against the corporation for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.

A corporation owes no fiduciary duties to its owners, the
stockholders, however; nor can it aid and abet the fiduciary
breaches of those who direct its operations. Therefore, the claims
against the corporation must be dismissed, ruled Vice Chancellor
Sam Glasscock III of the Court of Chancery of Delaware.

"The facts pled neither stated a cause of action against Polk nor
indicate that Polk is a necessary party for full relief here, and
thus indispensible as a party," Vice Chancellor Glasscock added.

For these reasons, Polk's Motion to Dismiss is granted.

A copy of the August 7, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/DfMZtafrom Leagle.com.

R. Bruce McNew -- mcnew@wlblaw.com -- Steven L. Caponi Wilks --
Caponi@BlankRome.com -- Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC David A. Dorey
-- Dorey@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP Wilmington, Delaware
19806 1201 Market Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, Delaware 19801


SAKS & COMPANY: Removed "Derum" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Derum v. Saks & Company, et al.,
Case No. 37-2014-00023419-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
01921-JM-JLB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW, PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-6880
          Facsimile: (619) 308-6881
          E-mail: alisa@pattersonlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Francis S. Lam, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6059
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: flam@sidley.com


SCANA ENERGY: Settles Plan Switch Class Action for $6.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that SCANA Energy
Marketing Inc. will pay $6.5 million to settle a proposed class
action accusing the natural gas company of overcharging customers
through a surreptitious plan switch and then lying about the
unlawful billing scheme, according to a motion filed on Aug. 14 in
Georgia federal court.

The plaintiffs' unopposed motion, which also seeks class
certification for more than 100,000 of the company's current and
former customers, explained that the settlement will be paid to
the proposed class based on how long they were enrolled in any of
the three plans named in the suit.  Each class member can expect
credits on their upcoming bills to be between $10 and $25, the
plaintiffs say.

"The fact that the agreement resulted from a vigorous bargaining
process is strong evidence that it is a fair, adequate and
reasonable resolution of this matter," the motion says.

The settlement also requires that SCANA, which has denied any
wrongdoing, make "significant improvements" to its customer
notification process by providing at least 30 days' notice to
residential customers of its standard variable rate plan if it
decides to introduce a new rate plan.  The utility will also be
required to spell out the difference between the plans and outline
how to choose an alternate plan.

The complaint, filed in 2012 by three SCANA customers who were
enrolled in SCANA's variable pricing plan, accused the company of
operating a bait-and-switch game beginning in March 2007, when it
changed the name of its variable pricing plan to the standard
variable pricing plan.  It then began telling new customers they
were only eligible for a variable plan that was based on the
competitive market price, while surreptitiously changing its
pricing methodology under the old plan, the complaint alleged.
The company didn't tell its so-called legacy customers -- those
who had been on the variable pricing plan before the name change
-- that their plan would now be subject to a noncompetitive,
unregulated rate higher than the Georgia Public Service Commission
allowed, according to the complaint.  SCANA reaped millions of
dollars in unfair profits from unsuspecting customers as a result
of the scheme, the complaint alleged.

The settlement, reached over nine months of "challenging
negotiations," also includes $1.8 million in attorneys' fees to be
deducted from the total settlement amount, as well as a $10,000
payment to each of the four class representatives.  Notices about
the settlement will be mailed to class members and posted on
SCANA's website, the motion says.

Former SCANA customers who will be entitled to the settlement can
opt to either receive a payment or apply it as a credit on any
outstanding bills, the motion says.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bryan L. Bleichner, Jeffrey D.
Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- and Karl L. Cambronne --
kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com --  of Chestnut Cambronne PA and
Jason R. Doss -- jasondoss@dossfirm.com -- of the Doss Firm LLC.

The defendants are represented by Barry Goheen and Jonathan R.
Chally of King & Spalding LLP.

The case is Lucas et al. v. Scana Energy Marketing Inc., case no.
1:12-cv-02356, in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
Georgia.


SEOUL SHIK POOM: Recalls Choripdong Choco Almond Richmond Ice Bar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seoul Shik Poom Inc. of Englewood, NJ is recalling Choripdong
Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar (4bags/432ml) because they may
contain undeclared eggs. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice
Bar(4bars/432 ml) was distributed nationwide through retail
stores.

Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar (4bars/432 ml) was
sold in a silver plastic cooling bag marked with code # IC1006 and
UPC CODE: 761898632925. The product has an expiration date of
03/20/2015 which is stamped on the package.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after the issue was discovered during an
FDA inspection of the foreign manufacturer.

Consumers who have Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice
Bar(4bars/432 ml) and are allergic to eggs are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 201-567-7780 ext 140, Monday
to Friday between 9:00am to 5:00pm (Eastern Time Zone).


SUNFOOD: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
Sunfood of El Cajon, CA is recalling Organic Carob Powder, because
it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Organic Carob Powder was distributed nationwide in retail stores
and through mail orders.

The product comes in 1lb, 20lb & 55lb white poly bags. The
following lot numbers were affected:
140321,140416,140509,140516,140609,140616 & 140623. Expiration
date is 6/5/2015 and UPC Code 803813-04429 8.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
our supplier revealed the possibility of Salmonella in the above
noted lot numbers.

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue to investigate as to the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the affected Organic Carob Powder are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Sunfood at 1-888-RAWFOOD
between 8am and 5pm PDT.


SUPPORT.COM INC: Reversed $57,000 Accrual Related to Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class-action certification was filed against
Support.com Inc. on February 7, 2012, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 12-CV-
00609, alleging that the design of one the Company's software
products and the method of promotion to consumers constitute
fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, breach of express and
implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. On the same day the
same plaintiffs' law firm filed another action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
12-CV-0963, involving similar allegations against a subsidiary of
the Company and one of the Company's partners who distributes the
Company's software products, and that partner has requested
indemnification under contract terms with the Company.

The law firm representing the plaintiffs in both cases has filed
unrelated class actions in the past against a number of major
software providers with similar allegations about those providers'
products.

On May 30, 2013, the Company received final court approval
relating to the terms of a settlement of these actions. Under the
terms of the settlement, the Company offered a one-time cash
payment, covered by the Company's insurance provider, to qualified
class-action members; the deadline to submit a claim form
concluded on February 28, 2013.

