CAR_Public/140826.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 26, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 169

                             Headlines


24 HOUR FITNESS: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Members, Suit Says
ACANTHUS DEV: Faces "Escobar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACE BAYOU: Recalls 2.2 Million Bean Bag Chairs After Deaths
ADELITA'S CAFE: "Avila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ALORICA INC: Faces "Rawlings" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Documentation of $960MM Accord Pending
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Actions
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Securities Actions Still Pending
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 29 Trial in SICO Treasury Action
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: No Discovery Yet in Caremark-Related Suit

AMERICAN MUNICIPAL: Batavia, Ill. Resides File Class Action
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: "Krueger" Case Ready for March 2015 Trial
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in "Jeffers" Case
ANZ: Litigation Funders May Get AU$180MM Windfall in Bank Fee Suit
APPLEGATE: Recalls 15,000 Pounds of "Naturals" Chicken Nuggets

BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued Over Violation of Trust Indenture Act
BELLEVUE PHILLY: Pennsylvania Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Retirees Sue Over Breach of ERISA
BP SUB EXPRESS: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CALIFORNIA: BOE Employees File Class Action Over Toxic Mold Growth

CAPITAL ONE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $75.5 Million
CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Dodge Ram Class Action
CNINSURE INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
CONFLUENCE ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CONRAIL: Judge Denies Class Action Status in Gas Leak Suit

COVIDIEN PLC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
EBAY INC: Faces Suit in California Alleging Violations of TCPA
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 25,000 Mesh Cases Pending as of July 29
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Remaining $8.4MM to be Released August 2014
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Up to 20,000 Mesh Claims

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 600 MCP Cases Filed As of July 29
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 6th Cir. Affirmed Propoxyphene Case Dismissal
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: MDL Formed to Include TRT Claims
ESTRELLA LATINA: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EQT PRODUCTION: Class Certification in Gas Royalty Suit Overturned

EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Product Defects
EXEL INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Harris" Suit Says
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Propane Price-Fixing
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over Propane Price-Fixing
FLUIDMASTER INC: Faces "Wyble" Suit Over Braided Lines Defects

GAP INC: Sells Inferior Clothing at Factory Outlets, Class Claims
GAWKER MEDIA: Court Certified Class of Former Unpaid Interns
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Delays Briefing in Ignition-Switch Suits
GLENMARK GENERICS: Birth Control Packaging Class Action Tossed
HIALEAH TROPICAL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Martinez" Suit Claims

HSBC USA: Faces Class Actions Over Manipulation of Gold Price
HSBC USA: Faces Class Actions Over Manipulation of Silver Price
HSBC USA: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Remains Pending
HSBC USA: Named as Defendant in Benchmark Rate Litigation
HSBC USA: Expert Discovery to Continue Through August 2014

IUOE LOCAL 3: Court Dismissed "Slack" Suit With Leave to Amend
J&T SUPERMARKET: "Mantilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
JM MOWING: Faces "Esqueda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JPMORGAN CHASE: CIO Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal
JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Actions by CDS Buyers

JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Forex Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motions to Dismiss Pending in Merchants' Actions
JPMORGAN CHASE: Added as Defendant in EURIBOR Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Provides Update on Madoff-Related Litigation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Named as Defendant in MF Global-Related Actions

JPMORGAN CHASE: Named as Defendants in MBS Class Actions
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motions to Dismiss Denied in Two Cases
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Pending in Foreclosure Action
KANZAMAN INC: Faces "Odeesho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KEY ENERGY: Faces "Cady" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports

KONTIKI BEACH: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Lighted Nights Stands Over Burn Hazard
LINKEDIN CORP: Settles 2012 Data Breach Class Action for $1.25MM
MAGAR MAGAR: August 27 Hearing Scheduled for Class Action
MAJOR LEAGUE: To Appeal Ruling in Two Antitrust Suits by Viewers

MARK S. BOLAND: Faces "Cook" Suit in Pa. Over Surgery Procedures
MERCK & CO: Wants Remaining Fosamax Product Liability Suits Tossed
MI COCINA: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MICHIGAN: Male Guards' Gender Bias Class Action Can Proceed
MONAVIE INC: Judge Allows Consumer Fraud Class Action to Proceed

MOORE CAPITAL: Nov. 7 Physical Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MOORE CAPITAL: Nov. 7 Futures Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Challenges Oakland Raiders Cheerleaders' Wage Suit
NEW BREED LEASING: Sued Over Family and Medical Leaves
NEW JERSEY: Little Egg Harbor Joins School Aid Class Action

NEW YORK TIMES: Exits Class Action Over Subscription Fraud Scheme
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlawful Inflation of Stock Price
PAPI'S SUPERMARKET: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
PELLA CORPORATION: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Product Defects
PIONEER CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Optical Disk Drive Sales

PIZZA PROPERTIES: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
RED ROBIN: Sued for Paying Employees With Preloaded Debit Cards
SAKS FIFTH: Falsely Advertised Off 5th Store Products, Suit Says
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Rosen Law Firm Mulls Investor Class Action
SKECHERS USA: OT Class Action Settlement Gets Tentative Approval

STAR BAKERY: Faces "Yu" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Breach of Labor Law
STURM FOODS: Appeals Court Reinstates Suit Over Coffee Cartridges
TELSTRA: ACA Mulls Class Action Over Late Fees
TIRE DEPOT: Faces "Adelson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Sued in E.D. Arkansas Over Violation of FLSA

TRG THE RESPONSE: "Woltje" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
U.S. SECURITY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNIVERSAL USED: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Armado" Suit Says
VESTAS WIND: Dec. 9 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WELLS FARGO: Settles Securities Lending Class Action for $62.5MM

WORLD WRESTLING: Vincent Wong Law Firm Files Class Action

* SYMEA Files Class Action v. Licensed Lenders Over Foreclosures


                            *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Members, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Florette Francis, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-
61859 (S.D. Fla., August 15, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to accommodate disabled gym members in need
of assistance in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. owns and operates a gym in Broward
County, Florida, and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nolan Keith Klein
      LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
      Wells Fargo Tower, One East Broward Blvd., Ste. 1500
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 745-0588
      Facsimile: (305) 397-1924
      E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


ACANTHUS DEV: Faces "Escobar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruperto Escobar, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Acanthus Dev Property Management, LLC, and
Howard L. Kruse, Janet Kruse, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-06243 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Acanthus Dev Property Management, LLC is a construction company
owned by Howard L. Kruse and Janet Kruse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACE BAYOU: Recalls 2.2 Million Bean Bag Chairs After Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that about 2.2 million bean bag
chairs are being recalled after two children opened them, crawled
inside and suffocated to death.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on Aug. 22 that
the zippers on the chairs, which are made by Ace Bayou Corp., can
open.

A 13-year-old boy from McKinney, Texas, and a 3-year-old girl from
Lexington, Kentucky, were found dead inside the chairs after they
suffocated from a lack of air and inhaled the chair's foam beads.

The chairs were sold at Bon-Ton, Meijer, Pamida, School Specialty,
Wayfair and Walmart stores and online at Amazon.com, Meijer.com
and Walmart.com.  They cost between $30 and $100 and were sold
before July 2013.  They come in all different colors, shapes,
fabrics and sizes.

Owners of the bean bag chairs should check if the zippers open and
take them away from children if they do, the CPSC said.

Ace Bayou, which is based in New Orleans, is offering customers a
free repair kit that will stop the zippers from opening.
Customers can order one at acebayou.com.


ADELITA'S CAFE: "Avila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Avila v. La Ceiba Corp d/b/a Adelita's Daughter Cafe f/k/a
Adelita's Cafe, Reyna Cartagena and Melvin Cruz, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23014 (S.D. Fla., August 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Adelita's Daughter Cafe in Miami-
Dade Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


ALORICA INC: Faces "Rawlings" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shimisha Rawlings, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Alorica, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02619 (N.D. Ga.,
August 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Alorica, Inc. is a call center company located at 2120 Barrett
Park Drive Building B, Kennesaw, Georgia, 30144.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
      1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Documentation of $960MM Accord Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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 between
May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported securities
class action complaints were filed against AIG and certain
directors and officers of AIG and AIG Financial Products Corp. and
AIG Trading Group Inc. and their respective subsidiaries, AIG's
outside auditors, and the underwriters of various securities
offerings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the Southern District of New York), alleging
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the Securities Act).

On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all eight of the
purported securities class actions as In re American International
Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation).

On May 19, 2009, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements.

The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants made statements
during the class period in press releases, AIG's quarterly and
year-end filings, during conference calls, and in various
registration statements and prospectuses in connection with the
various offerings that were materially false and misleading and
that artificially inflated the price of AIG Common Stock. The
alleged false and misleading statements relate to, among other
things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act.

On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the Court
denied the motions to dismiss.

On April 26, 2013, the Court granted a motion for judgment on the
pleadings brought by the defendants. The Court's order dismissed
all claims against the outside auditors in their entirety, and it
also reduced the scope of the Securities Act claims against AIG
and defendants other than the outside auditors.

On January 30, 2014, the Court stayed proceedings in the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation pending a decision in
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (U.S. Nov.
15, 2013) (Halliburton II).

On July 15, 2014, the parties accepted a mediator's proposal to
settle the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation for a cash
payment by AIG of $960 million.  As part of the mediator's
proposal accepted by the parties, the parties have also agreed
that the mediator will retain authority to resolve any disputes,
if they arise, with respect to the finalization of the settlement
documentation.  The settlement remains subject to completion of
definitive settlement documentation, notice to the class, and
approval by the Court. The settlement amount has been accrued.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a leading
international insurance organization serving customers in more
than 130 countries and jurisdictions.  AIG companies serve
commercial, institutional and individual customers through one of
the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are leading providers of life
insurance and retirement services in the United States.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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 between
June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain directors and
officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement Board and
Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight purported
class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants
in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its subsidiaries. The
Court subsequently consolidated these eight actions as In re
American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II.

On September 4, 2012, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a
consolidated second amended complaint. The action purports to be
brought as a class action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all
participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG
and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock.

In the consolidated second amended complaint, plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On November 20, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated second amended complaint.

On June 26, 2014, the Court issued an order denying defendants'
motions to dismiss in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751 (U.S. June 25,
2014), which rejected the presumption of prudence in favor of
ERISA fiduciaries that many courts had previously applied.  The
Court's order requires the parties to meet and confer concerning
the impact of the Fifth Third Bancorp case and the possibility of
settlement, and sets a deadline of October 3, 2014 for defendants
to answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated second amended
complaint.

As of August 4, 2014, discovery is ongoing, and the Court has not
determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or scope
of any class.

"As a result, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation," the
Company said.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a leading
international insurance organization serving customers in more
than 130 countries and jurisdictions.  AIG companies serve
commercial, institutional and individual customers through one of
the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are leading providers of life
insurance and retirement services in the United States.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Securities Actions Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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
November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading
Group Inc. and their respective subsidiaries, certain directors
and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive
Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the
Court grants the application, a class plaintiff will be permitted
to file a statement of claim against defendants. The proposed
statement of claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006
through September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this
period defendants made false and misleading statements and
omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral
presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens.

On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on the motion
pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a pair of
actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012 SCC 17.

On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the
standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out-of-
province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a defendant must
have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual,"
presence to be deemed to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in future cases,
defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they are found to be
doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their business
activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter
of the litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate.

As of August 4, 2014, the Court has not determined whether it has
jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's application to file a
statement of claim, no merits discovery has occurred and the
action has been stayed.

"As a result, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation," the
Company said.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a leading
international insurance organization serving customers in more
than 130 countries and jurisdictions.  AIG companies serve
commercial, institutional and individual customers through one of
the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are leading providers of life
insurance and retirement services in the United States.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sept. 29 Trial in SICO Treasury Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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
November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) filed
a complaint against the United States in the United States Court
of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing claims,
both individually and on behalf of the classes defined below and
derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The
complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant
to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the
FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an
approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges
that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory,
unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered
by the government to other comparable firms at the time and
violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of
the U.S. Constitution.

On November 21, 2011, SICO also filed a second complaint in the
Southern District of New York against the FRBNY bringing claims,
both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO New York Action). This
complaint also challenges the government's assistance of AIG,
pursuant to which AIG entered into the FRBNY Credit Facility and
the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership
in AIG.

In rulings dated July 2, 2012 and September 17, 2012, the Court of
Federal Claims largely denied the United States' motion to dismiss
in the SICO Treasury Action.

On November 19, 2012, the Southern District of New York granted
the FRBNY's motion to dismiss the SICO New York Action, on January
29, 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the Southern District of New
York's dismissal of the SICO New York Action and, on June 30,
2014, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari.

According to the Company, "In both of the actions commenced by
SICO, the only claims naming AIG as a party (as a nominal
defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG. On September
21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our Board demanding
that we pursue the derivative claims in both actions or allow SICO
to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board
unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on January
23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO
describing the process by which our Board considered and refused
SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's
determination."

On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action and denied the United States'
motion to dismiss SICO's direct claims.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September
22, 2008; and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG
Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those
shares at AIG's June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. SICO
has provided notice of class certification to potential members of
the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25,
2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to
participate in either class. On November 15, 2013, SICO informed
the Court that 286,892 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two
class periods had opted into the classes.

While no longer a party to these actions, AIG understands that
SICO is seeking significant damages. Trial in the SICO Treasury
Action is scheduled to begin in the Court of Federal Claims on
September 29, 2014.

The United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its
answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its
representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery
in the SICO Treasury Action, and seeks a contingent offset or
recoupment for the value of net operating loss benefits the United
States alleges that we received as a result of the government's
assistance. On November 8, 2013, the Court denied a motion by SICO
to strike the United States' affirmative defenses of
indemnification and contingent offset or recoupment.

"A determination that the United States is liable for damages,
together with a determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify
the United States for any such damages, could have a material
adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition
and results of operations," the Company said.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a leading
international insurance organization serving customers in more
than 130 countries and jurisdictions.  AIG companies serve
commercial, institutional and individual customers through one of
the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are leading providers of life
insurance and retirement services in the United States.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: No Discovery Yet in Caremark-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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 AIG and
certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two
putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of
the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving
Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the second-filed
action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed
action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of
AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be
without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs
allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as
to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have
approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or
unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that
AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and
suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and
extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. AIG and the other
defendants have appealed that order to the Alabama Supreme Court,
and the case in the trial court will be stayed until that appeal
is resolved. General discovery has not commenced and AIG is unable
to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a leading
international insurance organization serving customers in more
than 130 countries and jurisdictions.  AIG companies serve
commercial, institutional and individual customers through one of
the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are leading providers of life
insurance and retirement services in the United States.


AMERICAN MUNICIPAL: Batavia, Ill. Resides File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Gearino, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that
residents of Batavia, Ill., have filed a class-action lawsuit over
the price they're paying for power from a plant partly owned by
American Municipal Power of Columbus.

The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 19 in Illinois, seeks what is likely
more than $100 million in damages because electricity from Prairie
State Energy Campus is more expensive than was disclosed when
government-owned electric utilities invested in the plant.

"We filed this lawsuit not only to hold the defendants
accountable, but also to find out what went wrong here," said
Michael Childress, one of two attorneys representing the
plaintiffs.

The named plaintiffs are nine people who either live or do
business in Batavia.  They are seeking status as a class to
represent everyone who uses the city-owned utility.

They are suing the Indiana Municipal Power Agency and related
consultants, which advised Batavia city leaders to buy into the
plant starting in 2004. The case is in Kane County Circuit Court
in the Chicago metro area.

American Municipal Power, or AMP, owns 23 percent of Prairie
State, a coal-fired power plant in southwestern Illinois that has
been hit by a series of budget overruns and mechanical problems.

AMP manages the supply of electricity for government-owned
electricity utilities.  It encouraged its members, including about
60 communities in Ohio, to buy shares in the plant, much as the
Indiana agency did for Batavia and others.

While AMP is not a defendant in the case, it is named as a
"respondent in discovery," which means it must provide documents
and might later be added to the list of defendants, Childress
said.

The suit seeks $19.8 million in damages for the first two years of
Prairie State's operation, which is the estimated difference
between the cost of electricity from the plant and the cost that
the community had been told to expect.  In addition, it seeks
damages for the next 28 years, plus attorney fees.

The total would almost certainly be more than $100 million and
potentially much more, Childress said.

Among the Ohio communities that invested in the plant are
Cleveland, Hamilton, Bowling Green andGalion. City utilities in
Columbus and Westerville chose not to participate.

In several of those cities, residents are facing rate increases
that are tied in part to the plant's costs.  Critics of the plant
say the largest rate increases are still to come.