In addition, the Company offered a limited free subscription to
one of its software products; the deadline for redemptions
concluded on August 31, 2013.

Therefore, the Company reversed a previous accrual of $57,000
associated with these actions and recorded a benefit in the same
amount within interest income and other, net in the consolidated
statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2013.
The Company denies any wrongdoing or liability and entered into
the settlement to minimize the costs of defense, Support.com said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 4, 2014, for the Quarterly Period Ended June
30, 2014.

Support.com is a provider of cloud software and services for
technology support.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: No Estimate of Liability in "Foster" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against us and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn
mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in
lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the
horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who
purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower
containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less
provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within
the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or
their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of
judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive
damages, interest, costs and equitable relief.

In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum
Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its
subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified
Tecumseh Products Company that they claim indemnification with
respect to this lawsuit under the Stock Purchase Agreement with
them.

Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a settlement involving
all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and
Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court. It is not
binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of
their liability, if any.

"At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount
of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential
future settlement, but the amount could be material to our
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows," the Company said.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: No Estimate of Liability in "Liverman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against us and several other defendants (including those listed
above) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately
above. Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive
damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief.

Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the
purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and
Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified Tecumseh Products
Company that they claim indemnification with respect to this
lawsuit under the Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a settlement involving
all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and
Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court.  It is
not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it
determinative of their liability, if any.

"At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount
of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential
future settlement, but the amount could be material to our
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows," the Company said.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Accord in Direct Purchaser Case Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on February 17, 2009,
the Company received a subpoena from the United States Department
of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") and a formal request for
information from the Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry
of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related to investigations by these
authorities into possible anti-competitive pricing arrangements
among certain manufacturers in the compressor industry. The
European Commission began an investigation of the industry on the
same day.

"We have entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ
under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy. Pursuant
to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any criminal
prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to the
investigation against us as long as we, among other things,
continue our full cooperation in the investigation. We have
received similar conditional immunity from the European Commission
and the SDE, and have received or requested immunity or leniency
from competition authorities in other jurisdictions. On December
7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had reached a cartel
settlement under which certain of our competitors received fines
for the conduct investigated. As a result of our conditional
immunity, we were not assessed any fine.

"While we have taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and other
sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups. In
Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage. All of
the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") procedures.

"Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust
law generally are jointly and severally liable to private
claimants for three times the actual damages caused by the joint
conduct. As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, our civil
liability will be limited pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal
Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as amended
("ACPERA"). As long as we continue to cooperate with the civil
claimants and comply with the requirements of ACPERA, we will be
liable only for actual, as opposed to treble, damages and will not
be jointly and severally liable for claims against other
participants in the alleged anticompetitive conduct being
investigated."

The Company also said Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh
Compressor Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do
Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the
direct purchaser plaintiffs in the U.S. actions on June 24, 2010
to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the costs and
distraction of this ongoing class action litigation.

"On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of our proposed
settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because the time
frame and products covered by the proposed settlement class were
inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same date granting,
in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss claims by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs, the Company added.

"The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second
Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court's rulings on the
motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional
compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for
refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air
conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005 to December 31,
2008 (the "Covered Products").

"On October 15, 2012 we entered into a settlement agreement with
the direct purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement"). The
Settlement Agreement was made by and between us and our
subsidiaries and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Covered Products
in the United States, its territories and possessions, directly
from a defendant. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in
exchange for plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct purchaser
claims against us relating to refrigeration compressors, we agreed
to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in addition,
agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice and administrative costs
associated with administering the settlement. These costs were
recorded as an expense in the second quarter ended June 30, 2010
(and paid in the third quarter of 2010) in the line item captioned
"Impairments, restructuring charges, and other items" on our
Consolidated Statements of Operations.

"On June 16, 2014, the court issued an order granting final
approval of the Settlement Agreement between Tecumseh and the
direct purchaser plaintiffs. The court also issued a Final
Judgment dismissing all direct purchaser actions against Tecumseh
and several other defendants."

The Company also entered into a Settlement Agreement on March 21,
2014, with the named indirect purchaser plaintiffs pursuant to
which these plaintiffs agreed to enter a Stipulated Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice and Without Costs that dismisses all
claims and causes of action alleged in their third consolidated
amended complaint.

"Our share of the settlement was $250,000. The court entered this
order on April 9, 2014," the Company said.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Settles Class Action for $32.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation agreed in June 2014 on principal
terms to settle a previously disclosed class action lawsuit
captioned Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation, which
was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in
Louisiana in March 1997.

Tenet Healthcare said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that "the plaintiffs pursued
a claim for tortious invasion of privacy due to the fact that in
April 1996 patient identifying records from a psychiatric hospital
we closed in 1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure location
while the hospital was undergoing renovations. The court certified
a class of over 5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals (in
addition to the two plaintiffs) have been identified to date in
the class certification process. The plaintiffs have asserted each
member of the class is entitled to common damages under a theory
of presumed "common damage" regardless of whether or not any
members of the class were actually harmed or even aware of the
incident."

"In an effort to avoid protracted litigation, the parties settled
this matter in June 2014 for a maximum potential payment of $32.5
million, subject to the number and type of claims asserted by the
class members. The settlement, which will be funded in amounts and
on a schedule to be agreed to by the parties, is subject to
execution of a final agreement and court approval.

"In the three months ended June 30, 2014, we established a reserve
of $17 million, recorded in discontinued operations, to reflect
our current estimate of probable liability for this matter based
on anticipated levels of class member participation," the Company
said.


TETRA TECH: Defendants Preparing Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tetra Tech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities And Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that on April 19, 2013, a
class action proceeding was filed in Montreal in which BPR Inc.,
BPR's former president, and other Quebec-based engineering firms
and individuals are named as defendants.  The plaintiff class
includes all individuals and entities that have paid real estate
or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal.  The allegations
include participation in collusion to share contracts awarded by
the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce competition and fix
prices, payment of bribes to officials, making illegal political
contributions, and bid rigging.  A class certification hearing was
held in March 2014, and on May 7, 2014, the court dismissed the
action.  On June 5, 2014, the plaintiff filed an appeal, and the
defendants are preparing their motion to dismiss.