AMP has said the plant is a great investment for its members, and
there has been little evidence of concern by members in Ohio.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: "Krueger" Case Ready for March 2015 Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in October 2011, a
putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger Krueger, et al. vs.
Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company,
certain of its present or former employees and directors, as well
as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k) Plan.  The
alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to the present.

The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary duties under
ERISA, by selecting and retaining primarily proprietary mutual
funds with allegedly poor performance histories, higher expenses
relative to other investment options and improper fees paid to
Ameriprise Financial or its subsidiaries. The action also alleges
that the Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA because it
paid excessive record-keeping fees, used its affiliate Ameriprise
Trust Company as the Plan trustee and record-keeper and improperly
reaped profits from the sale of the record-keeping business to
Wachovia Bank, N.A. Plaintiffs allege over $20 million in damages.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2012. On
April 11, 2012, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which was denied on November 20, 2012. On July
3, 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment on statute of
limitations grounds. On March 20, 2014, the Court filed its
decision, granting in part and denying in part the motion.

On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class
Action, and by order dated May 23, 2014, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion.

The parties are engaged in discovery. The case is scheduled to be
ready for trial as of March 1, 2015.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter due to the early procedural
status of the case, the lack of expert damages analyses, and
plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific, evidence-based
damages.

Ameriprise Financial is a diversified financial services company
with a 120 year history of providing financial solutions.  It
offers a broad range of products and services designed to achieve
the financial objectives of individual and institutional clients.
It is America's leader in financial planning and a leading global
financial institution with more than $809 billion in assets under
management and administration as of June 30, 2014.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in "Jeffers" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in October 2012, a
putative class action lawsuit entitled Jeffers vs. Ameriprise
Financial Services, et al. was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
relating to its sales of the Inland Western (now known as Retail
Properties of America, Inc. ("RPAI")) REIT. The action also names
as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI's executives, and several
members of RPAI's board.

The action alleges that the Company failed to perform required due
diligence and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including
fees charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and
valuation of the shares on client account statements. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages.

The Company was served in December 2012, and, on April 19, 2013,
moved to dismiss the complaint.

On June 10, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss.

On July 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming
only Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. as a defendant. The
Company's response was due August 11, 2014.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter due to the early procedural
status of the case, the absence of class certification, the lack
of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' failure to allege any specific, evidence-based
damages.

Ameriprise Financial is a diversified financial services company
with a 120 year history of providing financial solutions.  It
offers a broad range of products and services designed to achieve
the financial objectives of individual and institutional clients.
It is America's leader in financial planning and a leading global
financial institution with more than $809 billion in assets under
management and administration as of June 30, 2014.


ANZ: Litigation Funders May Get AU$180MM Windfall in Bank Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that litigation funders could make up to AUD$180 million if a
class action against ANZ, Citibank and Westpac over bank fees goes
ahead.

The case, run by law firm Maurice Blackburn, targets late fees
charged to the credit cards of 280,000 customers, speculated to
amount to up to $800 million.

Litigation funder Bentham IMF could theoretically make AUD180
million from the case, because of its proposed 22.5 per cent
commission rate.

Maurice Blackburn and Betham IMF have seemingly pre-empted the
market by instituting proceedings as an open class that widens the
claim, while at the same time warding off competition from other
litigation funders and plaintiff law firms.

Bentham IMF is hoping to have its success fee determined by the
court, under what is called a common fund approach, that enables
it to take a percentage of damages from all members of an open
class group, whether or not they have signed up to a funding
agreement.

Bentham IMF's investment manager James Middleweek would not
disclose how much it stood to make from the action.  He said the
claim size was too difficult to determine because the number of
claimants was not yet known, and the action was highly contingent
on the success of the banks in defending a Federal Court appeal
concerning the fees and whether the claim would be subject to a
six-year limitation period.  It also depended on the court's
approval of its proposed funding arrangements, he said.

"The issue will be not how big the group will be, but what period
it covers, because the banks reduced the fees in 2009,"
Mr. Middleweek said.  "One would think if the claim size were
bigger, the fee proposition should perhaps be more advantageous
due to economies of scale."

Brian Ward & Partners partner Penny Pengilley --
ppengilley@bwplegal.com.au -- said assessing damages in
contractual claims such as the bank fees case was much easier to
determine than shareholder actions such as breach of continuous
disclosure obligations, defective product disclosure statements,
price fixing or other anti-competitive conduct.

"This means damages are likely to be much higher and easier to
quantify in cases like that against ANZ than in most shareholder
action claims," she said.

"One assumes the banks can run computer programs to identify the
accounts that have been lumbered with the fee and reimburse those
affected customers.  It's a clear and defined loss.

"It's much harder to calculate loss in shareholder actions where
questions as to how the market may have responded to an
announcement arise, quite apart from individual responses to that
market, so actually proving there has been a loss, as opposed to
the breach, is much more complicated, expensive and
unpredictable."

John Emmerig, head of class action defense at global firm Jones
Day said the common fund approach taken by litigation funders was
a significant game changer.

"It has the potential to generate larger and more complex open
class actions to resolve and greater returns to the funders per
case from a settlement or judgment," he said.

King & Wood Mallesons partner Moira Saville --
moira.saville@au.kwm.com -- agreed it would encourage litigation
funders to bring open class actions, which were potentially larger
in scale and value than closed classes.

"It also means that the funders will be able to file class action
claims more quickly, as they may be able to forgo the usual
'bookbuilding' process where they seek to have class members sign
up and secure a critical mass before determining that the class
action will generate sufficient return to justify proceeding to
file the suit," Ms. Saville said.


APPLEGATE: Recalls 15,000 Pounds of "Naturals" Chicken Nuggets
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOX43 News reports that more than 15,000 pounds of Applegate
"Naturals" chicken nuggets have been recalled after consumers
complaints of finding small pieces of plastic in the meat.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, no one has been
sickened by the tainted nuggets yet, which are sold in eight-ounce
boxes under the brand "Applegate Naturals Chicken Nuggets."

According to Applegate, "The raw chicken for our nuggets is stored
in plastic containers prior to being put through a grinder.  A
piece of plastic from one of the containers became dislodged and
comingled with the raw chicken. "

The company pulled the product from shelves August 8, but urges
consumers to check their freezers for the following boxes of the
fully-cooked, frozen nuggets:

"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 USDA announced.  "The products were
shipped to retail outlets nationwide."

According to the company's website:

Why did the USDA change the status of the product withdrawal?
Applegate worked closely with the USDA Food Safety and Inspection
Service and in the interest of our customers, we decided to
voluntarily remove the affected product from store shelves while
the USDA deliberated about issuing a recall.  The USDA convened
its recall committee on August 12 and decided to issue a recall
statement.

Is this a new recall or does it involve additional products?
No. Applegate voluntarily removed its Applegate Naturals Chicken
Nuggets with the "Best Before" date of February 5, 2015 on
August 8, before the USDA classified it as a recall.  No other
products are affected.

What product is affected by the recall?
8-ounce packages of Applegate Naturals Chicken Nuggets with the
"Best Before" date of February 5, 2015.  Please note: this is the
ONLY product affected by the product removal.  The product removal
does NOT affect Applegate Naturals Gluten-Free Chicken Nuggets or
any other breaded chicken products.

How much of this product is out in the marketplace?
We have confirmed that 30,468 packages of Applegate Naturals
Chicken Nuggets are potentially affected.  The shipment of this
product has been tracked, and all retailers with affected product
have been notified.

Are any other Applegate products affected?
No.  Only Applegate Naturals Chicken Nuggets with the "Best
Before" date of February 5, 2015.  No other Applegate products are
affected.

Why did Applegate remove this product from stores?
This identified batch of Applegate Naturals Chicken Nuggets may
contain small pieces of clear plastic.  No reports of illness or
injury have been reported.  However, to help protect our
customers, and to maintain the trust they have in our products,
Applegate decided to voluntarily remove the product on August 8
before the USDA decided to issue a recall statement on August 12.
Our customers can be assured that the issue that led to this
product removal has been addressed, and measures have been put in
place to avoid this problem in the future.

How did Applegate know there was a problem with this product?
The problem was detected following consumer complaints to the
company.  This product was labeled with a "Best Before" date of
February 5, 2015.

Has anyone become ill from the product?
No.  Applegate has received no reports of injury nor has the USDA
Food Safety and Inspection Service.  Nevertheless, anyone
concerned about consuming this product should contact a healthcare
provider.

How did the problem occur?
The raw chicken for our nuggets is stored in plastic containers
prior to being put through a grinder.  A piece of plastic from one
of the containers became dislodged and comingled with the raw
chicken.  This was an isolated issue and did not impact any other
products.

Why is Perdue mentioned in the recall? Is Applegate owned by
Perdue?
USDA rules require that the plant where the recall problem
occurred be identified as well as the company that sells the
product.  Applegate is not owned by Perdue.

Applegate is an independently owned and operated natural and
organic meat company.  However, we work with other companies, like
Perdue, to process and co-pack our products, like the Applegate
Naturals Chicken Nuggets involved in this recall.  Applegate has
strict quality standards and enforces those standards from the
farm to store shelves.

Does that mean Perdue chicken nuggets are the same as Applegate
chicken nuggets?
No, they are completely different products with different
ingredients, recipes and animal raising practices for the poultry
used.  Applegate has a rigorous quality assurance program and our
team not only conducts plant inspections, but farm audits to make
sure standards are upheld throughout our supply chain.

How does Applegate ensure that products remain separated at
co-packer facilities?
Applegate's processors and co-packers separate our product and
ingredients so that organic and antibiotic-free meat and
conventionally raised meat are never combined.  Every step of
production process is monitored to ensure separation.
Additionally, all meat and poultry plants have a USDA inspector on
site to help verify plant procedures.

How will Applegate prevent this from happening in the future?
We have carefully evaluated every step in the processing and
packaging of this product.  As a result, we have identified and
implemented the following corrective action that will provide
added assurance against a similar incident occurring in the
future.

The containers have been removed from the production floor and
will be replaced with either stainless steel containers or another
substance that is strong and easily detected if a piece becomes
dislodged.

What should customers do if they have an affected product and how
do they get reimbursed?
Customers can return any affected packages of Applegate Naturals
Chicken Nuggets to the retailer where they were purchased for a
full refund.

Where can I go for more information?
Customers with specific questions can email us at
help@applegate.com or call us at 866-587-5858.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued Over Violation of Trust Indenture Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as
Trustee, Case No. 1:14-cv-06502 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2014), for
violating the Trust Indenture Act and for breach of contract and
breach of trust in connection with the Covered Trusts.

The Bank of New York Mellon was formerly known as The Bank ofNew
York, is a banking corporation organized under the laws of the
state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BELLEVUE PHILLY: Pennsylvania Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Mondschein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bellevue Philly, LLC d/b/a Tavern On Broad; and Doe
Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-04788 (E.D. Pa., August 15,
2014), recover unpaid wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Bellevue Philly, LLC owns and operates a restaurant known as
Tavern On Broad at 200 South Broad Street in Philadelphia, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz
      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

             Restaurant Worker Files Minimum Wage Suit

The Pennsylvania Record reports that a former employee at a
Philadelphia restaurant says she has been shortchanged on four
years worth of paychecks because her ex-managers did not properly
follow state or federal minimum wage laws, according to a class
action suit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The plaintiff, Ashley Mondschein, has brought the action against
Bellevue Philly, a limited liability corporation that manages
Tavern on Broad, a sports bar located in Center City Philadelphia,
on behalf of members of the tipped employee and promotional class
that may have been damaged by the restaurant's practices.

Ms. Mondschein alleges in the complaint that management at Tavern
on Broad would only pay the state minimum wage adjusted for
employees that earn tips, a flat $2.83 per hour, when state and
federal regulations require the employer to make up the difference
if the employee did not make enough tips to earn the state minimum
wage of $7.25.

According to the suit, Ms. Mondschein worked for Tavern on Broad
from September 2010 to March 2014 as a promotional employee,
helping to sell bar products such as test tube shots or beer from
beer tubs. Her shifts lasted five to six hours, two or three days
a week, the suit says.

For the first two years, Ms. Mondschein claims she earned a wage
solely through customer tips and says that Bellevue owes her
back-payment of full minimum wage between 2010 and 2012.  In 2012,
Tavern on Broad adjusted the compensation and paid promotional
employees $2.83 per hour, regardless of the amount earned in tips.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, in certain circumstances it is permissible for an
employer to take a tip credit and pay its employees less than
minimum wage provided that the employee's tips plus the tip credit
equals at least the applicable minimum wage. Under the federal
law, the maximum credit an employer can take is $5.12, while in
Pennsylvania the maximum is $4.42 per hour.

If an employee's tips don't reach the $7.25 minimum wage, the
employer must make up the difference.  Ms. Mondschein claims that
Tavern on Broad did not follow this provision and continued to
take the maximum credit regardless of the strength of her tips.

According to pay stubs provided by her attorneys, during one shift
Ms. Mondschein made only five dollars in tips.  Tavern on Broad
paid her the absolute minimum of $2.83 for the three-and-a-half
hours worked, meaning Ms. Mondschein's hourly wage for that shift
was a total of $4.27.

Ms. Mondschein has opened up the litigation to similar promotional
employees who may have been affected by Tavern on Broad's alleged
failure to notify its staff of the intention to take the tax
credit and estimates there are approximately 40 other people
qualified to join the action.  She says that the restaurant has
been unjustly enriched by not paying employees the full wages due
to them.

The plaintiff is represented by Arkady Rayz of Kalikhman & Rayz,
LLC and Gerald Wells of Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP.

The federal case ID number is 2:14-cv-04788-CDJ.


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Retirees Sue Over Breach of ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------
Judy Hunter, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; as a member of the Acme Brick
Company 401(k) Retirement and Savings Plan Investment/
Administrative Committee; and as a member of the Acme Brick
Company Pension Plan Retirement/Administrative Committee, Anita
Gray, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; and Bobby Lynn Allen, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and ACME
Building Brands, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00663 (N.D. Tex., August
15, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. owns and controls ACME Building Brands,
Inc.  ACME Building Brands, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor
of brick and masonry-related construction products and materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Clarence Hill, Esq.
      MYERS HILL ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      2525 Ridgmar Blvd, Suite 150
      Fort Worth, TX 76116
      Telephone: (817) 731-2500
      Facsimile: (817) 731-2501
      E-mail: mhill@myers-hill.com

         - and -

      John Jeremiah Shaw, Esq.
      MYERS-HILL ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      2525 Ridgmar Blvd, Suite 150
      Fort Worth, TX 76116
      Telephone: (817) 668-1078
      Facsimile: (817) 668-1077
      E-mail: jshaw@myers-hill.com

         - and -

      Gary A. Goto, Esq.
      Christopher Graver, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 248-0088
      Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
      E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com
              cgraver@kellerrohrback.com


BP SUB EXPRESS: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Gonzalez-Mendez, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. BP Sub Express Inc. and Benjamin
Grossman, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04844 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours wages, and such other relief pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

BP Sub Express Inc. is a limited-service restaurant doing business
as Sub Express and located at 5219 13th Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


CALIFORNIA: BOE Employees File Class Action Over Toxic Mold Growth
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Young, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports that
employees of the California Board of Equalization hit the agency
with a $75 million lawsuit alleging illnesses related to mold in a
building now notorious for leaky pipes and other construction
issues.

The suit, intended to be a class action, arrives as lawmakers and
BOE chairman Jerome Horton push the Brown administration to move
some 1,900 employees away from the defective property at 450 N.
St.  Earlier this year, the Brown administration indicated it
wasn't ready to relocate the headquarters without additional
further investigation. Negotiations continue, and a Senate floor
vote will occur on legislation to begin a relocation process.

The suit was expected after the plaintiffs submitted a formal
claim to the state last month.  The suit, filed on Aug. 19 in the
Sacramento Superior Court, accuses BOE managers of concealing the
existence of mold for years, and the effect it was having on
employees.  BOE staff, meanwhile, have experienced ongoing rashes,
headaches and other symptoms, it said.

"BOE failed to maintain the property in a safe condition and
deliberately concealed from Plaintiffs [sic] . . . the dangerous
condition of the Headquarters," the suit said.

BOE officials said they could not comment on pending litigation.
The suit was filed by attorney Anthony Perez on behalf of
associate tax auditor Racquel Raichart, tax specialist Jennean
Campbell and tax auditor Alisa Edwards.

That suit alleges that illnesses from water damage date back to
the early 1990s, and for years BOE denied any structural issues
that could contribute to illness.  The California Department of
Finance warned BOE in 2004 that "toxic mold growth" was increasing
over time, but employees continued to experience health problems
throughout the decade.


CAPITAL ONE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $75.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Dale, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that Capital One Financial Corp.
("Capital One") and three collection agencies have agreed to pay
one of the largest settlement amounts in history -- $75.5 million
-- to end a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that the
companies used an automated dialer to call customers' cellphones
without consent in violation of the 22-year-old Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  Judge Holderman of the Northern District
of Illinois preliminarily approved the settlement in late July.