The Company acquired BPR Inc., a Quebec-based engineering firm on
October 4, 2010.

The Company is a provider of consulting, engineering, program
management, construction management, construction and technical
services that focuses on addressing fundamental needs for water,
the environment, energy, infrastructure and natural resources.


THRIFTY PAYLESS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Hopson v. Thrifty Payless Inc., dba Rite Aid Pharmacy,
Jackson Avenue Associates Partnership, and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:14-at-01021 (E.D. Cal., August 16, 2014) asserts claims
under the American with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights
Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

Due to her multiple disabilities and medical conditions, Mrs.
Hopson is confined to using a mobility scooter to complete day to
day activities.

Thrifty Payless Inc. is a business establishment doing business in
Escalon, California.  Thrifty has substantial control over the
building and parking lot and space adjacent to its establishment.
Jackson Avenue Associates Partnership owns the real property in
Escalon.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Malakauskas, Esq.
          MALAKAUSKAS LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 7006
          Stockton, CA 95267
          Telephone: (866) 790-2242
          Facsimile: (888) 802-2440
          E-mail: daniel@malakauskas.com


TIME WARNER: Court Orders Parties in "Delonge" Suit to Arbitrate
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DELONGE, PAUL SCOPTUR, and STEPHEN RAYMONDS, Plaintiffs, v.
TIME WARNER CABLE BUSINESS LLC, TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LC,
TIME WARNER CABLE MEDIA INC., TIME WARNER CABLE MIDWEST LLC, and
TIME WARNER CABLE INFORMATION SERVICES (WISCONSIN), LLC,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-0988, (E.D. Wis.) is a putative class
action suit in Wisconsin state court alleging breach of contract.
Defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds.
Subsequently defendants filed a motion asking the court to stay or
dismiss the case and to compel arbitration because of an
arbitration clause in Time Warner Cable's (TWC) subscriber
agreement.

District Judge Lynn Adelman, in a decision and order dated August
6, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/tqJiNgfrom
Leagle.com, concluded that under the law as it now exists, he
finds that the plaintiffs accepted the subscriber agreement and
with it the arbitration clause.

"What's more," he said, "all customers, including plaintiffs,
received notice of changes to the subscriber agreement with their
May 2010 billing statements, including specific notice of the
current arbitration clause . . . In the face of the evidence
provided by TWC that plaintiffs received notice of the arbitration
clause and accepted it, plaintiffs' affidavits do not raise a
genuine issue of material fact."

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to stay or dismiss the case
and compel arbitration was granted, and the proceedings in the
case are stayed pending arbitration.

Steven Delonge, Plaintiff, represented by James P Scoptur, Aiken &
Scoptur SC.

Paul J Scoptur, Plaintiff, represented by James P Scoptur, Aiken &
Scoptur SC.

Stephen Raymonds, Plaintiff, represented by James P Scoptur, Aiken
& Scoptur SC.

Time Warner Cable Business LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian T
Markley -- bmarkley@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel,
Jonathan D Thier -- jthier@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel,
Victor E Suthammanont -- vsuthammanont@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon
& Reindel & Bryan K Nowicki -- bnowicki@reinhartlaw.com --
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC.

Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
T Markley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Jonathan D Thier, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel, Victor E Suthammanont, Cahill Gordon & Reindel &
Bryan K Nowicki, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC.

Time Warner Cable Media Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian T
Markley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Jonathan D Thier, Cahill Gordon
& Reindel, Victor E Suthammanont, Cahill Gordon & Reindel & Bryan
K Nowicki, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC.

Time Warner Cable Midwest LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian T
Markley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Jonathan D Thier, Cahill Gordon
& Reindel, Victor E Suthammanont, Cahill Gordon & Reindel & Bryan
K Nowicki, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC.

Time Warner Cable Information Services (Wisconsin) LLC, Defendant,
represented by Brian T Markley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Jonathan
D Thier, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, Victor E Suthammanont, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel & Bryan K Nowicki, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren
SC.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Can't Transfer Engine-Defect Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Lisa Ryan and Caroline Simson, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on Aug. 14 refused to
transfer a proposed consolidated class action accusing Toyota
Motor Corp. of hiding from customers an engine defect that
allegedly causes cars to use excessive amounts of oil, finding a
legitimate connection to his district.

U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick ruled that while the Central
District of California would be a more convenient forum for the
defendant, many of the underlying facts occurred in the Northern
District of California, thus it should remain there.

Toyota, accusing plaintiffs of forum-shopping, argued that the
Central District was more appropriate because it is where two of
the seven named plaintiffs live, and where its research and
development unit Toyota Motor Sales USA -- which allegedly issued
the technical service bulletins covering the alleged defect -- is
headquartered.

While Toyota additionally claimed only one of the named plaintiffs
-- April Lax -- lives in the Northern District, plaintiffs
countered that her injury occurred there and that nonparty
witnesses also reside in that district.

Judge Orrick held on Aug. 15 that, "The number of named plaintiffs
living in the Central District is not so lopsided to undercut the
significant connection Lax has in this forum or to support an
inference that forum-shopping was at play in the selection of the
Northern District."

In addition to denying Toyota's motion to transfer, Judge Orrick
on Aug. 14 appointed Joseph G. Sauder and Matthew D. Schelkopf --
MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com -- of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP as
lead counsel; and Richard D. McCune of McCuneWright LLP, Payam
Shahian of Strategic Legal Practices APC, and Bryan Clobes of
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP to the plaintiffs'
executive committee.

The suit, originally filed in April and consolidated in June,
alleges that certain Toyota models, including the Camry, Corolla,
Matrix and Rav4, contain a defect in their engines that cause the
vehicles to burn through oil at excessive rates, potentially
leading to catastrophic engine failure.  The suit claims that the
defect causes problems after the cars' warranties expire, with
Toyota refusing to repair the damage.

The plaintiffs' vehicles exhausted their oil supply in 3,440 to
4,300 miles -- well before an oil change would typically be
performed at 5,000 miles under Toyota's recommended maintenance
schedule, according to the complaint.  Once the plaintiffs
contacted Toyota, it refused to repair the vehicles under the
warranty, claiming it had either expired or failed to cover the
defect, the complaint says.

But Toyota was made aware of the problem after receiving
information from dealers and records from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.  The company also knew the nature
and extent of the problem from its internal record keeping and
durability testing, and from warranty and post-warranty claims,
according to the complaint.

Toyota told the court on July 11 that it should first rule on the
bid to transfer the suit to the Central District of California
before ruling on the plaintiffs' bid to appoint interim counsel,
because if the suit is transferred, the counsel motion should be
decided by the new court.  The plaintiffs replied three days later
that the suit should stay put since the Northern District is a far
more convenient location for the plaintiffs.

Judge Orrick on Aug. 14 said, considering the weight given to
plaintiffs' choice of forum, the slight weight given to the
convenience of defendants and the potential consolidation of the
instant suit with a newly filed complaint making similar
allegations, Toyota hadn't shown that balance of convenience and
interests of justice factors clearly favor transfer.

Plaintiffs' executive committee is represented by Richard D.
McCune of McCuneWright LLP, Payam Shahian of Strategic Legal
Practices APC, and Bryan Clobes of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph G. Sauder --
JosephSauder@chimicles.com -- and Matthew D. Schelkopf of
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP.

Toyota is represented by Michael L. Mallow -- mmallow@loeb.com --
and Darlene M. Cho -- dcho@loeb.com -- of Loeb & Loeb LLP.

The case is April Lax et al. v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., case
number 3:14-cv-01490, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


TREX COMPANY: Has Distributed All Payments and Rebates Under Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2013, the United States District Court, Northern
District of California Court granted final approval of the
settlement with the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
relating to the previously reported class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of Dean Mahan, and other named and similarly situated
plaintiffs generally which alleged certain defects in Trex Company
Inc.'s products relating to mold growth, color fading and color
variation.

Trex Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company has
distributed substantially all cash payments and rebate
certificates under the settlement. Claimants who were denied
relief can appeal Trex's decision.

The Company believes that payments to consumers for all relief
under the settlement, even after determination of all appeals,
will not exceed $1.0 million. In addition to such amount, the
Company previously paid $1.7 million related to this litigation,
representing payment of attorneys' fees to class counsel and named
plaintiff awards in the nationwide settlement and the settlement
of corollary cases brought in Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey and
Michigan, all as previously disclosed.

Trex also said that during the 2013 quarter, the Company
recognized a $1.7 million adjustment to the mold class action
provision.

Trex Company, Inc. is the world's largest manufacturer of wood-
alternative decking and railing products, which are marketed under
the brand name Trex(R).


UNITED STATES: Public Advocate Files "Grass Roots Class Action"
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Christian Newswire, a small pro-family group has
figured out an inexpensive way to reaching out to Americans and is
in the process of contacting "millions."

Public Advocate is contacting 20 million Americans in 49 states
(all except Hawaii) in a "grass roots class action" defense of
religious freedom represented by the struggle to keep the Cross up
at Mount Soldedad outside San Diego, California.

Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the US Inc.,
announced on Aug. 15:

"For 30 years, Public Advocate contacts one million people
annually using traditional direct mail but this year we will reach
out with our materials and reach more than 20 million Americans in
our campaign to save the Mt. Soledad Cross.

"This 20 fold increase shows the strong response to Public
Advocate's call to fight the forces promoting the destruction of
moral values in America and to keep the cross up at Mount Soledad.
We call it grass roots class action.

"Along with a first contact with twenty million Americans we are
collecting one million signed petitions insisting that this
monument be left alone for presentation ceremonies to Congress and
for use in paying for legal briefs and other actions.

"We feel The American Civil Liberties Union and other anti-
Christian groups attacking any public display of religious
expression are determined to punish Christianity in their nation-
wide attack on morality.

"Christianity in the military, in federal offices, and in
universities is being outlawed and we must all do more to resist
this assault."

Public Advocate has also filed legal briefs in this case, asking
the Supreme Court to take this decision away from the notoriously
liberal 9th Circuit Court and to expand the rights for Christian
expression using the recent Supreme Court decision in the Town of
Greece decision as a "game changer" that begins to restore
religious liberty,

Mr. Delgaudio fears that the very liberal 9th Circuit will ignore
the precedence set by previous Supreme Court rulings in the "Town
of Greece" decision which protect the right for religious displays
in public places.

Rather than wait for the 9th Circuit to destroy the Cross, Public
Advocate is meeting what they consider to be a threat to religious
liberty head on.  Public Advocate has sponsored political advocacy
at every level of government from Washington, D.C. to Detroit,
Michigan.  These programs include legal briefs, petitions,
demonstrations, news conferences and unusual street theater.
Regarding the Supreme Court, Mr. Delgaudio led several campaigns
to confirm or deny judicial nominations in a bi-partisan fashion
and in one encounter, in 1990, burned the robes of Justice Antonin
Scalia in front of a cheering rally at the Court to protest the
judge joining a five to four decision to allow flag burning.

"Our goal today one million petitions in proving there is a 'grass
roots class action' or impacted population (Christians) in an
appeal or reconsideration to Supreme Court Chief Justice John
Roberts or any member of the Court to immediately take this case
away from the 9th Circuit Court and to immediately prevent any
further damage to the Cross or religious liberty," said
Mr. Delgaudio.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals Jury Award in Hepa C Outbreak Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities And Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a Las Vegas jury in
April 2013 awarded $24 million in compensatory damages and $500
million in punitive damages against a Company health plan and its
parent corporation on the theory that they were negligent in their
credentialing and monitoring of an in-network endoscopy center
owned and operated by independent physicians who were subsequently
linked by regulators to an outbreak of hepatitis C. The trial
court reduced the overall award to $366 million. The Company is
appealing the case.