            TCPA Allegations and the Proposed Settlement

In 2012, separate cases against each defendant were consolidated
by the U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litigation because the
collection firms were collecting debts on behalf of Capital One.
The allegations were largely the same: that the companies used
autodialers and/or pre-recorded messages in calls to cell phones
without the consumers' express consent.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, according to the settlement
agreement, Capital One will pay $73 million into the settlement
fund with the other three companies contributing approximately
$2.5 million.  According to estimates provided by class counsel in
its July 14th court submission, the proposed agreement would
provide between $20 and $40 to each member of the class, which is
estimated to include about 21 million people, and is defined to
include all people in the United States who received a call from
Capital One's dialers to a cellphone from an automatic telephone
dialing system with an attempt to collect on a credit card debt
from January 2008 to June 2014 and those who received calls from
participating vendors from February 2009 to June 2014.

The TCPA provides redress for those who receive unsolicited
telephone calls, texts or faxes, and includes statutory penalties
of $500 per violation and $1,500 for willful violations.  As such,
commentators have noted what class counsel acknowledged to the
court; i.e., the settlement fund "does not constitute the full
measure of statutory damages potentially available to the class,"
but counsel argued that this fact "should not weigh against
preliminary approval."

If the settlement is approved, up to 30 percent of the settlement
amount (about $22.5 million) will be awarded to the consumers'
attorneys, and each of the five lead plaintiffs each will receive
no more than $5,000.

In addition to any monetary award, the settlement identifies the
"core relief" as changes to Capital One's business practices, and
notes that Capital One already has "developed and implemented
significant enhancements to its calling systems designed to
prevent the calling of a cellular telephone with an autodialer
unless the recipient of the call has provided express consent."

In seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement,
plaintiffs' attorneys noted that the parties remained sharply
divided on many issues including "three critical ones."  The
disagreements include the defenses that Capital One had raised,
including: (i) whether the Capital One customer agreement provided
the prior express consent to make automated calls to class
members' cell phones; (ii) whether the statute allows "prior
express consent to be obtained after the transaction that resulted
in the debt owed," and (iii) whether the action could fairly be
maintained as a class action given the predominance of individual
issues.

It bears mentioning that the Capital One litigation was filed
prior to the adoption of the October 2013 amendments to the
regulations implementing the TCPA.  Under the new rules now in
effect, for profit-businesses have to acquire "prior express
written consent" before making any type of call or sending any
text message using autodialers or prerecorded voices to
cellphones.

The Capital One settlement is subject to formal approval,
including notification to the class.  The final hearing on the
settlement is set for December 9, 2014.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Dodge Ram Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report
that Chrysler Group LLC on Aug. 18 urged a California federal
judge to toss a putative class action alleging it concealed a
defect that causes some of its Dodge Ram pickup trucks to lose
steering control and shimmy excessively, arguing the remedy
provided by ongoing recall efforts moots any claim in the suit.

The automaker said the lead plaintiffs admit in their complaint
that Chrysler has already begun a recall to remedy the alleged
defect in its 2008 to 2012 Dodge Ram vehicles, featuring
reportedly faulty tie-rod ball studs in its steering system.  The
recall provides for reimbursement to owners who have already paid
to repair the condition, which the company says blocks the claims
for relief listed in the suit.

"It is thus not all together clear what plaintiffs are complaining
about or what additional relief they believe they are entitled
to," Chrysler said in their motion to dismiss the suit.

Filed in April, the suit alleges certain Dodge Ram vehicles have
defective tie-rods, which the complaint calls a "crucial link" in
the vehicle's steering system.  The suit claims a loose tie rod
can cause a vehicle to have excessive shimmy or, in the worst
case, a "death wobble," which is an extreme and sometimes
uncontrollable front-end vibration that usually starts when one
tire hits a groove or a bump in the road that can only be
controlled by bringing the vehicle to a stop.

The complaint says the tie-rod ball stud in the affected Dodge Ram
models is too weak to withstand normal use and will eventually
fracture under normal driving conditions.

"The weakness is exacerbated by the defective design of the cross
car steering linkage system, which allows contact between the ball
stud and the ball housing, thereby weakening the stud," the
complaint said.

After various tests, the company decided to recall the vehicles in
2011, but the plaintiffs said that despite their best efforts,
they have not been able to schedule appointments to have the
defects fixed at their local dealerships.  The plaintiffs also
alleged Chrysler has failed to offer Ram owners any reimbursement
for loss of use or value of the vehicles, or for amounts
previously spent repairing the defect or resulting damage.

Chrysler says the complaint suffers from a number of legal and
pleading deficiencies, including warranty claims where they had no
problems with their vehicle during the warranty period, fraud
claims based on misrepresentations they have not been able to
prove, negligence claims barred by the economic loss doctrine, and
more.

The automaker also said that the relief provided by the ongoing
recall blocks the suit from moving forward.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steven L. Marchbanks of Premier
Legal Center APC and Robert G. Loewy of Law Office of Robert G.
Loewy PC.

The case is Shaun Sater et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC, number 5:14-
cv-00700, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


CNINSURE INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNinsure, Inc. on Aug. 19 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted
final approval of the agreement to settle a consolidated class
action lawsuit against the Company and entered final judgment
dismissing the case on August 15, 2014.

The approved settlement resolves all the claims asserted on behalf
of purchasers of its American depository shares between March 2,
2010 and November 21, 2011 in exchange for a payment of $6.625
million by the Company, which will be covered by insurance
proceeds.

The settlement agreement contains no admission of liability, fault
or wrongdoing by the Company.  The Company denies any and all of
the allegations made against it by the class in the litigation and
has agreed to settle this matter solely to eliminate the
uncertainties, risks, costs and burdens of further protracted
proceedings.

"We are pleased to have this matter resolved and behind us, so
that we can now focus on executing our strategies for delivering
strong financial results and creating value for our shareholders
over the long run," said Mr. Chunlin Wang, CNinsure's chief
executive officer.


CONFLUENCE ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Mcqueary, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Confluence Energy, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02274 (D.
Colo., August 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages.

Confluence Energy, LLC, owns and operates a pellet manufacturing
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Jennings Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CONRAIL: Judge Denies Class Action Status in Gas Leak Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has denied
class-action status to those suing a rail company and others over
a 2012 train derailment that leaked a hazardous gas into the air
in New Jersey.

U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler denied the class action motion
in a ruling on Aug. 20.  More than 140 people and businesses are
suing Conrail and others for damages related to the November 2012
rail accident that released vinyl chloride in Paulsboro.  In a
written opinion, Judge Kugler finds that the plaintiffs do not
meet the legal requirements of class certification, including that
there are enough people who qualify.

Many residents of Paulsboro have already accepted settlements from
Conrail. The individual lawsuits against the rail company can
continue.


COVIDIEN PLC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Aug. 19
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on August 11,
2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of the shareholders of Covidien plc
against Covidien and its board of directors for, among other
things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

Covidien Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy
Statement

The complaint arises out of a June 15, 2014, press release
announcing that Covidien had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Medtronic, Inc. pursuant to which Covidien
shareholders would receive a combined value of $93.22 per Covidien
share, comprised of $35.19 in cash and 0.956 of a new issued share
of the go-forward combined company.  The complaint seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other
similarly situated shareholders of Covidien.  The named plaintiff
is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The named plaintiff alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their duties and
obligations owed to Covidien shareholders.  The complaint further
alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the
Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a materially false and
misleading registration statement on Form S-4 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the Exchange
Act and their duties of candor and full disclosure in addition to
violating Irish corporate law.  The omitted and/or misrepresented
information is believed to be material to Covidien shareholders'
ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the
Proposed Transaction.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Covidien prior to the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction on June 15, 2014, and
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than sixty days from August 19, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

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

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


EBAY INC: Faces Suit in California Alleging Violations of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Small Ross v. Ebay, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01693 (C.D. Cal.,
August 15, 2014) seeks damages and all other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of
Ebay in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew C. Bradford, Esq.
          ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP
          3255 W. March Lane, Suite 230
          Stockton, CA 95219
          Telephone: (209) 954-9001
          Facsimile: (209) 954-9091
          E-mail: matthew@robinsonbradford.net

               - and -

          Ivan Trahan, Esq.
          TRAHAN LAW GROUP
          43471 Ridge Park Drive, Suite A
          Temecula, CA 92590
          Telephone: (951) 693-2080
          Facsimile: (951) 257-5805
          E-mail: bkattorney@earthlink.net


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 25,000 Mesh Cases Pending as of July 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 since 2008, AMS, and
more recently, in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits
in various federal and state courts, as well as in Canada,
Scotland, and the UK alleging personal injury resulting from the
use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat
pelvic organ prolapse (PO) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries
including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control
bowel function and permanent deformities.

On February 7, 2012, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed,
and cases pending in federal courts are now consolidated in the
Southern District of West Virginia as part of MDL No. 2325.
Similar cases in various state courts around the country are also
currently pending.

As of July 29, 2014, approximately 25,000 filed mesh cases are
currently pending against AMS and/or the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, some of which may have been filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs, and a minority of which seek class action
certification.

In addition, other cases have been served upon AMS pursuant to a
tolling agreement order issued in the MDL in May 2013. Any
complaint properly served on AMS from the effective date of that
order on May 15, 2013 through October 1, 2013, and ultimately
filed with the court by February 14, 2014 is deemed filed as of
the service date. Some of these cases served pursuant to the
tolling agreement have been timely filed with the court.

According to the Company, "litigation similar to that described
above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various
jurisdictions. The majority of the currently pending cases are in
the MDL.  The Company cannot predict the ultimate number of cases
to be filed against it with certainty and we expect that more
cases may be filed in subsequent periods."

The Company said that as of June 30, 2014, the reserve for loss
contingencies totaled approximately $1.20 billion, the majority of
which is related to the Company's product liability accrual for
all known pending and estimated future claims related to vaginal
mesh cases.

The Company said, "The increase in our reserve reflects
management's ongoing assessment of our entire product liability
portfolio, including the vaginal mesh cases, the status of the
Company's ongoing settlement discussions related to the remaining
cases included in the vaginal mesh litigation, the complex nature
of this type of litigation and the inherent uncertainty as to the
costs of resolving the remainder of the mesh litigation."

As of June 30, 2014, the Company's product liability accrual for
vaginal mesh cases totaled $1.17 billion for all known pending and
estimated future claims related to vaginal mesh cases.

The Company said, "The expense related to this accrual during the
six months ended June 30, 2014 was $658.1 million, which was
recorded in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations as
Litigation-related and other contingencies, net. Although the
Company believes there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in
excess of the amount recognized exists, we are unable to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount
recognized at this time. In most product liability litigations of
this nature, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging
from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to
efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any
significant injury. Given the wide range of alleged injuries and
the early stage of this litigation, as evidenced in part by the
fact that AMS has not yet received or had the opportunity to
review complete information regarding all plaintiffs and their
medical conditions, the Company and AMS are unable to fully
evaluate the remaining claims at this time."


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Remaining $8.4MM to be Released August 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 June 14, 2013, AMS
and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product
liability claimants entered into a definitive Master Settlement
Agreement (the June 2013 MSA) regarding a set inventory of filed
and unfiled mesh cases handled or controlled by the participating
counsel. The June 2013 MSA was entered into solely by way of
compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of
liability or fault by the Company or AMS.

Under the terms of the June 2013 MSA, AMS paid $54.5 million in
July 2013 into a settlement fund held in escrow by a mutually
agreed upon escrow agent. The June 2013 MSA establishes a claims
administration process that includes guidelines and procedures for
administering the settlement. Distribution of funds to any
individual is conditioned upon a full release and a dismissal with
prejudice of the entire action or claim as to all AMS parties and
affiliates. Prior to receiving an award, an individual claimant
shall represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights, or
other claims that are identified in the claims administration
process have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant.
The amount of settlement awards to participating claimants, the
claims evaluation process and procedures used in conjunction with
award distributions, and the negotiations leading to the
settlement shall be kept confidential by all parties and their
counsel.

The Company has agreed with plaintiffs' counsel involved in this
settlement that a sufficient number of releases have been
submitted to permit the parties to proceed with a distribution of
funds from the escrow. Accordingly, approximately $43.0 million
was released from the escrow fund during the fourth quarter of
2013. Following the receipt of certain additional releases,
approximately $3.1 million was released from the escrow fund
during the first quarter of 2014. The remaining $8.4 million is
expected to be released in August 2014.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Up to 20,000 Mesh Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 April 30, 2014, AMS
and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product
liability claimants entered into various agreements in principle
regarding settling up to approximately 20,000 filed and unfiled
mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel,
which are separate and distinct from the counsel participating in
the June 14, 2013 Master Settlement Agreement.  These agreements
in principle were entered into solely by way of compromise and
settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the Company or AMS. Under the terms of these agreements,
AMS has agreed to pay up to an aggregate total of $830.0 million.
On June 12, 2014, AMS agreed to resolve approximately 1,700
additional mesh claims as part of the inventory of one of the
plaintiffs' counsel with whom an agreement in principle was
announced on April 30, 2014. In addition, in July 2014, AMS
entered into an agreement in principle to resolve a certain
inventory of mesh claims handled or controlled by another
plaintiffs' counsel for a total additional commitment of $22.0
million. As with prior settlements, this agreement was entered
into solely by way of compromise and settlement and was not in any
way an admission of liability or fault by the Company or AMS.
Including the settlements entered into during 2014, AMS has agreed
to make future payments up to a total of approximately $920.0
million. Of the amounts settled prior to June 30, 2014,
approximately $850 million is expected to be paid by June 30, 2015
and is classified as Accrued expenses in the June 30, 2014
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, with the remainder to be
paid over time.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 600 MCP Cases Filed As of July 29
-----------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals, and in certain cases the Company or certain of
its subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury
resulting from the use of the prescription medicine
metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movement disorders
and death. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and the Company intend to
contest all of these cases vigorously and to explore other options
as appropriate in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals.

The Company said, "Litigation similar to that described above may
also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions.
However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought
against the Company or its subsidiaries. As of July 29, 2014,
approximately 600 MCP cases, some of which may have been filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pending against
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the Company."

"The Company and its subsidiaries have reached an agreement in
principle with certain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach
resolution of substantially all of the pending MCP cases. The
agreement in principle was entered into solely by way of
compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of
liability or fault by the Company or any of its subsidiaries. An
essential element of these settlements will be participation by
the vast majority of plaintiffs involved in pending litigation. If
certain participation thresholds are not met, the Company will
have the right to terminate the agreements.

"Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will be
conditioned upon, among other things a full release and a
dismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to the
Company and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving an
award, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation process
and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and
the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept
confidential by all parties and their counsel. The cost of this
settlement has been incorporated into the increase in our product
liability reserve."


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 6th Cir. Affirmed Propoxyphene Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals and, in certain cases, the Company or certain of
its subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
originally filed in various federal and state courts alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of prescription pain
medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including cardiac impairment,
damage and death.

In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and
certain transferable cases pending in federal court were
coordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No.
2226. On March 5, 2012 and June 22, 2012, pursuant to a standing
show cause order, the MDL Judge dismissed with prejudice certain
claims against generic manufacturers, including Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals and the Company. Certain plaintiffs appealed those
decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
cases that had been pending as part of a consolidated appeal.

In November 2012, additional cases were filed in various
California state courts, and removed to corresponding federal
courts. Many of these cases have already been remanded, although
appeals are being pursued. A coordinated proceeding was formed in
Los Angeles.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and the Company intend to contest all of
these cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate
in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals.

The Company said, "Litigation similar to that described above may
also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions.
However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought
against the Company or its subsidiaries."

As of July 29, 2014, approximately 40 propoxyphene cases, some of
which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the
Company.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: MDL Formed to Include TRT Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc., and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has
been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury
resulting from the use of prescription medications containing
testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including pulmonary embolism,
stroke, and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries.

In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI and other
manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable cases
pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern District
of Illinois as part of MDL No.2545.

The Company said, "Litigation similar to that described above may
also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and
cases brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL 2545. However, we
cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or
whether any such additional litigation will be brought against the
Company or EPI, but EPI intends to contest the litigation
vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in the best
interests of EPI and the Company."

As of July 29, 2014, approximately 5 cases are currently pending
against EPI, including a class action complaint filed in Canada.