Company plans are party to 41 additional individual lawsuits and
two class actions, at various procedural stages, relating to the
outbreak. The Company said it cannot reasonably estimate the range
of loss, if any, that may result from these matters given the
likelihood of reversal on appeal, the availability of statutory
and other limits on damages, the novel legal theories being
advanced by the plaintiffs, the various postures of the remaining
cases, the availability in many cases of federal defenses under
Medicare law and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and
the pendency of certain relevant legal questions before the Nevada
Supreme Court. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a diversified health and well-
being company.  The Company offers a broad spectrum of products
and services through two distinct platforms: UnitedHealthcare,
which provides health care coverage and benefits services; and
Optum, which provides information and technology-enabled health
services.


US BANK: Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
broad lender insurance class action that spans 40 different states
was given the go-ahead earlier this summer by a US Magistrate.
The now-certified class-action lawsuit alleges US Bank benefited
from kickbacks by placing lenders insurance through American
Security Insurance Co. (ASIC). Plaintiffs claim the insurance was
also expensive and backdated needlessly.

The lead plaintiff in the Force-placed insurance lawsuit is
Stephen Ellsworth.  According to court documents, the plaintiffs
allege that US Bank purchased flood insurance to cover mortgaged
properties.  The allegations hold that US Bank purchased the
Force-Place Insurance from American, significantly backdating the
coverage and then charging the homeowners for the expired
coverage.

According to the force-placed insurance lawsuit, there had been no
damage evident to the property represented by the backdated
coverage period.

Forced-place insurance, as the term suggests, is an insurance
product lenders rely upon when a homeowner's insurance is found to
have either lapsed or is insufficient to cover the value of the
loan in the event of a loss. If the homeowner drops the ball on
the insurance front, the lender has every right to force-place
insurance on the property as a means to protecting the lender's
investment.

The problem, say various critics and plaintiffs, is that forced-
place insurance terms all too often favor the lender and the
insurance provider. Forced-place insurance has been seen by some
as affording significantly less coverage than traditional
insurance products, at a much higher rate.  Plaintiffs also hold
that in some cases, the lender insurance is placed needlessly and
backdated to a period before proof of insufficient or lack of
insurance was even determined.

Forced-place insurance lawsuits often follow, with plaintiffs
claiming that lenders have cozied up with insurance providers in
various kickback schemes aimed at lining their pockets at the
expense of the homeowner.

US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, addressing the forced-placed
insurance class action, certified multistate classes of borrowers
in 40 states to pursue alleged breaches of mortgage agreements, as
well as classes of borrowers in California and New Mexico to
pursue claims of bad faith, unjust enrichment and unfair business
practices. There are to be various subclasses stemming from the
three primary classes, with Beeler finding sufficient commonality
amongst the classes to move forward.

Furthermore, the classes "allege a common scheme to force place
insurance on borrowers in a way designed to increase kickbacks to
US Bank from a captive insurance provider (ASIC) in the form of
[qualified-expense-reimbursements] or discounted tracking
services, and to maximize costs collected from borrowers by force-
placing [lender-placed flood insurance] policies that were
backdated more than 60 days."  The 56-page ruling was issued
June 13 of this year.

The case is Stephen Ellsworth, Marilyn Weaver, and Lawrence and
Donene Skelley, individually and as representatives of the classes
and on behalf of the general public v. US Bank, N.A., and American
Security Insurance Company, Case No. C 12-02506 LB, in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division.


VICAL INCORPORATED: August 25 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
In late October and early November 2013, following Vical
Incorporated's announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of
Allovectin(R) and the subsequent decline of the price of its
common stock, two putative, securities class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers. On February 26, 2014, the two cases were
consolidated into one action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were appointed.

On April 3, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
prospects and the prospects for Allovectin(R), thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

On April 25, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion asking the
Court to permit plaintiffs to amend the consolidated complaint,
which the Court granted. On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

On June 9, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. That same day, defendants also filed a motion to strike
certain allegations in the amended complaint. The motion to strike
is fully briefed, but the Court has not yet issued an order. Lead
plaintiff's deadline to oppose defendants' pending motion to
dismiss was August 4, 2014.

A hearing, if any, on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled
for August 25, 2014, Vical 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.

The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims
advanced. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible
losses or ranges of losses for ongoing legal actions.

Vical Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, was incorporated in
April 1987 and has devoted substantially all of its resources
since that time to its research and development programs. The
Company researches and develops biopharmaceutical products based
on its patented DNA delivery technologies for the prevention and
treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Faces $37-Mil. Wage Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that Victoria's Secret
Stores LLC has been hit with a $37 million proposed class action
suit by a sales clerk who says the retail giant frequently
schedules employees to work and then doesn't provide them with
work when they arrive, according to a notice of removal filed in
California federal court on Aug. 14.

Victoria's Secret said that the action, filed by Mayra Casas in
state court in July, belongs in the central district of California
because the amount in controversy exceeds the aggregate value of
$5 million.  The state court action alleges failure to pay
reporting time on regularly scheduled shifts, "call-in" shifts,
unfair business practices and more, on behalf of employees
classified as "nonexempt" from overtime pay.

"[A] reasonable and conservative estimate of the total amount in
controversy, based on each of the categories listed above, is at
least $37,238,775.01," attorneys for Victoria's Secret wrote in
the 16-page notice of removal to federal court.  "Although VSS
specifically denies plaintiff's claims and denies that plaintiff
or putative class members will recover any of the relief they
seek, it is clear from the scope of the relief sought that the
amount in controversy arising from the allegations in the
complaint in this action exceeds the $5,000,000 jurisdictional
threshold."

Ms. Casas' suit, originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on
behalf of herself and others, raises allegations that Victoria's
Secret has established and maintained a policy of failing to pay
employees for all time worked, including when shifts are canceled
or shortened.

The original complaint also alleges that employees who working the
closing shift are routinely "locked in the store" at the end of
the day and must wait for a manager to permit them to leave.

"Because this occurs after the employees have clocked out for the
day, they are not compensated for the time spent under their
employer's control, waiting to be let out of the store," the
complaint says.  "Likewise, employees who work opening shifts
routinely arrive early, as directed by the defendants, but find
themselves waiting for the store manager or supervisor to open the
door to let them in so that they may clock in for the day."

Ms. Casas seeks to represent a class of similarly situated people,
including all employees of Victoria's Secret who defendants
classified as being "nonexempt" in the four years prior to filing.

Louis M. Marlin of Marlin & Saltzman LLP, counsel to the
plaintiff, said he has received Victoria Secret's notice but that
it won't affect the overall case.

"We have received notice of the removal to federal court and will
review the same," Mr. Marlin told Law360 on Aug. 15.  "The law is
the law, and litigation in either the state court or the federal
court will address the same facts that we allege amount to
violations of the California Labor Code."

Ms. Casas is represented by Louis M. Marlin and Stephen P. O'Dell
of Marlin & Saltzman LLP.

Victoria's Secret is represented by Lori A. Bowman --
lori.bowman@ogletreedeakins.com --  Beth A. Gunn, Jennifer L. Katz
-- jennifer.katz@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Patricia M. Jeng --
patricia.jeng@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart PC.

The case is Mayra Casas v. Victoria's Secret Stores LLC, case
number 2:14-cv-06412, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.


WATTS WATER: Obtains Final Approval of "Trabakoolas" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted final approval of a
settlement in the case captioned JASON TRABAKOOLAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 12-CV-01172-WHO, (N.D. Cal.).

The Settlement is approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and
the Class Action Fairness Act as fair, reasonable and adequate.
The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice.

The Settlement Class, as finally certified, is defined as:  All
individuals and entities, that own or owned, or lease or leased, a
residence or other structure located in the united states
containing a toilet connector.

The Agreement provides the Settlement Class Members with immediate
and certain resolution, and alleviates their burden to prove that
the Toilet Connectors are defective and that the Watts Defendants
are liable. The Common Fund is established, and Settlement Class
Members and other Claimants can make claims immediately and
continue to make claims on the Common Fund over a five-year Damage
Claims Period.

The parties negotiated a settlement amount of $23 million. After
deductions for costs of the notice plan, payment of the requested
attorneys' fees and expenses, plaintiffs' incentive awards, and
costs of the claims administrator, the projected funds available
to pay anticipated claims will be approximately $15 million.

The Court adjudges that the payment of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $5.75 million and expenses of $650,000 to Class Counsel,
and the payment of a service award to the Class Representatives in
the amount of $7,500 to those whose homes were inspected and
$5,000 to those whose homes were not inspected, is fair,
reasonable and adequate and that said attorneys' fees and costs
will be paid to Class Counsel and said service awards will be paid
pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

A copy of Judge Orrick's August 5, 2014 final order and judgment
is available at http://is.gd/Efjwqufrom Leagle.com.

Jason Trabakoolas, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Bahne Paris,
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Anthony D. Shapiro, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Charles J Kocher, Saltz Mongeluzzi,
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Elaine T. Byszewski,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shaprio LLP, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeniphr
A.E. Breckenridge, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Joseph J. Tabacco,
Jr., Berman DeValerio, Michelle J Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Patrick Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Ria C.
Momblanco, Fine Kaplan and Black, R.P.C., Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Sheila Stetson, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Bahne Paris, Saltz
Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Anthony D. Shapiro, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Charles J Kocher, Saltz Mongeluzzi, Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Elaine T. Byszewski, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shaprio LLP, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeff
D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeniphr A.E.

Breckenridge, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr.,
Berman DeValerio, Michelle J Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Patrick
Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman
DeValerio.

Christie Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Bahne Paris,
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Patrick Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi
Barrett & Bendesky & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Jack Mooney, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Bahne Paris, Saltz
Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, Patrick Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett &
Bendesky & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Keven Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Bahne Paris, Saltz
Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, Patrick Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett &
Bendesky & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
Spruance MacCuish, Alston & Bird LLP, Jenny Ann Mendelsohn, Alston
and Bird LLP, Lindsay G. Carlson, Alston & Bird LLP, Scott Austin
Elder, Alston and Bird LLP & Todd Brian Benoff, Alston & Bird LLP.

Watts Regulator Company, Defendant, represented by David Spruance
MacCuish, Alston & Bird LLP, Jenny Ann Mendelsohn, Alston and Bird
LLP, Lindsay G. Carlson, Alston & Bird LLP, Scott Austin Elder,
Alston and Bird LLP & Todd Brian Benoff, Alston & Bird LLP.

Wolverine Brass, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Spruance
MacCuish, Alston & Bird LLP, Jenny Ann Mendelsohn, Alston and Bird
LLP, Lindsay G. Carlson, Alston & Bird LLP, Scott Austin Elder,
Alston and Bird LLP & Todd Brian Benoff, Alston & Bird LLP.

Farmers Insurance Exchange/The Farmers Insurance Group of
Companies, Interested Party, represented by Craig Scott Simon,
Berger Kahn a Law Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: Order to Show Cause Entered in $4BB "Burris" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lofton Ryan Burris and nine other named plaintiffs filed a
putative class action on April 28, 2014 captioned LOFTON RYAN
BURRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. CV 14-3247-FMO (DTB), (C.D. Cal.).  The
75-page Complaint alleges 23 claims on behalf of plaintiffs
themselves and those similarly situated against 34 named
defendants as well as doe defendants. The named plaintiffs have
appeared in this action pro se and seek to represent all
"similarly situated persons living within the jurisdiction of the
United States of America, to recover Money and Real property
stolen by way of fraud, deceit, and dishonesty of these `dirty and
low down' defendants, their employees, agents, and legal
representatives, including all of the named and unknown
defendants."

The putative class is defined as "persons who initiated, held or
assumed mortgages with any of the defendants from 2006 to 2014
whose commercial paper was traded as Mortgage Backed Securities,
or persons whose mortgages were converted to stock investments and
subsequently transferred to Real Estate Trusts and who
subsequently faced foreclosures and/or evictions, including those
persons who were in Adverse Possession of Real Properties after
illegal foreclosures perpetrated with ROBO-SIGNERS, false grant
deeds, fictitious persons, or by other fraudulent methods, and all
other persons who were victims of Bankruptcy Scams, foreclosure,
and eviction lawsuits by defendants and persons who held Real
Estate or stock assets with any of the defendants."  The
Plaintiffs assert that the putative class is comprised of
"millions of people."

Plaintiffs appear to be asserting class claims for all 23 claims,
including, inter alia, claims for fraud, violations of the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961, et seq., violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., and civil rights
violations.