ESTRELLA LATINA: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Bautista Cabrera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Santiago Canela, Individually, Santiago
Canela, as officer, director, shareholder, and/or principal of
Estrella Latina Corp., d/b/a Estrella Latina, Estrella Latina
Corp. d/b/a Estrella Latina, Case No. 1:14-cv-04874 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sumantra T. Sinha, Esq.
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Ste. 519
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7180
      Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
      E-mail: tsinha@vkvlawyers.com


EQT PRODUCTION: Class Certification in Gas Royalty Suit Overturned
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Robinson Gibson, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports
that U.S. District Court lacked the "requisite rigor" to make sure
the requirements for a certified class-action lawsuit were met in
a series of cases involving Southwest Virginia landowners and gas
companies, judges for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
decided, granting an appeal and overturning the court's decision.

In a written decision released on Aug. 19, Judges Albert Diaz, J.
Harvie Wilkenson III and Barbara Milano Keenan wrote that the
District Court abused its discretion when certifying the five
cases as class-action suits.  The judges laid out the reasons the
suits didn't qualify, including that the District Court failed to
determine if identifying all the class members would make the
proceedings too onerous.

The suits were certified for class-action status in September 2012
by U.S. District Judge James P. Jones in Abingdon, Virginia.

Plaintiffs in the cases allege that EQT Production Co. and CNX Gas
Co. have unlawfully deprived them of royalty payments from coalbed
methane gas production in Southwest Virginia.

The gas companies petitioned for permission to appeal the orders
granting class-action status, according to the decision and the
three judges granted the appeal and essentially overturned the
decision.

"At this point, we only conclude that certification was
premature," the judges wrote.  "We recognize that there are
numerous [coalbed methane] owners in Virginia who haven't received
a penny of [coalbed methane] royalties and others who may have
gotten less than their due.  We are not unsympathetic to their
plight.  But sympathy alone cannot justify certification."
The case has been sent back to District Court, where the ball is
in Jones' court, said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University
of Richmond School of Law.

He said a trend in the Supreme Court lately has been to require a
tighter case for certifying class-action status.

"That may be what's happening here," he said. ". . . It's not that
[Jones] couldn't ultimately satisfy them or that the class is not
certified, but he will have to do more to make sure it's
certified."

He said this decision probably means it will take longer for the
case to move through the court system.  It could take Judge Jones
a while to go through the decision, Mr. Tobias said.  He added
that it might be hard for the case to move forward if it is not a
class-action suit because it would likely be difficult for each of
the plaintiffs to push individual cases through the system.

Judge Jones might write a new opinion, Mr. Tobias said, or he
could try to get the parties to settle, which seems unlikely given
the contentious nature of the case.

"The question is how quickly Judge Jones could turn it around,"
Mr. Tobias said.  "And if the defendants don't like that, they
could appeal again."


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Product Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ravinder Rangi and Melissa C. Macias, Individually And On Behalf
Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Examsoft Worldwide, Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-01919 (E.D. Cal., August 15, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to disclose that SoftTest and its
supporting systems had fundamental flaws that cause uploading and
downloading problems

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Havila C. Unrein, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: hunrein@kellerrohrback.com


EXEL INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Harris" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelvin W. Harris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Exel, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01231 (S.D. Ohio, August
14, 2014), alleges that the Defendant fails to properly provide a
clear and conspicuous disclosure or procure a lawful authorization
from applicants prior to obtaining consumer reports for employment
purposes.

Exel, Inc. functions as a contract logistics provider placing
employees in warehouses owned and operated by large retailers and
distributors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
      Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
      O'TOOLE, MCLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA, CO. LPA
      5455 Detroit Rd
      Sheffield Village, OH 44054
      Telephone: (440) 930-4001
      Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
      E-mail: apecora@omdplaw.com
              mdooley@omdplaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Propane Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Halgerson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas, L.P.
d/b/a Blue Rhino, Amerigas Partners, L.P., d/b/a AmeriGas Cylinder
Exchange, and UGI Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01913 (S.D. Cal.,
August 14, 2014), arises out of a conspiracy to fix fill levels of
exchangeable portable cylinder tanks containing propane gas
commonly referred to as propane exchange tanks.

The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business,
and own or have access to distribution locations nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy Carol Manifold, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ
      750 B Street, Symphony Towers Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101-5050
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over Propane Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tuban Petroleum LLC; 33 and a Third, LLC; Tuban 610 LLC; Highway
182 LLC; West Main Street LLC; Roth's Country Corner, Inc.; 1919
Airline Hwy LLC; East Airline LLC; Gramercy Cheap Smokes LLC,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership;
Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as
Blue Rhino, Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, also
doing business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange; and UGI Corporation,
a corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-04214 (W.D. Mo., August 13, 2014),
arises out of a conspiracy to fix the price of propane sold in
exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly referred to as propane
exchange tanks.

The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business,
and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
      2500 City Center Square, 1100 Main
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

         - and -

      Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
      Irma L. Netting, Esq
      LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
      15058 River Road, P.O. Box 904
      Hahnville, LA 70057
      Telephone: (985) 783-6789
      Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
      E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
              irma@lemmonlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 798-5300
      Facsimile: (619) 571-2253
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com


FLUIDMASTER INC: Faces "Wyble" Suit Over Braided Lines Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky E. Wyble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fluidmaster Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
2:14-cv-01826 (D. Ariz., August 16, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to disclose that the Braided Lines products
contained a material design defect which caused the Braided Lines
to rupture and burst, or alternatively break at the coupling nut,
causing harm not only to the Braided Lines, but also to other real
and personal property.

Fluidmaster Inc. is a California corporation with its corporate
headquarters and principal place of business located at 30800
Rancho Viejo Road, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675. It
conducts substantial business in Arizona and throughout the United
States, including the sale and distribution of its NO-BURST
Braided Lines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      B. Lance Entrekin, Esq.
      THE ENTREKIN LAW FIRM
      One East Camelback Road, #710
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 954-1123
      Facsimile: (602) 682-6450
      E-mail: lance@entrekinlaw.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             gabramson@bm.net

        - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      Bank of America Center
      550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com


GAP INC: Sells Inferior Clothing at Factory Outlets, Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
The Gap sells inferior clothing at factory outlet stores to
unwitting customers who believe they are the same quality clothes
as are sold in the retailer's main stores, according to a class
action lawsuit.

Gap and Banana Republic customer Linda Rubenstein sued The Gap in
California Superior Court, alleging false advertising, unfair
competition and violation of California consumer laws.

Rubenstein claims Gap hides tags with three squares on Gap and
Banana Republic clothes that are sold only in outlet stores.  The
tag does not indicate that the clothing is of "lesser quality" and
customers have no way of knowing what the tag means, she says.

"There is no other indication, in the store or on the garment,
that suggests the factory store clothing was never actually sold
at the traditional Banana Republic or Gap stores and/or made of
lesser quality," the complaint states.

"Unless the ordinary shopper is diligent in their retail store
research what the three squares mean, defendant's deceptive
practices will not be discovered."

Rubenstein wants The Gap enjoined from unlawful business
practices, plus restitution, disgorgement, an accounting, damages
and costs.

In the multibillion-dollar clothing and accessories business, The
Gap is a dominant force, with Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy,
Piperlime, Athleta, and Intermix brands.  The multinational
retailer's net sales in 2013 were $16.1 billion, according to the
lawsuit.

The Gap did not immediately respond to an emailed request for
comment.

Represented by the same attorney, Linda Rubinstein filed a similar
class action against Neiman Marcus, on August 7.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GAWKER MEDIA: Court Certified Class of Former Unpaid Interns
------------------------------------------------------------
Gawker must face a class action lawsuit from its former unpaid
interns until an appellate court sorts out whether another media
company's similar practices violated U.S. labor law in a different
case, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

Aulistar Mark and Andrew Hudson sued Gawker and its editor-in-
chief Nick Denton last year on behalf of interns who worked in New
York or elsewhere and were paid below the minimum wage.

Their lawsuit followed a spate of similar lawsuits against New
York-based media giants that rely on unpaid labor.  One case was
filed by staffers for Hearst-owned magazines such as Harper's
Bazaar, Cosmo, Marie Claire, Esquire, Redbook and Seventeen.
Another involved interns from the film "Black Swan," who accused
Fox Searchlight of misclassifying their employee status to avoid
paying them.

The plaintiffs in the case against Hearst lost in Federal Court
last year, but that decision is under appeal.

On August 15, 2014, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan ruled that
she would allow the Gawker interns to advance their case until the
appellate court clarifies the law.

"At this stage, the court need not definitely weigh in on this
dispute, which is currently the subject of an appeal in the Second
Circuit," Nathan wrote in a 15-page opinion.

To prove that they were "stand-ins for compensated employees,"
Gawker's ex-interns pointed to job postings looking for workers to
help with "'[a]ssisting' in various editorial and technical
capacities, 'help[ing] us with our beloved communities,' and
'stressful labor under constant deadlines,'" according to the
opinion.

"The last description is surely tongue-in-cheek," Nathan wrote.

Attorneys for neither party immediately responded to a request for
comment.

The case is Aulistar Mark and Andrew Hudson v. Gawker Media LLC
and Nick Denton, Case No. 1:13-cv-04347-AJN, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Delays Briefing in Ignition-Switch Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal bankruptcy judge on Aug. 18 delayed briefing to
give plaintiffs attorneys suing General Motors Co. over ignition-
switch defects time to file a consolidated complaint.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber of the Southern District of
New York also blocked requests for discovery, at least for now,
according to Jonathan Flaxer -- jflaxer@golenbock.com -- a partner
at New York's Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe.

In an Aug. 15 letter to the court, GM advocated holding off any
rulings on two of the four "threshold issues" at stake in
bankruptcy court, where it has moved to toss out most of the cases
as precluded under its 2009 bankruptcy.  GM attorney Arthur
Steinberg noted that plaintiffs lawyers in more than 100 ignition-
switch lawsuits planned to file their first consolidated complaint
in 60 days.

"Only then will all parties be able to see what precisely is being
alleged by the plaintiffs," wrote Mr. Steinberg, a partner in the
New York office of King & Spalding.

In court filings, designated lead plaintiffs counsel Sander
Esserman -- esserman@sbep-law.com -- a shareholder at Dallas-based
Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, agreed with GM's plan.

But Daniel Golden -- dgolden@akingump.com -- head of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld's financial-restructuring practice group in
New York, who represents the $1 billion trust for GM creditors,
sought a delay on all four threshold issues, which Judge Gerber
granted.

The threshold issues include whether the claims being asserted are
against GM as it existed before its bankruptcy or after, and
whether the claimants were denied due process because GM didn't
disclose the ignition-switch defect at the time of its Chapter 11
filing.

Messrs. Golden and Esserman did not return calls for comment.
One plaintiffs group, led by Mr. Flaxer, also sought more
discovery. Gerber rejected that request.

"The court for the time being denied my request to take limited
discovery, but he denied it without prejudice and is willing to
reconsider that issue after the briefing has been done,"
Mr. Flaxer said.

Judge Gerber also denied a request for discovery from a lawyer for
a woman whose husband and four children were killed when the
family's Chevrolet Malibu hit a pole on a grassy median while on a
highway in Houston.  Dori Phillips -- then Dori Powledge --
originally claimed an electrical malfunction caused the 2005
crash, according to court filings by her attorney, Joshua Davis of
Josh Davis Law Firm in Houston.  GM had denied any defects and
blamed the crash on her husband, Adam Powledge, claiming he had
committed suicide and murdered his children.

Although GM did not include that model in its recalls of 2.6
million vehicles for ignition-switch defects, the Malibu is "now
the most recalled GM vehicle for 2014," wrote Davis, who has filed
a new suit on behalf of Phillips.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, also in the Southern
District of New York, has appointed lead plaintiffs counsel in the
multidistrict litigation over the ignition-switch recalls.  On
Aug. 15, Judge Furman named Steve Berman, Elizabeth Cabraser and
Robert Hilliard as co-lead counsel.  Mr. Berman, managing partner
of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, and Cabraser, a partner
at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, both served
in lead roles in the sudden-acceleration litigation against Toyota
Motor Corp.  Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi
has filed many of the injury and death cases against GM.

Dawn Barrios -- dbarrios@bkc-law.com -- a partner at Barrios
Kingsdorf & Casteix in New Orleans, will serve as liaison counsel
for the state court plaintiffs, and Robin Greenwald, of counsel to
New York's Weitz & Luxenberg, as liaison counsel to the bankruptcy
proceedings.  The other members of the executive committee are:

   -- David Boies, chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in
New York.

   -- Lance Cooper, founding partner of The Cooper Firm in
Marietta, Ga.

   -- Melanie Cyganowski, attorney at New York's Otterbourg.

   -- Adam Levitt, director in the Chicago office of Wilmington,
Del.-based Grant & Eisenhofer.

   -- Dianne Nast, founder of Philadelphia's NastLaw.

   -- Peter Prieto of Miami's Podhurst Orseck.

   -- Frank Pitre of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame,
Calif.

   -- Joseph Rice, founding member of Motley Rice in Mt. Pleasant,
S.C.

   -- Mark Robinson, senior partner at Robinson Calcagnie Robinson
Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif.

   -- Marc Seltzer, partner in the Los Angeles office of Susman
Godfrey


GLENMARK GENERICS: Birth Control Packaging Class Action Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney, writing for Law360, reports that a Michigan
appeals court tossed a proposed class action against Glenmark
Generics Inc. USA alleging the company unjustly profited from the
sale of birth control pills that were later recalled, saying the
company hadn't directly benefited from a woman who bought the
medication.

In an unpublished opinion, a three-judge panel upheld a Jackson
County circuit court decision dismissing a claim against the
company by Abigail Smith, who alleged Glenmark unjustly enriched
itself by profiting from the sale of oral contraceptives that were
subsequently recalled because some of their packaging had been
mismarked.

Ms. Smith failed to show that Glenmark had directly benefited from
her, because she purchased the contraceptives from a retail
pharmacy rather than the wholesalers and distributors that the
company sells the product to, the panel said.

"Defendant did not sell the contraceptives directly to [Smith],
and [Smith] admitted that she did not purchase the contraceptives
from defendant, but rather from a pharmacy," according to the
opinion.  "Therefore, the trial court did not err by granting
summary disposition for defendant and dismissing [Smith's] claim."

Glenmark sells and distributes oral contraceptives in the U.S. to
wholesalers and distributors as well as retail chains, but doesn't
manufacture or package the drugs, according to the opinion.  The
company's customers then sell the products to retail pharmacies,
the panel said.

In February 2012, Glenmark recalled seven lots of its oral
contraceptives after receiving isolated reports that the weekly
tablet orientation on some of the packs was reversed, the panel
stated.

The trial court ruled that Ms. Smith hadn't shown Glenmark
received a direct benefit from her, noting that the company asked
customers to return pills to pharmacies, who would then work out
any reimbursement issues with its wholesalers and distributors,
according to the opinion.

The panel agreed, saying that while the standard for establishing
a claim of unjust enrichment only requires that a defendant must
receive some benefit from the plaintiff, Michigan state court
decisions make it clear that the benefit must come directly from
the plaintiff.

Judges Henry William Saad, Donald S. Owens and Kirsten Frank Kelly
sat on the panel for the State of Michigan Court of Appeals.

The plaintiff is represented by Craig E. Hilborn of Hilborn &
Hilborn PC and Mark R. Bendure -- marc@bendurethomaslaw.com -- of
Bendure & Thomas.

Glenmark is represented by Jill M. Wheaton -- jwheaton@dykema.com
-- and Aaron L. Vorce -- avorce@dykema.com -- of Dykema Gossett
PLLC.

The case is Smith v. Glenmark Generics Inc. Ltd., case number
315898, in the State of Michigan Court of Appeals.


HIALEAH TROPICAL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Martinez" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rios Martinez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Hialeah Tropical Supermarket, Inc., Diango
Barrios, and Carlos Barrios, Case No. 1:14-cv-23013 (S.D. Fla.,
August 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

Hialeah Tropical Supermarket, Inc. owns and operates a supermarket
within Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HSBC USA: Faces Class Actions Over Manipulation of Gold Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 since March 2014,
numerous putative class actions have been filed in the US District
Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New
Jersey and the Northern District of California naming HSBC and a
number of other members of The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd as
defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 2004 to the
present, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and
gold derivatives during the afternoon London gold fix in order to
reap profits on proprietary trades. Plaintiffs have filed a motion
for transfer with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
requesting assignment to and consolidation in the New York
District Court. That motion is pending.

HSBC USA Inc. ("HSBC USA"), incorporated under the laws of
Maryland, is a New York State based bank holding company and an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: Faces Class Actions Over Manipulation of Silver Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 July 2014, putative
class actions were filed in the US District Court for the Southern
and Eastern Districts of New York naming HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC
Bank USA and the other members of The London Silver Market Fixing
Ltd as defendants.  The complaints allege that, from January 2007
to the present, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of
physical silver and silver derivatives for their collective
benefit in violation of the US Commodity Exchange Act and US
antitrust laws. These actions are at a very early stage.

HSBC USA Inc. ("HSBC USA"), incorporated under the laws of
Maryland, is a New York State based bank holding company and an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 In re Herald, Primeo
and Thema Funds Securities Litigation, on May 28, 2014, after the
United States Supreme Court decided Chadbourne & Park LLP v.
Troice, 134 S. Ct. 1058 (2014), the Second Circuit denied Thema
International Fund plc's petition for panel rehearing following
its affirmance of the district court's dismissal of all U.S. class
action claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non conveniens
grounds. The petition for rehearing en banc remains pending.

HSBC USA Inc. ("HSBC USA"), incorporated under the laws of
Maryland, is a New York State based bank holding company and an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: Named as Defendant in Benchmark Rate Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 May 2014 HSBC, HSBC
Bank plc, HSBC USA and HSBC Finance, along with the other U.S.
dollar Libor panel banks, were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed by two mutual funds managed by Prudential Investment
Portfolios seeking unspecified damages as a result of alleged
artificial suppression of U.S. dollar Libor rates which plaintiffs
allege resulted in plaintiffs receiving substantially less
interest payments in connection with certain transactions entered
into with the defendants.  Additionally, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, in its role as receiver for several failed
banks, filed a complaint against the British Bankers Association
and the U.S. dollar Libor panel banks, including HSBC, HSBC Bank
USA, and The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, seeking
unspecified damages as a result of fraudulent artificial
suppression of U.S. dollar Libor rates. These actions have been
transferred and/or consolidated with a U.S. dollar Libor Multi-
District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. HSBC and HSBC Bank plc are
defendants in that proceeding as well. These actions are subject
to a stay imposed by the court.

HSBC USA Inc. ("HSBC USA"), incorporated under the laws of
Maryland, is a New York State based bank holding company and an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc.


HSBC USA: Expert Discovery to Continue Through August 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 the case, Federal
Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y.
No. CV 11-6189-LAK), various defendants' motions for summary
judgment and other applications have been fully briefed and are
currently pending before the court.  Expert discovery is scheduled
to continue through August 2014.  The aggregate unpaid principal
balance of the securities was approximately $1.5 billion and $1.6
billion at June 30, 2014 and December 30, 2013, respectively.

HSBC USA Inc. ("HSBC USA"), incorporated under the laws of
Maryland, is a New York State based bank holding company and an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings
Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc.


IUOE LOCAL 3: Court Dismissed "Slack" Suit With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdiction and standing issues tank large swaths of a lurid
class action by disgruntled union members, a federal judge ruled
on August 19, 2014, according to William Dotinga at Courthouse
News Service.

David Slack is the lead plaintiff in the 2013 lawsuit that accuses
the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 3 --
headquartered in Alameda -- and 68 other defendants of violating
labor management laws, the California Labor Code, ERISA and
federal anti-racketeering law.  Originally clocking in at 111
pages, the amended complaint now stands at 125 pages and 526
paragraphs.

The IUOE represents heavy-equipment operators and other
construction workers and is the 10th largest union in the AFL-CIO.
Local 3 is its largest branch, representing workers in California,
Nevada, Utah, Hawaii and the Pacific Rim islands.

In addition to claiming that the union illegally forced members to
contribute 1 percent of their salaries to a political action
committee fund, the plaintiffs said they've paid millions to the
Hawaiian Stabilization Fund -- an alleged multimillion-dollar
slush fund for union bosses disguised as a mechanism to keep
contractors from operating "double-breasted" and working both
union and nonunion jobs.

The disgruntled union members also accused union leadership of
squandering $50 million in IUOE pension funds on a bad investment
vehicle born out of nepotism, and of cavorting with the Japanese
Yakuza and the Chinese Triads crime syndicates.

In response to five separate motions to dismiss the class action,
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled on August 19 that most of
the union members' causes of action fell victim to either a lack
of jurisdiction on the court's end or a lack of standing for the
members.

Specifically, Chen found that all of the union members'
allegations regarding the Hawaiian Stabilization Fund involve
state-law causes of action over which the federal court has no
jurisdiction.  While federal courts can exercise control over
state-law claims when they are related to other federal causes of
action, the bulk of the complaint involves ERISA and organized
labor claims that have little to do with the Hawaiian money, Chen
said.

For the pension-linked actions, Chen found that union members
could not meet the high standards to claim they suffered monetary
damage because union bosses' alleged misconduct threatened the
entire plan.  The best they can hope for is equitable relief to
bring back a sense of fiduciary duty to the union leadership -- or
have them removed as trustees of the pension fund, according to
the 46-page ruling.

Union members have shown enough misconduct, however, to have
standing with regard to a botched investment in the Longview
Construction Loan Fund, a vehicle sold and managed by the wife of
a union leader.

Chen nevertheless questioned whether they would be able to make
their case in the face of future challenges or at trial.

"The court questions whether plaintiffs will be able to establish
at the summary judgment stage that a $50 million loss represented
a material risk to the health of the pension fund such that all
plan participants suffered an 'injury in fact,'" Chen wrote.
"Plaintiffs also face a potential problem in demonstrating that it
was the defendants' alleged misconduct -- and not the global
recession -- that created any risk of default in the pension fund.
Nonetheless, these issues are more properly resolved at the
summary judgment stage where they can be addressed on a more
thorough record."

Chen also dismissed claims that union leaders broke federal union
laws by threatening members with termination to force their
support in elections and forcing them to contribute to re-election
campaign coffers.

"Plaintiffs have failed to adequately state a cause of action
under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act," Chen
wrote.  "First, to the extent that they base their claim on the
allegations that defendant [IUOE vice president Russell] Burns has
forced Local 3 employees to contribute to his re-election funds
under threat of termination, such conduct is not proscribed by the
LMRDA.  In Finnegan v. Leu, the Supreme Court held that the
termination of union employees for 'political' reasons did not
violate the LMRDA.  The court held that it was 'readily apparent,
both from the language of [LMRDA] and from the legislative history
of Title I, that it was rank-and-file union members -- not union
officers or employees, as such -- whom Congress sought to
protect.'"

Chen noted that the Finnegan court held that federal union laws do
not restrict the freedom of bosses to choose a staff with
compatible views or that the LMRDA was even meant to address the
union members themselves.

"The first amended complaint merely alleges that Local 3 staff
were 'forced' to contribute 'under threat of termination or loss
of their jobs if they failed to contribute,'" Chen wrote.
"However, it does not allege the forced contributions are part of
a purposeful attempt more generally to suppress dissent.  While
plaintiffs argue that the forced contributed 'perverts union
politics and diminishes union democracy and responsiveness to the
will of the union,' there are no factual allegations in the
complaint to support this contention or to demonstrate that the
firings at issue are part of an organized scheme to stifle dissent
in the union.  Accordingly, the court need not reach at this time
the question of whether any exception to Finnegan applies.
Rather, as currently pled, the court concludes that plaintiffs'
allegations regarding the alleged forced contribution scheme fails
to state a claim under the LMRDA.  Again in passing the LMRDA,
Congress did not intend to protect an individual's status as a
union employee or officer."

Similarly, Chen dismissed RICO claims that any of the defendants
used extortion as a means to force contributions.  He declined to
address whether the plaintiffs had made a case that the union
bosses engaged in a pattern of racketeering, however.

The union members have 60 days to fix the deficiencies, Chen said,
urging all parties to begin filing "omnibus motions to aid
judicial review and prevent duplication of arguments."

The case is David Slack, et al. v. International Union of
Operating Engineers, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-05001-EMC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


J&T SUPERMARKET: "Mantilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Mantilla, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. J&T Supermarket, Inc., Juan Tendilla, Tony Tendilla,
and Francisco Tendilla, Case No. 1:14-cv-04836 (E.D.N.Y., August
14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

J&T Supermarket, Inc. is a supermarket located at 117-31 Farmers
Boulevard, Saint Albans, New York 11412.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JM MOWING: Faces "Esqueda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Elias Esqueda, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. JM Mowing, Inc., and Joshua Murphy,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06262 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

JM Mowing, Inc. is a landscaping company located at 24W713 Lake
Street, Roselle, Illinois 60172.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: CIO Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Firm has been sued
in a consolidated shareholder purported class action, a
consolidated purported class action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and shareholder
derivative actions brought in Delaware state court and in New York
federal and state court relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic
credit portfolio managed by the Firm's Chief Investment Office
("CIO"). Plaintiffs in two of the shareholder derivative actions
and the ERISA action have appealed the dismissal of their claims.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Actions by CDS Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 July 2013, the
European Commission (the "EC") filed a Statement of Objections
against the Firm (including various subsidiaries) and other
industry members in connection with its ongoing investigation into
the credit default swaps ("CDS") marketplace. The EC asserts that
between 2006 and 2009, a number of investment banks acted
collectively through the International Swaps and Derivatives
Association ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited ("Markit") to
foreclose exchanges from the potential market for exchange-traded
credit derivatives.

The Firm submitted a response to the Statement of Objections in
January 2014, and the EC held a hearing in May 2014.

The U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") also has an ongoing
investigation into the CDS marketplace, which was initiated in
July 2009.

Separately, the Firm and other industry members are defendants in
nine purported class actions (all consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York) filed
on behalf of purchasers and sellers of CDS and asserting federal
antitrust law claims. Each of the complaints refers to the ongoing
investigations by the EC and DOJ into the CDS market, and alleges
that the defendant investment banks and dealers, including the
Firm, as well as Markit and/or ISDA, collectively prevented new
entrants into the CDS market. Defendants moved to dismiss in May
2014.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Forex Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Firm has received
information requests, document production notices and related
inquiries from various U.S. and non-U.S. government authorities
regarding the Firm's foreign exchange trading business. The Firm
is responding to and continuing to cooperate with the relevant
authorities.

JPMorgan also said that since November 2013, a number of class
actions have been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against a number of foreign
exchange dealers, including the Firm, for alleged violations of
federal and state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an
alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates reported
on the WM/Reuters service. In March 2014, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which defendants
moved to dismiss in May 2014.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motions to Dismiss Pending in Merchants' Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 group of merchants
and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints
alleging that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain banks,
conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange
fees, enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws, and
engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.  The parties have
entered into an agreement to settle the cases, for a cash payment
of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs (of which the Firm's share
is approximately 20%) and an amount equal to ten basis points of
credit card interchange for a period of eight months to be
measured from a date within 60 days of the end of the opt-out
period.  The agreement also provides for modifications to each
credit card network's rules, including those that prohibit
surcharging credit card transactions. In December 2013, the Court
issued a decision granting final approval of the settlement.

JPMorgan said a number of merchants have appealed. Certain
merchants that opted out of the class settlement have filed
actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the Firm
and other banks, which are subject to pending motions to dismiss.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Added as Defendant in EURIBOR Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Firm has been named
as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual
and class actions filed in various United States District Courts,
in which plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various
periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually
or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR,
Euroyen TIBOR and/or EURIBOR rates by submitting rates that were
artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted
in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values
are impacted by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Euroyen
TIBOR or EURIBOR and assert a variety of claims including
antitrust claims seeking treble damages.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related purported class actions have been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2013, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions
to dismiss the claims in three lead class actions, including
dismissal with prejudice of the antitrust claims, and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the
appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

In September 2013, class plaintiffs in two of the three lead class
actions filed amended complaints and others sought leave to amend
their complaints to add additional allegations. Defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaints and opposed the requests to
amend.

In June 2014, the Court issued a further order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss the remaining
claims.  In relation to the Firm, the Court has permitted certain
claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law claims to
proceed.

With respect to the third lead class action, which the Court
dismissed in its entirety, after plaintiff's appeal was dismissed
by the Second Circuit, plaintiff sought and obtained leave to
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether its
appeal could proceed before final resolution of the other
consolidated class actions.

To date, the other U.S. dollar LIBOR cases have been stayed.

The purported class action alleging manipulation of Euroyen TIBOR
and Yen LIBOR was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of plaintiffs who
purchased or sold exchange-traded Euroyen futures and options
contracts.

In March 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss including dismissal of plaintiff's
antitrust and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants have filed
motions to reconsider, seeking dismissal of the remaining claims.
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to further amend the complaint
to add additional parties and claims.

In March 2014, the Firm was added as a defendant in a putative
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to the interest rate
benchmark EURIBOR.

The Firm was also named as a nominal defendant in a derivative
action in the Supreme Court of New York in the County of New York
against certain current and former members of the Firm's board of
directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
the Firm's purported role in manipulating LIBOR. In March 2014,
the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiff
did not appeal this decision.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Provides Update on Madoff-Related Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 settlements with the
court-appointed trustee (the "Trustee") for Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS") and with plaintiffs
representing a class of former BLMIS customers who lost all or a
portion of their principal investments with BLMIS have now been
approved. Certain customers have opted out of the class action
settlement.

JPMorgan also said that various subsidiaries of the Firm,
including J.P. Morgan Securities plc, have been named as
defendants in lawsuits filed in Bankruptcy Court in New York
arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry
Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited (together, "Fairfield"), so-
called Madoff feeder funds. These actions seek to recover payments
made by the funds to defendants totaling approximately $155
million. All but two of these actions have been dismissed.

In addition, a purported class action was brought by investors in
certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a
motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims
against the Firm and certain subsidiaries to an already pending
purported class action in the same court. The allegations in these
complaints largely track those raised by the Trustee. The Court
dismissed these complaints and plaintiffs have appealed. In
September 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The plaintiffs
then petitioned the entire Court for a rehearing of the appeal,
and in May 2014 the Court denied the petition.

The Firm is a defendant in five other Madoff-related investor
actions pending in New York state court. The allegations in all of
these actions are essentially identical, and involve claims
against the Firm for, among other things, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. The
Firm has moved to dismiss these actions. In May 2014, the parties
submitted briefs on the res judicata effect of the class action
settlement and a decision is pending.

A purported class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who
were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money
out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi
scheme and were not included in the class action settlement. These
plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law,
federal and state racketeering statutes and multiple common law
claims including breach of trust, aiding and abetting
embezzlement, unjust enrichment, conversion and commercial bad
faith. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in the amount of
the last statement balance for each plaintiff and punitive
damages.

A similar action has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Florida Action"),
although it is not styled as a class action, and the plaintiffs,
in addition to net winners, include a small number of net loser
opt-outs. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Florida
Action which includes only net winners, includes a claim pursuant
to a Florida statute and dismisses three common law claims that
were included in the earlier complaint.

Three shareholder derivative actions have also been filed in New
York federal and state court against the Firm, as nominal
defendant, and certain of its current and former Board members,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Firm's
relationship with Bernard Madoff and the alleged failure to
maintain effective internal controls to detect fraudulent
transactions. The actions seek declaratory relief and damages. In
July 2014, the federal court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss two of the actions and defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the remaining state court action.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Named as Defendant in MF Global-Related Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC has been named as one of several defendants in a number of
purported class actions filed by purchasers of MF Global's
publicly traded securities asserting violations of federal
securities laws and alleging that the offering documents contained
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
MF Global. The Firm also has responded to inquiries from the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") relating to the
Firm's banking and other business relationships with MF Global,
including as a depository for MF Global's customer segregated
accounts.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Named as Defendants in MBS Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 JPMorgan Chase and
affiliates (together, "JPMC"), Bear Stearns and affiliates
(together, "Bear Stearns") and certain Washington Mutual
affiliates (together, "Washington Mutual") have been named as
defendants in a number of cases in their various roles in
offerings of mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"). These cases
include purported class action suits on behalf of MBS purchasers,
actions by individual MBS purchasers and actions by monoline
insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and
interest for particular tranches of MBS offerings.  There are
currently pending and tolled investor and monoline insurer claims
involving MBS with an original principal balance of approximately
$48 billion, of which $42 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or
Washington Mutual as issuer and $6 billion involves JPMC, Bear
Stearns or Washington Mutual solely as underwriter.  The Firm and
certain of its current and former officers and Board members have
also been sued in shareholder derivative actions relating to the
Firm's MBS activities, and trustees have asserted or have
threatened to assert claims that loans in securitization trusts
should be repurchased.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motions to Dismiss Denied in Two Cases
------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 three purported class
actions were brought against JPMC and Bear Stearns as mortgage-
backed securities issuers (and, in some cases, also as
underwriters of their own MBS offerings) in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New
York. The Firm has reached an agreement to settle one of these
purported class actions, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. That settlement has
received final court approval. Motions to dismiss have largely
been denied in the remaining two cases pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which
are in various stages of litigation.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Pending in Foreclosure Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Attorney General of
Massachusetts filed an action against the Firm, other servicers
and a mortgage recording company, asserting claims for various
alleged wrongdoings relating to mortgage assignments and use of
the industry's electronic mortgage registry. The court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the
action, which remains pending.