Plaintiffs seek $4,155,000,000 in damages.

Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow points out that although it
appears that plaintiffs' claims relate to mortgage foreclosures,
as best the Court can glean, they relate to different transactions
and properties. The allegations of the Complaint are vague,
conclusory, and generalized; fail to identify any particular
transactions or properties at issue; and involve multiple
different banking institutions, he says. Plaintiffs purport to
provide a list of all of the properties at issue in an exhibit
attached to the Complaint, but the copy of the Complaint filed
with the Court does not include any such exhibit, he adds.

"Because the allegations do not appear to arise out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,
and because plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that there
are any questions of law or fact that will arise in this action
that are common to all plaintiffs, plaintiffs have failed to
satisfy the prerequisites for joinder under Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
20(a)," Magistrate Judge Bristow concludes.

As such, the Court orders plaintiffs to show cause why all of the
plaintiffs other than the first named plaintiff Lofton Ryan Burris
should not be dropped from this action by September 3, 2014.

A copy of the Court's August 5, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/1C0A2ifrom Leagle.com.

Lofton Ryan Burris, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Lupi P. Edwards, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Al McZeal, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

J Lydia Hernandez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Eutimio Hernandez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Sia Paulo, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Tia Paulo, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Sally Johnson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

James Hewitt, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ronald F. Vaughn, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne
Moorer, Wright Finlay and Zak LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne
Moorer, Wright Finlay and Zak LLP.

County of Los Angeles Sheriff Department, Defendant, represented
by Gilbert M Nishimura, Seki Nishimura and Watase LLP.

Harris County Sheriff Office, Defendant, represented by Gilbert M
Nishimura, Seki Nishimura and Watase LLP.

Harris County Attorney Office, Defendant, represented by Gilbert M
Nishimura, Seki Nishimura and Watase LLP.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Kathleen A Waters, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne
Moorer, Wright Finlay and Zak LLP.

Kathyrn Moorer, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne Moorer,
Wright Finlay and Zak LLP.

Nicole Glowin, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne Moorer,
Wright Finlay and Zak LLP.

EMC Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Ming
Hom, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Kathleen A Waters, Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Brian Anthony Quintero, Defendant, represented by Gilbert M
Nishimura, Seki Nishimura and Watase LLP.

Jack O' Boyle & Associates, Defendant, represented by Stephen M
Lewis, Malcolm Cisneros.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Nafiz Cekirge,
Bryan Cave LLP.

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, Defendant, represented by Brian Ming
Hom, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Kathleen A Waters, Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Midsouth National Bank, NA, Defendant, represented by Elissa D
Miller, SulmeyerKupetz ALC.

L. Jay Angelle, Defendant, represented by Elissa D Miller,
SulmeyerKupetz ALC.

Quality Loan Service Corp, Defendant, represented by Douglas A.
Toleno, McCarthy & Holthus, LLP.

McCarthy & Holtus, LLP, Defendant, represented by Douglas A.
Toleno, McCarthy & Holthus, LLP.

TD Services Company, Defendant, represented by Lawrence J
Dreyfuss, The Dreyfuss Firm.

NBS Default Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark David
Estle, Endres & Estle.

Power Default Services, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne
Moorer, Wright Finlay and Zak LLP.

TD Services Company, Defendant, represented by Lawrence J
Dreyfuss, The Dreyfuss Firm.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne
Moorer, Wright Finlay and Zak LLP.

Altsource, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Anne Moorer, Wright
Finlay and Zak LLP.

Ticor Title Company of California, Defendant, represented by Kevin
R Broersma, Fidelity National Law Group.

Kevin Maliczak, Defendant, represented by Stuart Thomas Miller,
Carlson Law Group, Inc..

Global Equity Builder, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stuart
Thomas Miller, Carlson Law Group, Inc.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due E. Coli
-----------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market locations, South Weymouth, Mass. and Newton,
Mass., are recalling 368 pounds of ground beef products that may
be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

125 lbs. of the following ground beef products produced on June 8,
2014 at the Newton, Mass. location are subject to recall:

    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% LEAN 7% FAT" with SKU 90013
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% LEAN 7% FAT FAMILY PACK" with SKU
90247
    "BEEF SIRLOIN Patty  93% LEAN / 7% Fat" with SKU 90088
    "BEEF GROUND 93% LEAN / 7% FAT" with SKU 90035
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% LEAN 7% FAT patty FAMILY PACK" with
SKU 52179
    "BEEF GROUND 85% LEAN 15% FAT" with SKU 90004
    "BEEF GROUND 85% LEAN 15% FAT FAMILY PACK" with SKU 90037
    "BEEF GROUND PATTY 90% LEAN GRASS FED" with SKU 96363
    "BEEF GROUND PATTY 90% LEAN GRASS FED, Value Pack" with SKU
52162
    "BEEF GROUND 90% LEAN GRASS FED" with SKU 95997
    "BEEF GROUND 90% LEAN GRASS FED, Value pack" with SKU 52190
    "BEEF GROUND 85 15 GRASS FED" with SKU 95195
    "BEEF GROUND 85 15 PATTIES GRASS FED" with SKU 95196
    "BEEF BURGER GRASS FED GOURMET FEATURED" with SKU 52871

170 lbs. of the following ground beef products produced on June
10, 2014 at the Newton, Mass. location are subject to recall:

    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% LEAN 7% FAT" with SKU 90013
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% LEAN 7% FAT FAMILY PACK" with SKU
90247
    "BEEF SIRLOIN Patty  93% LEAN / 7% Fat" with SKU 90088
    "BEEF GROUND 93% LEAN / 7% FAT" with SKU 90035
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% LEAN 7% FAT patty FAMILY PACK" with
SKU 52179
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93/7 PATTIES NE" with SKU 90199
    "BEEF GROUNDSIRLOIN 93/7 NE" with SKU 95051
    "BEEF GROUND 85% LEAN 15% FAT" with SKU 90004
    "BEEF GROUND 85% LEAN 15% FAT FAMILY PACK" with SKU 90037
    "BEEF GROUND PATTY 90% LEAN GRASS FED" with SKU 96363
    "BEEF GROUND PATTY 90% LEAN GRASS FED, Value Pack" with SKU
52162
    "BEEF GROUND 90% LEAN GRASS FED" with SKU 95997
    "BEEF GROUND 90% LEAN GRASS FED, Value pack" with SKU 52190
    "BEEF GROUND 85 15 GRASS FED" with SKU 95195
    "BEEF GROUND 85 15 PATTIES GRASS FED" with SKU 95196
    "BEEF BURGER GRASS FED GOURMET FEATURED" with SKU 52871