The Firm also said that it is named as a defendant in a purported
class action lawsuit relating to its mortgage foreclosure
procedures. The plaintiffs have moved for class certification.
One shareholder derivative action has been filed in New York
Supreme Court against the Firm's Board of Directors alleging that
the Board failed to exercise adequate oversight as to wrongful
conduct by the Firm regarding mortgage servicing.

In June 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is
pending.

The Firm also said that the Civil Division of the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is
conducting an investigation concerning the Firm's compliance with
the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and Equal Credit Opportunity Act
("ECOA") in connection with its mortgage lending practices. In
addition, three municipalities have commenced litigation against
the Firm alleging violations of the FHA and ECOA and seeking
damages in the form of lost tax revenue and increased municipal
costs associated with foreclosed properties. A motion to dismiss
has been filed in one of the actions.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is responding to inquiries by the
Executive Office of the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee and various
regional U.S. Bankruptcy Trustees relating to mortgage payment
change notices and escrow statements in bankruptcy proceedings.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $227.3 billion in stockholders'
equity as of June 30, 2014. The Firm is a leader in investment
banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses,
commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset
management. Under the J.P. Morgan and Chase brands, the Firm
serves millions of customers in the U.S. and many of the world's
most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.


KANZAMAN INC: Faces "Odeesho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Odeesho, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated v. Kanzaman, Inc., Hermiz Younan and Elias Younan, Case
No. 1:14-cv-06234 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Kanzaman, Inc. owns and operates a Lebanese restaurant called Kan
Zaman, located at 617 North Wells Street, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie G. Sypulski, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE JAMIE GOLDEN SYPULSKI
      150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 360-0960
      E-mail: jsypulski@sbcglobal.net


KEY ENERGY: Faces "Cady" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Cady, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated V. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J.
Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, Case No. 4:14-cv-02368 (S.D. Tex.,
August 15, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that the Company's
production for Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) was in decline, that
the Company engaged in improper conduct related to its operations
in Russia and that the Company's business practices in Russia were
in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Key Energy Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation engaged in oil
and gas exploration business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald Dean Gresham, Esq.
      PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP
      2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 252-1888
      Facsimile: (214) 252-1889
      E-mail: dean@paynemitchell.com


KONTIKI BEACH: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Holdefer, on behalf of himself and others similarly
Situated, v. Kontiki Beach Management I, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00339 (S.D. Tex., August 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kontiki Beach Management I, LLC is a management company that
leases vacation properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Lighted Nights Stands Over Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
HuntingtonNews.net reports that Lea Industries is recalling Lea
lighted night stands sold nationwide and in Canada from March 2013
to April 2014.  The light fixture under the night stand can
overheat and scorch carpet, posing a burn hazard.

Recalled models include: 244-421 Willow Run in a toffee finish,
245-421 Willow Run in a white finish and 237-420 Americana in a
medium oak finish.  They measure about 22 inches wide, 16 inches
deep and 27 inches high.  "Lea" and the model number are printed
on a label on the back of the night stands.

Consumers should contact Lea Industries at (888) 770-7116 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at
www.leafurniture.com to arrange for a free repair and a $50 gift
card.  More info at www.recalls.org

FLAT SCREEN TVS

VIZIO is recalling VIZIO E-Series 39-inch and 42-inch televisions
sold nationwide from December 2013 to June 2014.  The stand
assembly can fail and cause the television to tip over
unexpectedly, posing a risk of impact injury.

This recall involves Vizio E-series 39- and 42-inch Full-Array LED
flat panel televisions.  A complete list can be found at
www.recalls.org

Consumers contact VIZIO at (855) 472-7450 from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. CT Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT Saturday and
Sunday.  Consumers can also visit the firm's website www.vizio.com
for a replacement stand assembly.  More info at www.recalls.org

BAR STOOLS

Samson International is recalling Spencer Bar Stools sold
exclusively at Costco regionally in the Dallas and San Francisco
areas from May 2014 to June 2014.  The footrest can crack,
compromising the strength of the bar stool, posing a fall hazard.

This recall includes stools with Samson item number M3216604 and
Customer item number 845275 found on the bottom of the seat
cushion.

Consumers should return the stools to the Costco store where the
item was purchased for a full refund.

Consumers can also contact Samson International at (800) 488-3001
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at
www.samsoninternational.com.  More info at www.recalls.org

DIVE COMPUTERS

Johnson Outdoors Diving is recalling Scubapro Aladin2 dive
computers, commonly referred to as Aladin Square dive computers
sold nationwide and in Canada from March 2014 to June 2014.  The
dive computer can leak and stop working, posing a risk of injury
due to decompression sickness.

This recall involves the Aladin2 wrist dive computer that monitors
depth, dive time, decompression status and temperature. SCUBAPRO
is stamped on the top of the face frame and Aladin2 is printed in
white on the bottom of the face frame.  The serial number is
stamped in white on the back of the unit and ends with 003.

Consumers should return the item to an authorized SCUBAPRO dealer
or contact Johnson Outdoors Diving at (877) 467-6675 from 10:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online at
www.scubapro.com for a free replacement.  More info at
www.recalls.org


LINKEDIN CORP: Settles 2012 Data Breach Class Action for $1.25MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that social networking
service LinkedIn has agreed to pay $1.25 million in order to
settle a class-action lawsuit stemming from a 2012 data breach.

The proposed settlement, which was outlined in court papers, calls
for LinkedIn to pay up to $50 to some of the users who purchased
premium memberships to the service.  The social networking company
also promises that for the next five years, it will protect users'
passwords by "salting" and "hashing" them.

"This settlement provides an extraordinary result," lawyers for
the plaintiffs say in a motion asking U.S. District Court Judge
Edward Davila in San Jose, Calif. to approve the deal.  "By
providing significant direct cash to the class and valuable
prospective relief, the instant settlement exceeds the majority of
privacy settlements that have won preliminary and/or final
approval."

If it gets the OK, the settlement will resolve a class-action
lawsuit brought by Virginia resident Khalilah Gilmore-Wright, a
paid LinkedIn subscriber.  She alleged that she wouldn't have
purchased a premium LinkedIn membership if she had known the
company used "obsolete" security measures.

The litigation stems from an incident in 2012, when hackers
obtained access to the company's servers and then posted 6.4
million users' passwords online.

The settlement terms provide that LinkedIn's paid users can submit
a claim, but only if they declare that they read the privacy
policy and were influenced by the company's statements about
security.  Between 2007 and 2012, LinkedIn garnered around 800,000
premium subscribers, who paid at least $19.95 a month for
membership, according to court papers.  But lawyers for Ms. Wright
estimate that only 20,000 to 50,000 subscribers will be able to
qualify for payments from the settlement fund.

The deal provides that any money that isn't distributed to class
members will go to three nonprofits: the Center for Democracy and
Technology, World Privacy Forum and the Carnegie Mellon CyLab
Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory.

News of the deal comes several months after lawyers for both sides
met with a mediator.

Judge Davila will hold a hearing in January about whether to grant
the settlement preliminary approval.


MAGAR MAGAR: August 27 Hearing Scheduled for Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
DNews.com reports that Latah County Second District Judge John
Stegner on Aug. 18 denied a defense motion seeking additional time
to prepare for, among other things, a hearing scheduled Aug. 27 in
a class-action civil suit by residents of the Syringa Mobile Home
Park near Moscow against Magar E. Magar, its owner.

Mr. Magar's attorney is Greg Rauch, who started working on the
case several weeks ago.  Mr. Magar had been representing himself
until that point.


MAJOR LEAGUE: To Appeal Ruling in Two Antitrust Suits by Viewers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Major League Baseball on August 20, 2014, said it would appeal a
federal judge's ruling to permit two antitrust class actions
brought by viewers who say the league and cable companies use
"blackouts" to shut out competition, reports Nick Divito at
Courthouse News Service.

Baseball's attorney Bradley Ruskin told U.S. District Judge Shira
Scheindlin that it "respectfully disagreed" with her Aug. 15
ruling, which he called a "fundamental attack" on baseball.

"Territory rules -- that is baseball, that is what baseball is all
about," Ruskin said.  He told the judge that the U.S. Supreme
Court has seven times upheld a protection that shields baseball
from antitrust laws.  The exemption was designed as "an umbrella,
and we're entitled to that umbrella" lest we "get wet from the
rain," Ruskin said.

Baseball fans filed two lawsuits in Manhattan Federal Court in
2012, arguing that MLB and the National Hockey League conspired
with Comcast and DirecTV to black out games, to prevent them from
watching their favorite teams, or force them to pay more to watch
"out-of-market" games.

For example, if a person in New York City wants to watch a Dodgers
game in Los Angeles, s/he would have to buy a bundled package of
other, unwanted services in order to watch out-of-market events.

MLB argued that it was shielded from antitrust laws because of an
exemption in the Sports Broadcasting Act, which was passed by
Congress in 1961.

Scheindlin was unmoved by that argument, saying she would "decline
to apply the exemption to a subject that is not central to the
business of baseball, and that Congress did not intend to exempt
-- namely baseball's contracts for television broadcast rights."

Things got heated when Ruskin, of Proskauer Rose, cited what he
said were six Supreme Court cases and seven Court of Appeals
matters that addressed -- and upheld -- the exemption.

An annoyed Scheindlin shot back: "All this precedent -- are you
saying there were six Supreme Court cases and seven Circuit Court
cases and I missed them?"

She wondered why MLB failed to bring up the exemption defense when
the case was started two years ago.

"Can you tell me why you didn't bring this up two years ago?
Certainly you knew it was an antitrust case?  Wasn't that the
time?" she asked.

Peter Leckman, with Langer Grogan & Diver, said Ruskin's attempts
were "missing the analysis about how this is an exceptional case."

The consolidated lawsuits accuse the Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball and various baseball and hockey teams, several sports
networks, and Comcast and DirecTV, of conspiring to eliminate
competition over the airwaves and on the Internet, to restrict
programming and hang onto their regional monopolies.

The structure of the "territorial broadcasting system is largely
uncontested," Scheindlin found.  By agreement with their leagues,
each sports club licenses its games to be broadcast only in
certain each teams' general area, but not nationally.

What cannot be broadcast outside of a certain territory is blacked
out, in accordance with the agreements.  Fans can watch these
"out-of-market" games only when certain games with broadcasters
such as ESPN or Fox are contracted to be broadcast nationally.
The second way to watch out-of-market sporting events is through
the leagues' packages for TV and the Internet, which are
purchasable through Comcast and DirecTV.

However, such purchases require the buyer to pay for an entire
slate of out-of-market games, whether they want them or not.  Such
packages "do not show in-market games to avoid competition,"
Scheindlin said.  "Additionally, the territorial broadcast
restrictions allow each [broadcaster] to largely avoid competing
with out-of-market games produced by other RSNs [regional sports
networks]."

Meanwhile, Internet streaming of in-market games "remains largely
unavailable to consumers," she wrote.

Ruskin said his team "respectfully disagree(s)" with her opinion
and vowed to seek the interlocutory appeal on the grounds for
"difference of opinion."

It will be for Scheindlin to then decide whether to send the
appeal to the Second Circuit, or to trial.  She set a deadline for
Aug. 27 for the MLB to file its appeal.  Plaintiffs have until
Sept. 10 to respond.


MARK S. BOLAND: Faces "Cook" Suit in Pa. Over Surgery Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe L. Cook, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Mark S. Boland, D.O. and Mark S. Boland, D.O. F.A.C.O., PC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-01598 (M.D. Pa., August 14, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants failed to provide adequate control when performing
procedures on patients.

The Defendants own and operate a plastic and reconstructive
surgery clinic.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
              dlevin@lfsblaw.com


MERCK & CO: Wants Remaining Fosamax Product Liability Suits Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
after winning two bellwether suits over femur fractures suffered
by users of the osteoporosis drug Fosamax, Merck & Co. is seeking
dismissal of the roughly 500 remaining cases in the mass tort
litigation in federal court in Trenton, N.J.

On Aug. 15, Merck filed an application for entry of an order to
show cause why all pending claims in In Re: Fosamax Products
Liability Litigation should not be dismissed.

Merck cited both the June 2013 judgment in its favor in a suit by
Bernadette Glynn, who claimed the drug's labeling failed to convey
its dangers of developing a fractured femur, and the June 2014
ruling for the company in a suit by Barbara Gaynor.

Ms. Glynn used Fosamax before a January 2011 revision to the
drug's label that spelled out its potential side effects, and
Ms. Gaynor used the drug after the label was changed.  U.S.
District Judge Joel Pisano of the District of New Jersey dismissed
Ms. Glynn's suit upon finding that her state law claim for failure
to warn was preempted by federal law.  Judge Pisano dismissed
Ms. Gaynor's case after finding that the revised warning label was
adequate.

The court should order all remaining plaintiffs to show cause why
their claims should not be dismissed on federal preemption
grounds, in light of the court's ruling in Ms. Glynn's case, Merck
said in its brief.  Alternately, any remaining cases in which
plaintiffs used the drug after the 2011 label revision should show
cause why their claims should not be dismissed for reasons stated
by the court in Ms. Gaynor's case, Merck said.

Although Ms. Gaynor's case was decided based on laws of the state
of New York, where Ms. Gaynor resides, the ruling "is based on
fundamental principles that all states recognize -- most notably,
that a plaintiff cannot prevail for failure to warn if the warning
label at issue warned of the very injury she allegedly suffered,"
Merck said in its brief.

Following ruling in Ms. Glynn's case, Judge Pisano granted Merck's
motion to dismiss roughly 650 cases involving alleged injuries
occurring before Sept. 14, 2010, on preemption grounds.  Merck
said in its Aug. 15 brief that its prior motion was limited to
that group of cases on the assumption that plaintiffs who claimed
later injuries would base their claims on the contention that the
revised warning label issued in January 2011 was inadequate.
However, earlier this year, plaintiffs lawyers in the case
indicated that "no plaintiff alleges that the January 2011 label
was a proximate cause of his or her injury," Merck said.

Merck received notice from the Food and Drug Administration in
2008 that some patients using Fosamax were suffering bone
fractures.  In September 2008, Merck sought FDA permission to
revise the Fosamax warning label to include a precaution about
femur fractures among users of its drug.  The FDA denied the
request to include a reference to fractures in the precaution
section of the labeling, permitting a reference only in the
adverse reactions section.  In September 2010, the American
Society of Bone and Mineral Research published an article
indicating an association between femur fractures and the use of
drugs containing biophosphonate, the active ingredient in Fosamax.

In October 2010, the FDA said it would require makers of drugs
containing biophosphonate to add information on femur fractures to
the precaution section of their labels.  Merck incorporated the
warning concerning femur fractures in the precautions section of
the Fosamax label on Jan. 25, 2011.

Lindsey Taylor of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello
in Roseland, N.J., representing the plaintiffs, declined to
comment.  Lawyers at Weitz & Luxenberg in New York, another firm
representing the plaintiffs, did not return calls.

Karen Confoy of Fox Rothschild in Lawrenceville, N.J.,
representing Merck, did not return a call about the filing.

All told, Merck has been named in 4,430 suits claiming Fosamax
caused femur fractures.  Of those, 2,785 went to the Superior
Court of New Jersey, while another 525 were filed in state court
in California.  The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation assigned 1,120 federal cases to Judge Pisano.

Merck also was named in about 1,150 suits claiming that Fosamax
caused necrosis of the jawbone, most of which have settled.


MI COCINA: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Gomez, Alfredo Huerta, Daniel Bobadilla, Uriel Rodriguez,
and Daniel Merino, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees and former employees of defendants v. Mi Cocina
Ltd, d/b/a Mi Cocina d/b/a Taco Fanatico d/b/a M Crowd Restaurant
Group and M Crowd GP LLC, M Crowd Restaurant Group Inc
d/b/a Mi Cocina d/b/a Taco Diner d/b/a The Mercury, Case No. 3:14-
cv-02934 (N.D. Tex., August 15, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with its principal
place of business in Dallas County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caroline Adeyinka Ibironke, Esq.
      Rhoda Bamfoh Appiah-Boateng, Esq.
      AI LEGAL GROUP PLLC
      6060 N. Central Expressway, Ste 560
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (866) 496-5015
      Facsimile: (866) 496-5041
      E-mail: caroline@ailegalgroup.com
              rhoda@ailegalgroup.com


MICHIGAN: Male Guards' Gender Bias Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Michigan appeals court on
Aug. 20 cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit by dozens of
male guards who said they've been denied overtime and job
assignments at the state's only prison for women solely because
they're men.

The court, 3-0, affirmed the decision of a Washtenaw County judge.

The lawsuit centers on employment rules at the Huron Valley prison
for women.  In response to allegations of sexual abuse at other
prisons, the Civil Service Commission approved job qualifications
that put only women in more than 250 jobs.