73 lbs. of the following ground beef products produced on June 21,
2014 at the South Weymouth, Mass. location are subject to recall:

    "BEEF GROUND PATTY 90% LEAN GRASS FED" with SKU 96363
    "BEEF GROUND PATTY 90% LEAN GRASS FED, Value Pack" with SKU
52162
    "BEEF GROUND 90% LEAN GRASS FED" with SKU 95997
    "BEEF GROUND 90% LEAN GRASS FED, Value pack" with SKU 52190
    "BEEF GROUND 85 15 GRASS FED" with SKU 95195
    "BEEF GROUND 85 15 PATTIES GRASS FED" with SKU 95196
    "BEEF BURGER GRASS FED GOURMET FEATURED" with SKU 52871
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% Lean 7% fat"  with SKU 90013
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% LEAN 7% FAT FAMILY PACK" with SKU
90247
    "BEEF SIRLOIN Patty 93% LEAN / 7% Fat" with SKU 90088
    "BEEF GROUND 93% LEAN / 7% FAT" with SKU 90035
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93% LEAN 7% FAT patty  FAMILY PACK" with
SKU 52179
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93/7 PATTIES NE" with SKU 90199
    "BEEF GROUND SIRLOIN 93/7 NE" with SKU 95051

FSIS was notified of an investigation of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses
on June 25, 2014. Working in conjunction with the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), FSIS determined that there is a link between
ground beef purchased at Whole Foods Market and this illness
cluster. Based on epidemiologic investigation, 3 case-patients
have been identified in Massachusetts with illness onset dates
ranging from June 13, 2014 to June 25, 2014. While the onset of
illnesses was in June, on August 13, 2014, additional laboratory
results provided linkages between the 3 MA case-patients and
ground beef purchased from Whole Foods. Traceback investigation
indicated that all 3 case-patients consumed ground beef purchased
from 2 Whole Foods Market prior to illness onset. FSIS is
continuing to work with state and federal public health partners
on this investigation to determine a common source and will
provide updated information as it becomes available.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2--8 days (3--4
days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people
recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur
among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-
years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor,
and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms
should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 ΓΈ F. The only way to
confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to
kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can call (512) 477-
5566 ext. 20060, and media can contact Kate Lowery, Senior Global
Coordinator, PR, Media Relations at (512) 542-0390.

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


WIRELAWYER INC: Faces "Giardina" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
James S. Giardina, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wirelawyer, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 8:14-cv-01980-EAK-TBM (M.D. Fla., August 15, 2014) arises
from restrictions on use of telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N State St., Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 470-6588
          E-mail: isalam@siprut.com
                  jsiprut@siprut.com

               - and -

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.
          633 E Hallandale Beach Blvd.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33009
          Telephone: (877) 332-8352
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Named as Defendants in 6 Class Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Energy 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, that in June and July
2014, Integrys Energy Group, Inc. and its board of directors,
along with Wisconsin Energy, were named defendants in six separate
purported class action lawsuits filed in Brown County, Wisconsin
(three of the cases -- Rubin v. Integrys, et al., Blachor v.
Integrys, et al.; and Albera v. Integrys, et al.), Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin (Amo v. Integrys, et al.), and Cook County,
Illinois (two cases -- Taxman v. Integrys, et al. and Curley v.
Integrys, et al.).

The cases were brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of
shareholders of Integrys. The complaints allege, among other
things, that the Integrys board members breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize the value to be received by
Integrys' shareholders, and that Wisconsin Energy aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among
other things, (a) to enjoin defendants from consummating the
Acquisition; (b) rescission of the Merger Agreement; and (c) to
direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
the highest value possible for the Integrys shareholders.

Wisconsin Energy believes the cases have no merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously.

On June 22, 2014, Wisconsin Energy and Integrys entered into an
agreement and plan of merger (Merger Agreement) under which
Wisconsin Energy will acquire Integrys (Acquisition). Integrys'
shareholders will receive 1.128 shares of Wisconsin Energy common
stock and $18.58 in cash per Integrys share of common stock, with
the total consideration valued at approximately $5.8 billion,
based upon the value of the Company's common stock as of June 30,
2014. The combined company will be named WEC Energy Group, Inc.

Wisconsin Energy is a diversified holding company which conducts
its operations primarily in two reportable segments: a utility
energy segment and a non-utility energy segment.  Its primary
subsidiaries are Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin
Electric), Wisconsin Gas LLC (Wisconsin Gas) and W.E. Power, LLC
(We Power).


ZEMCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Sausage Product Due to Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Zemco Industries Inc., a Buffalo, NY, establishment, is recalling
approximately 106,800 pounds of smoked sausage due to misbranding
and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product
contains soy, a known allergen that is not declared on the label
of the product.

The product subject to recall includes:

    2.5 lb. packages of "CAVANAUGH SMOKED SAUSAGE"

The products were produced on June 11, 2014; June 13, 2014; June
19, 2014; July 10, 2014; July 19, 2014; and Aug. 1, 2014. The
recalled product has Use By dates of Sept. 9, 2014; Sept. 11,
2014; Sept. 17, 2014; Oct. 8, 2014; Oct. 17, 2014; and Oct. 30,
2014. The product bears the establishment number "Est. 5222" on
the package. The product was sent to distribution centers for
resale as well as retail establishments nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the company. The problem occurred
when the company reformulated the product and updated packaging
and labeling but the employees utilized the old formulation
containing soy that was not declared on the updated packaging and
labels. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Consumer
Relations at (866) 328-3156. Media with questions about the recall
should contact Worth Sparkman, Public Relations Manager, at (479)
290-6358.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The
toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-
674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


                              *********

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  * * *