"It was a knee-jerk overreaction," said James Fett, an attorney
for roughly 80 former or current male officers who claim their
civil rights have been violated.

Mr. Fett said men are restricted from working in food service
areas and teaching certain classes.

"It's blatant gender discrimination," he said.

The appeals court said officers cleared the threshold for a class-
action lawsuit, under Michigan law, based on the number of
plaintiffs, common issues and other factors.

"We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
certifying the class," said judges Henry Saad, Donald Owens and
Kirsten Frank Kelly.

A Corrections Department spokesman didn't immediately respond to
an email seeking comment.

In 2009, the state agreed to a $100 million settlement with female
inmates at other prisons in Michigan who said they were raped,
groped and peeked at by male corrections officers.


MONAVIE INC: Judge Allows Consumer Fraud Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, report that a
New Jersey federal judge on Aug. 19 allowed a proposed class
action to proceed against "superfood" juice maker MonaVie Inc. a
year after a previous, nearly identical company was shut down,
ruling that the plaintiff had sufficiently pled her claims that
the company promotes bogus health drinks through a predatory
pyramid scheme.

U.S. District Judge William Martini denied Mona Vie's motion to
dismiss plaintiff Lisa Pontrelli's consumer fraud suit, finding
that she had provided enough details to back her claims under the
New Jersey Consumer fraud act, among other allegations.

"Plaintiff identified the 'what' and 'when' components by
specifically listing which MonaVie products were at issue during
the period of 2005 through the present and during the class period
of July 2007 through the present," Judge Martini said.

"The plaintiff sufficiently alleges the 'where' component by
identifying the advertising and marketing of the MonaVie products
in New Jersey.  Finally, the plaintiff demonstrates how the
defendants misrepresented their product by presenting the
defendants' claims regarding the alleged health benefits of the
acai berry and other fruits contained in MonaVie products."

Ms. Pontrelli, who had brought the suit in August, claims that the
company charges an "outrageously inflated" $45 per 25-ounce bottle
of Mona Vie juice, which purports to offer everything from
miraculous medical breakthroughs to more beautiful skin.  She
claims she did not experience any of those supposed benefits.

Dallin Larsen, the creator of MonaVie juice, is a long-time
veteran of the pyramid scheme game, according to Ms. Pontrelli,
who says Mr. Larsen was the guiding force behind another purported
"super juice" product known as Royal Tongan Limu.  That product
was hawked under a similar multilevel marketing scheme, and was
ultimately pulled from the market and dumped in a landfill under
U.S. Food and Drug Administration supervision, according to the
complaint.

MonaVie's alleged business model involves seemingly independent
distributors, who have to pay to reach that position, before being
able to sell its products, according to the suit.  Those
distributors are not allowed to make medicinal claims about the
products, but the company knows they make health claims, according
to the complaint.

Its chief science officer, who allegedly created the juice,
characterized the drink as "expensive flavored water," according
to the complaint. He has said that "any claims made are purely
hypothetical, unsubstantiated and, quite frankly, bogus,"
according to the complaint.

Ms. Pontrelli is represented by Donald A. Beshada --
dbeshada@gmail.com. -- of Beshada Farnese LLP.

The case is Lisa Pontrelli v. Mona Vie Inc., case number 2:13-cv-
04649 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


MOORE CAPITAL: Nov. 7 Physical Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased, Invested In, or Otherwise Acquired an Interest
in Platinum or Palladium Bullion in the United States Physical
or "Spot" Market Conforming to NYMEX "Good Delivery" Requirement,
or Purchased Platinum or Palladium Bullion of at Least 99.95%
Purity, During the Period of June 1, 2006 through April 29, 2010,
Inclusive, Then Your Rights Will Be Affected and You May Be
Entitled to a Benefit

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a Settlement with
defendants Moore Capital Management, LP; Moore Capital
Management, LLC; Moore Capital Advisors, LLC; Moore Advisors,
Ltd.; Moore Macro Fund, LP; Moore Global Fixed Income Master
Fund, LP; Christopher Pia; Louis Bacon; Eugene Burger (together
the "Moore Defendants"); and Joseph Welsh ("Welsh" and together
with the Moore Defendants, the "Settling Defendants") in the class
action In re: Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig.
(Platinum/Palladium Physical Action), 10-cv-3617 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.)
("Physical Action") pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Court has scheduled a public
Fairness Hearing on November 7, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. at the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY, Courtroom 20B.

To resolve the claims against them, the Moore Defendants have
agreed to pay $9,355,000 for the Physical Class's benefit.
Defendant Welsh has agreed to assign certain claims to the
Physical Class.  See the Settlement Agreement available
at www.PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

The Settling Defendants have consistently and vigorously denied
the Physical Plaintiffs' claims.  By entering into the Settlement
Agreement with the Physical Plaintiffs, the Settling Defendants do
not admit and instead continue to deny that they engaged in any
unlawful conduct, and that any member of the Physical Class
suffered compensable damages.  The District Court previously
dismissed the Physical Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice,
additional motions to dismiss were filed and contemplated, and the
Court has never rendered a final ruling on the factual or legal
sufficiency of the Physical Plaintiffs' claims.  Absent a
settlement, the defendants would continue to vigorously oppose
each and every aspect of the Physical Plaintiffs' claims and
alleged damages.

Defendant MF Global, Inc. is not part of this Settlement.  Also,
there is a separate settlement involving certain transactions in
platinum and palladium futures contracts during the same time
period.  Additional information regarding the futures settlement
is available at www.PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim, Request For Exclusion
form and other important documents are available on the settlement
website at www.PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at 800-918-9014 or at the below
address:

     PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM LITIGATION SETTLEMENT--PHYSICAL ACTION
     c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
     PO Box 170500
     MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091
     info@PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Physical Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim that
is received by the Settlement Administrator on or before
January 21, 2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the
settlement website referenced above.  If you are a member of the
Physical Class but do not file a Proof of Claim, you will still be
bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the
Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement.  All
objections must be made in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the formal Settlement Notice and must be filed with the
Court and served on the Parties' counsel by October 15, 2014.  All
requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the formal
Settlement Notice and must be received by the Settlement
Administrator no later than October 3, 2014.  You may obtain a
Request for Exclusion form on the settlement website referenced
above.


MOORE CAPITAL: Nov. 7 Futures Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased or Sold a NYMEX Platinum Futures Contract or
NYMEX Palladium Futures Contract Between June 1, 2006 and April
29, 2010, Inclusive, Then Your Rights Will Be Affected and You May
Be Entitled to a Benefit

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a Settlement with
defendants Moore Capital Management, LP; Moore Capital
Management, LLC; Moore Capital Advisors, LLC; Moore Advisors,
Ltd.; Moore Macro Fund, LP; Moore Global Fixed Income Master
Fund, LP; Christopher Pia; Louis Bacon; Eugene Burger (together
the "Moore Defendants"); and Joseph Welsh ("Welsh" and together
with the Moore Defendants, the "Settling Defendants") in the class
action In re: Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig.
(Platinum/Palladium Physical Action), 10-cv-3617 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.)
("Physical Action") pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The Court has scheduled a public
Fairness Hearing on November 7, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. at the
Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY, Courtroom 20B.

In order to resolve the claims against them, the Moore Defendants
have agreed to pay $48,400,000 for the  benefit of the Futures
Class.
Defendant Welsh has agreed to assign certain claims to the
Physical Class.  See the Settlement Agreement available
at www.PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

The Settling Defendants have consistently and vigorously denied
the Futures Plaintiffs' claims.  By entering into the Settlement
Agreement with the Futures Plaintiffs, the Settling Defendants do
not admit and instead continue to deny that they engaged in any
unlawful conduct, and that any member of the Futures Class
suffered compensable damages.  The District Court previously
dismissed the Future Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice,
additional motions to dismiss were filed and contemplated, and the
Court has never rendered a final ruling on the factual or legal
sufficiency of the Futures Plaintiffs' claims.  Absent a
settlement, the defendants would continue to vigorously oppose
each and every aspect of the Future Plaintiffs' claims and alleged
damages.

Defendant MF Global, Inc. is not part of this Settlement.  Also,
there is a separate settlement involving certain transactions in
physical platinum and physical palladium.  Additional information
regarding the futures settlement is available at
www.PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim, Request For Exclusion
form and other important documents are available on the settlement
website at www.PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at 888-206-5360 or at the below
address:

     PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM LITIGATION SETTLEMENT--PHYSICAL ACTION
     c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
     PO Box 170500
     MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091
     info@PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Futures Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim that
is received by the Settlement Administrator on or before
January 21, 2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the
settlement website referenced above.  If you are a member of the
Futures Class but do not file a Proof of Claim, you will still be
bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the
Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement.  All
objections must be made in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the formal Settlement Notice and must be filed with the
Court and served on the Parties' counsel by October 15, 2014.  All
requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the formal
Settlement Notice and must be received by the Settlement
Administrator no later than October 3, 2014.  You may obtain a
Request for Exclusion form on the settlement website referenced
above.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Challenges Oakland Raiders Cheerleaders' Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the NFL has
taken an aggressive stance against an employment suit filed by
Oakland Raiders cheerleaders, arguing the football league is
exempt from claims brought under California labor law.

Plaintiffs sued the National Football League in June, accusing the
franchise of conspiring to depress cheerleaders' wages.  The NFL
forbid its female athletes from discussing their compensation with
one another and prevented them from being hired by other NFL
clubs, according to the complaint filed by Drexel Bradshaw and
Clinton Woods of Bradshaw & Associates.

In response, Bingham McCutchen partner Debra Fischer, on behalf of
the NFL, argued in a demurrer last month that state antitrust law
and the California Labor Code have no authority over the league.
"Divergent state legislation concerning employer-employee
relations would disrupt and have a 'significant impact on the
whole league fabric,'" Ms. Fischer wrote.

The NFL attorneys cite a 1983 California Supreme Court case,
Partee v. San Diego Chargers Football, and a 1994 Fourth District
Court of Appeal case, Hebert v. Los Angeles Raiders, in which
courts ruled state antitrust law is not applicable to the
interstate activities of professional football.  Courts cannot
impose California antitrust claims on NFL teams, because it could
put those teams at a competitive disadvantage on the field when
they play out-of-state teams that don't have to make those
antitrust concessions.  "Partee's bar is simple and unequivocal,"
Fischer wrote, and by extension, also applies to labor and
employment claims made under California law.  It's a sweeping
argument, and one plaintiffs lawyers say seeks to turn a narrow
ruling into a limitless exemption from state law.

The Partee bar only applies to antitrust allegations involving
current or former football players, Mr. Woods said in an
interview.  It makes no difference to the Raiders' on-field
performance what they pay their cheerleaders, beer vendors or
ticket takers.

"It would essentially mean if you're working for an NFL team in
any capacity -- be it an executive or a cheerleader or a ticket
taker, or anything -- that they would have no recourse under state
labor law whatsoever," Mr. Woods said.  "You take it to its
logical extreme . . . criminal codes are divergent state to state.
Does the NFL believe it's immune from state criminal codes for
that reason? It's absurd."

Mr. Woods said this is the first time he's seen the NFL argue
Partee exempts it from state labor claims.

"I think that they believe . . . that they are kind of above the
law," Woods said, "and it's shocking from my perspective."


NEW BREED LEASING: Sued Over Family and Medical Leaves
------------------------------------------------------
Martha Mendoza, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. New Breed Leasing Corp. and
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06232 (N.D. Ill., August 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

New Breed Leasing Corp. is engaged in an industry affecting
commerce, with a facility in Bolingbrook, Illinois.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America is the third-party
administrator for New Breed and for numerous other companies
nationwide, and with regard to those employers is responsible for
overseeing and processing employees' FMLA leaves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lorraine Teraldico Peeters, Esq.
      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL, LTD.
      Two Prudential Plaza
      180 N. Stetson Ave., Suite 3150
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 540-1230
      E-mail: lpeeters@cslaw.com
              acaffarelli@cslaw.com


NEW JERSEY: Little Egg Harbor Joins School Aid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pat Johnson, writing for The SandPaper, reports that during the
Aug. 18 regular meeting, the Little Egg Harbor Board of Education
passed a measure to join with other schools in suing the New
Jersey Board of Education for not funding the Bacon Districts as
defined by the School Funding Reform Act of 2008.

This year the school district was under funded a total $466,000
for all programs, including preschool, said Carol Saker, director
of special services.  Ms. Saker said the district was contacted by
the Education Law Center and asked if they would like to join the
class action suit.

According to the ELC, Bacon v. NJ Department of Education is a
long-running case involving 16 poor, rural or suburban districts,
many of them located in the southern portion of the state,
including Little Egg Harbor.  Since 1997, these districts have
demanded adequate resources to meet the needs of student
populations characterized by intense poverty, high mobility rates
and other challenges associated with high needs schools.

In 2008, the Superior Court, Appellate Division affirmed a State
Board of Education determination that the Bacon districts were
unable to provide a thorough and efficient education for their
students under the current school funding formula.  After
introduction of the School Funding Reform Act in 2008, the NJ
Department of Education determined that the new school aid formula
would provide the Bacon districts with the resources they
required.  The act would also entitle these districts to the high
quality Abbott preschool program for all 3- and 4-year-olds.

Little Egg Harbor school district and the other Bacon districts
received full funding for two school years, 2008-09 and 2009-10
but for 2010-11 the SFRA aid was cut, eliminating the increases.
Bacon districts did not receive the funds from 2010 through 2014.

In addition, preschool expansion under the SFRA was never
implemented.  As a result, the districts determined that further
action was necessary and sent a letter to the NJ Attorney General
in July 2014, demanding full SFRA funding and implementation of
high quality preschool.

From the start, the Education Law Center was involved, filing an
amicus brief in 2008 in support of the 16 poor rural districts.
ELC currently represents parent and student plaintiffs in this
case.

Despite the funding shortfall from the state, the Little Egg
Harbor School district is ready for the 2014-15 school year.
Interim Superintendent Mary Ann Banks said students would return
Sept. 4 to clean schools and a well-prepared staff.


NEW YORK TIMES: Exits Class Action Over Subscription Fraud Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande and David Siegel, writing for Law360, report that
The New York Times Co. on Aug. 18 was dropped from a putative
class action in New York federal court claiming it turned a blind
eye to a subscription fraud scheme orchestrated by an outside
vendor, although co-defendants Dow Jones & Co. and Forbes Inc.
remain in the suit.

In a stipulation of voluntary dismissal, the New York Times and
plaintiff I. Stephen Rabin revealed that they had agreed to the
dismissal with prejudice of the complaint regarding only the
Times.

The one-page stipulation did not elaborate on a reason for the
dismissal, but plaintiffs' attorney Raymond A. Bragar of Bragar
Eagel & Squire PC told Law360 in an email Monday that the Times
"has agreed to various steps to ameliorate the fraud on its
subscribers."

The New York Times' exit from the suit came just days after the
two other defendants in the suit, Dow Jones and Forbes, filed a
joint motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint on
behalf of those who have allegedly been induced by fraudulent
representations by outside vendor Circulation Billing Systems to
subscribe or renew subscriptions to publications operated by the
defendants.

According to the amended complaint, which was filed Aug. 1,
Circulation Billing since at least July 2011 has sent official-
looking renewal notices to subscribers of the New York Times,
Barron's, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes with prices higher
than the newspapers' real renewal fees.

The billing company then would pay the actual renewal fees
directly to the newspapers and keep the excess funds, the
complaint alleged.

"Each defendant was aware of [Circulation Billing] falsely
purporting to act on their behalf, and each had actual knowledge
that each was receiving fraudulently induced payments but, prior
to the commencement of the action, no defendant took any steps to
return the funds it received that it knew were fraudulently
obtained," according to the complaint.

Dow Jones and Forbes shot back at the allegations in the Aug. 14
joint dismissal motion, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims of
aiding and abetting fraud, violations of Section 349 of the
New York General Business Law and negligence should all be nixed
for failure to allege any specific acts of fraud or a basis for
holding the publishers liable for Circulation Billing's actions.

"The amended class action complaint does nothing to rectify the
fatal flaw that underpins this lawsuit: plaintiff Stephen Rabin
has sued the wrong parties," the companies wrote.  "Rather than
suing the entity that he alleges is responsible for taking
advantage of him through a subscription fraud scheme, Mr. Rabin
has sued publishers, who are not only wholly devoid of
responsibility for the fraud, but are themselves also victims of
it."

The defenses raised on Aug. 14 by Dow Jones and Forbes echoed the
arguments made in the motion to dismiss that they filed along with
the New York Times in July in response to the plaintiff's original
June complaint.

Instead of opposing that dismissal motion, Mr. Rabin elected to
file an amended complaint, which dropped the claim advanced in the
original pleading that the trio of companies had provided
subscriber lists to Circulation Billing but otherwise asserted
nearly identical allegations.

Responding to the amended complaint on Aug. 14, Dow Jones and
Forbes cast the plaintiff's claims as being "as legally baseless
the second time around as they were the first."

Contrary to the plaintiff's claim, the notices that Circulation
Billing sent out clearly stated that the billing company "do[es]
not necessarily have a direct relationship with the publishers or
publications and the publishing industry has issued warnings
directly to its subscribers about the billing company's scheme,
according to the two publishers, who specifically pointed to an
exhibit attached to the amended complaint of a full-page
advertisement that Dow Jones placed in Barron's to warn
subscribers of the scheme.

"Discovery in this case would show that the publishers have made
substantial, multi-year efforts to stop the scheme, including
working with law enforcement agencies that are investigating
Circulation Billing," the Aug. 14 motion said.  "But disposing of
this case does not even require consideration of those facts,
because this case can and should be dismissed on the pleadings."

The New York Times is represented by David E. McCraw, its vice
president and assistant general counsel.

The plaintiff is represented by Raymond A. Bragar of Bragar Eagel
& Squire PC.

Dow Jones is represented by Clifford Thau -- cthau@velaw.com --
and Hilary Preston -- hpreston@velaw.com -- of Vinson & Elkins
LLP. Forbes is represented by Robert D. Balin -- robbalin@dwt.com
-- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The case is Rabin v. The New York Times Co. et al., case number
1:14-cv-04498, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlawful Inflation of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Tuseo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ronald M. Faris, John V.
Britti and William C. Erbey, Case No. 9:14-cv-81064 (S.D. Fla.,
August 15, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' fraudulent scheme
to artificially inflate the Company's stock price.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a financial services holding
company engaged in the servicing and origination of forward and
reverse mortgage loans in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com


PAPI'S SUPERMARKET: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yasel Campo, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(B)
v. Papi's Supermarket, a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23011 (S.D. Fla., August 15, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum waged under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant owns and operates a supermarket within the State of
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2100 Coral Way, Suite 300
      Miami, FL 33145
      Telephone: (305) 704-3172
      Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
      E-mail: me@espino-law.com


PELLA CORPORATION: Sued Over Nondisclosure of Product Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Dineen and Marianne Dineen, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Pella Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-
01306 (M.D. Fla., August 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to disclose that the window products were
defective in terms of material and workmanship.

Pella Corporation is an Iowa Corporation that manufactures
aluminum wood clad windows.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      April Goodwin, Esq.
      Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP
      27300 Riverview Center Blvd Ste 301
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Telephone: (239) 290-1000
      Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
      E-mail: agoodwin@yourlawyer.com
              jchaikin@yourlawyer.com


PIONEER CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Optical Disk Drive Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
JLK Systems Group, Inc., Jeff Kozik, Meijer, Inc. and Meijer
Distribution, Inc., Paul Nordine, Seneca Data Distributors, Inc.,
Gregory Starrett, and Ashley Tremblay, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer North
America, Inc., Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., and Pioneer High
Fidelity Taiwan Co., Ltd., Case No. 3:14-cv-03748-LB (N.D. Cal.,
August 18, 2014) alleges violations of antitrust laws.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants and their co-
conspirators agreed among themselves to coordinate the prices of
optical disk drives sold in the United States of America with the
object of stabilizing those prices.

Pioneer Corporation is a Japanese business entity headquartered in
Kanagawa, Japan.  Pioneer North America, Inc., and Pioneer
Electronics (USA) Inc. are American companies headquartered in
Long Beach, California.  Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan Co., Ltd.,
is a Taiwanese company headquartered in Taipei City, Taiwan.  The
Defendants are the leading manufacturers, sellers and distributors
of ODDs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          Richard Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio R. Zirpoli, Esq.
          Travis Manfredi, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com
                  zirpoli@saveri.com
                  travis@saveri.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Alioto, Esq.
          Theresa Moore, Esq.
          ALIOTO LAW FIRM
          555 California Street, Suite 3160
          San Francisco CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-8900
          Facsimile: (415) 434-9200
          E-mail: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com
                  tmoore@aliotolaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          Sarah Khorasanee, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com
                  tseaver@bermandevalerio.com
                  SKhorasanee@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  swilliams@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehman, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1909
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehman@hausfeldllp.com
                  clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Gregory Arenson, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  garenson@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Gary L. Specks, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
          423 Sumac Road
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 831-1585
          Facsimile: (847) 831-1580
          E-mail: gspecks@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          LIEF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          William J. Newsom, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com
                  asheanin@pswplaw.com
                  wnewsom@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          David Paul Germaine, Esq.
          VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C.
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 224-1505
          E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Simon Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3895
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
          FRANK & BIANCO LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          E-mail: gfrank@frankandbianco.com


PIZZA PROPERTIES: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Mendenhall, for himself and all others similarly situated v.
Pizza Properties Of Delaware, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01057 (D.
Del., August 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pizza Properties of Delaware, Inc. owns and operates multiple
Domino's Pizza stores in Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Pkwy, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-2530
      E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
              bdl@rigrodskylong.com
              gs@rigrodskylong.com


RED ROBIN: Sued for Paying Employees With Preloaded Debit Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Red Robin International pays
employees with a preloaded debit card, which cannot be used at
some places without incurring a fee, a class action claims in
Alameda County Court.


SAKS FIFTH: Falsely Advertised Off 5th Store Products, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tova Malik, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, a Massachusetts Limited Liability
Company, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC555134 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 19, 2014) alleges violation of
California's False Advertising Laws, Unfair Competition Laws and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of those who purchased clothing
from the Saks Fifth Avenue Off 5th Store that was purportedly sold
for markedly lower than the "Market Price" labeled on the price
tag, which a consumer would normally pay at the traditional Saks
Fifth Avenue retail stores.  Ms. Malik alleges that the Saks Off
5th clothing does not have the same qualities as the traditional
Saks Fifth Avenue clothing.

Saks Fifth Avenue LLC is a Massachusetts limited liability
company, with its principle place of business in New York City.
The Company markets, distributes, and sells men's and women's
clothing and accessories.  Saks Fifth Avenue offers upscale
assortments of designer apparel, shoes, handbags, jewelry,
accessories, beauty and home products to the affluent consumer.
The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the
Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather M. Baker, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Third Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Rosen Law Firm Mulls Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Bilbao, writing for Orlando Business Journal, reports that
the rough waters for SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. may get worse if
a New York City law firm can prove fraud and/or recklessness on
the part of SeaWorld, which has the potential to lead to a class-
action lawsuit from investors.

The Rosen Law Firm PA announced it is "investigating potential
securities claims against SeaWorld" regarding its recent
acknowledgement during a second-quarter earnings call that the
negative publicity from the Blackfish film about the marine theme
park's treatment of its animals caused attendance to dip.
"SeaWorld had acknowledged for the first time the negative
publicity may have had a hit and may have been why the attendance
has been flat for now and the past quarters.  That was a new
admission from them, something they had denied up to this time,"
said Jonathan Stern, the Rosen Law Firm attorney.

Specifically, the law firm plans to look into whether or not
SeaWorld knew the ongoing negative publicity actually was having
an impact, but chose to downplay that as a reason for its
performance results, which Stern said could be classified as a
fraudulent act.  "We are looking into whether it's fraud, what did
they know, when did they know it and whether they were being
reckless," he said, declining to reveal if any investors have
expressed interest in pursuing action.

"As a matter of policy, we do not comment on litigation or the
threat of litigation," said SeaWorld spokesman Nick Gollattscheck
in an emailed response to a request for comment.


SKECHERS USA: OT Class Action Settlement Gets Tentative Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on Aug. 19 tentatively approved a $1.2 million settlement to
resolve class claims by about 4,800 Skechers USA Inc. employees
who alleged the shoe retailer failed to pay them for overtime
worked and deprived them of meal and rest breaks.

Judge Jane L. Johnson's tentative decision provided for a maximum
of $714,000 to be paid out to class members with a $357,000
minimum.  Class counsel would receive $400,000, plus about $31,300
in costs.  The named plaintiffs would each receive $5,000 in
incentive awards, and $36,000 would go to cover claims
administration costs.

About 4,800 class members were notified and 1,221 submitted
potentially valid claims, the tentative ruling said.  No class
members opted out or objected, the document said.  The ruling
noted that the average share of the settlement for class members
would be about $292.

Lead plaintiff Roneshia Sayles sued the company in 2011, claiming
Skechers unlawfully withheld pay from employees, including
compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, overtime and earned
wages, in violation of California labor laws.

Ms. Sayles, a former assistant manager, claimed Sketchers would
regularly perform mandatory security checks after employees had
clocked out for the day or were on their breaks in order to ensure
that employees were not stealing merchandise, but refused to
compensate employees for their time spent on the compulsory
procedures.

Ms. Sayles claimed Skechers covered up its unlawful policies by
refusing to provide employees with accurate and itemized wage
statements.

Employees were also required to perform customer service duties
that only a limited number of sales associates were authorized to
do, so many times employees had to stay on the floor to assist
customers and were deprived of meal and rest breaks, according to
the suit.

Ms. Sayles also claimed that Skechers had failed to pay several of
the class members the wages they had earned after they left the
company.

According to the Aug. 19 tentative ruling, the parties reached the
settlement following mediation meetings last year.  The parties
first made a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement in
February.

The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew R. Bainer --
mbainer@scalaw.com -- of Scott Cole & Associates APC.

Skechers is represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The case is Roneshia Sayles v. Skechers USA Inc., case number
BC473067, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.


STAR BAKERY: Faces "Yu" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Breach of Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Nen Yu, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Star Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Star Bakery, Early Bird Bakery, Inc. d/b/a
Star Bakery, New Star Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Star Bakery, and Huan
Tang Liang, Case No. 1:14-cv-04824 (E.D.N.Y., August 14, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate Star Bakery stores with principal
place of business located at 41-21A Kissena Boulevard, Flushing,
NY 11355.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


STURM FOODS: Appeals Court Reinstates Suit Over Coffee Cartridges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court on Aug. 22 reinstated a lawsuit by consumers who said they
were duped into buying substandard single-serve coffee cartridges
made by Sturm Foods Inc. for use in popular Keurig brewing
machines.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court had been
too hasty in denying plaintiffs' request to sue as a group and
dismissing their claims against Sturm and its parent company
TreeHouse Foods, the makers of Grove Square Coffee.  The ruling
reinstated the case and ordered the lower court to reconsider
whether to certify a class of customers from eight states who
bought the product.

Sturm and TreeHouse had attempted to jump into the lucrative
market for Keurig-compatible coffee pods, or K-cups, in 2010, two
years before Keurig's patent on a design for the filter for the
cartridge expired, the ruling said.

To steer clear of Keurig's patent, Sturm made its Grove Square
Coffee cartridges without a filter, although that prevented the
company from using fresh coffee grounds, the ruling said.
Instead, Sturm used "soluble" freeze-dried brewed, or instant,
coffee mixed with fresh grounds, according to the ruling.

The public response to the product was "awful," the ruling said.
In 2011, four lawsuits were filed by customers accusing Sturm and
TreeHouse of violating state consumer-protection laws by
misleading them about the cartridge's contents, calling them
"cheap knockoffs" of premium K-cups, according to court filings.

The cases were consolidated, and plaintiffs asked the judge to
certify a class of all consumers in eight states -- including
New York, California and Illinois -- who bought the cartridges.

Sturm said it had clearly stated on its labeling that the
cartridges contained "soluble" coffee.  Last year, a federal judge
in Illinois agreed with the company that the packaging was not
misleading, rejected plaintiffs' request for class certification
and dismissed the individual plaintiffs' claims.

The plaintiffs appealed, and the 7th Circuit agreed that the
district court had not given enough credence to plaintiffs' claims
before tossing them.

"A jury should have decided the question whether the packaging was
likely to mislead reasonable consumers," U.S. Circuit Judge Diane
Wood wrote.  She also said the lower court had erred in finding
that there was not enough in common among plaintiffs to let them
sue as a class.

That decision overlooked the common question shared by plaintiffs
-- namely, whether Grove Square Coffee packaging was misleading to
a "reasonable consumer," Wood wrote.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Peter Burke, said he was pleased with
the decision.  A spokesman for TreeHouse, Ron Bottreel, said the
company had received the decision and is evaluating its next
steps.

The case is Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 13-3843.


TELSTRA: ACA Mulls Class Action Over Late Fees
----------------------------------------------
Georgia Wilkins, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Telstra customers stand to benefit from a proposed new class
action over late fees worth hundreds of millions of dollars, set
to be lodged by ACA lawyers later this year.

Just a week after Maurice Blackburn announced a sweeping class
action against Australia's major banks, law firm ACA has revealed
it will take action against Telstra over late payment fees charged
on phone bills on the same basis as bank fees charged on late
credit card payments.  It has also proposed class actions against
Optus and Vodafone, who charge similar fees.

The Telstra class action will be open to any customer who has paid
a late fee on a phone or internet bill going back to the
introduction of the fees, ACA principal Steven Lewis said.

"Nearly everyone in Australia has a telephone account, just like
nearly everyone has a bank account," he said.

"These late payment fees have been charged for many number of
years, to many, many customers."

The action will follow a partial victory against ANZ by Maurice
Blackburn in the Federal Court in February, which found ANZ's
credit card late fees of up to $35 were "extravagant and
unconscionable" given the real cost to the bank was closer to 50
cents.

Maurice Blackburn has now launched fresh actions against ANZ,
Citibank and Westpac on the late payment fees and is preparing to
pursue the Commonwealth Bank, NAB and American Express.

ACA will argue, similar to Maurice Blackburn, that given the size
of Telstra and the size of its profits, the cost of processing
late payment fees is insignificant when compared with the amount
it makes on fees.   It will also argue that the six-year time
limit on legal action should be waived -- as per a ruling in the
ANZ case -- as there should be no restriction on how far back
class members could claim the late fees.

Telstra collected $272 million through "late payment and other
miscellaneous" fees in the last financial year, according to its
annual accounts.

ACA said Telstra's accounts for the four years from July, 2009
show the Telco may have collected a further half a billion dollars
in the fees over those years.

Telstra has 60 per cent of the telecommunications market, with 16
million mobile customers and 7.5 million fixed line customers.

It has posted an after-tax profit of $4.28 billion -- up 14 per
cent from last year.

The class action is being funded by Harbour Litigation Funding and
is set to be lodged either in the Federal Court or Supreme Court
of New South Wales, depending on whether there are breaches of
Australian consumer law, ACA said.


TIRE DEPOT: Faces "Adelson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Adelson and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Tire Depot Group, LLC, Shlomi Levi and Rebecca D.
Kudman, Case No. 0:14-cv-61846 (S.D. Fla., August 13, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Tire Depot Group, LLC is a tire retreading and repair shop.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Sued in E.D. Arkansas Over Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Wiseman and Sara Howard individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00478 (E.D. Ark., August 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Transamerica Life Insurance Company provides life insurance, both
directly to consumers and through employer-sponsored plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Hollan, Esq.
      Maryna O. Jacksonm, Esq.
      Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
      HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      1008 West Second Street
      Little Rock, AK 72201
      Telephone:  (501) 975-5040
      Facsimile:  (501) 975-5043
      E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
              maryna@johnholleman.net
              tim@johnholleman.net

         - and -

      Lloyd "Tre" Kitchens, Esq.
      THE BRAD HENDRICKS LAW FIRM
      500 C Pleasant Valley Drive
      Little Rock, AR 72227
      Telephone: (501) 588-0549
      Facsimile: (501) 661-0196


TRG THE RESPONSE: "Woltje" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Woltje, Constance Barrett, Ryan Anderson, Andrew Baron,
Jeff Benedic, Greg Goedecker, Jared Granberry, Leslie Nunn, and
Joshua Vetters, Individually and On Behalf of Similarly Situated
Individuals v. TRG The Response Group, L.L.C., and Roy Barrett,
Case No. 4:14-cv-02315 (S.D. Tex., August 13, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TRG The Response Group, L.L.C. describes itself as an Emergency
Response Consulting and Support company in a growing niche with
operations in Houston, Beaumont, Boston, Chicago, Seattle,
Durango, and Anchorage areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Wayne Stewart, Esq.
      Ross D. Bussard, Esq.
      THE STEWART LAW FIRM PLLC
      3000 South IH 35, Suite 150
      Austin, TX 78704
      Telephone: (512) 326-3200
      Facsimile: (512) 326-8228
      E-mail:  sws@thestewartlawfirm.net


U.S. SECURITY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Javon Dinchong, Andre Allen, James Turner, Nortsford Pysadee and
Rafael Rosario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc. and
John Does #1-5, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04879
(E.D.N.Y., August 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S. Security Associates, Inc. is a foreign corporation which
provides security services, with a principle place of business
located at 200 Mansell Court, 5th Floor, Roswell, GA 30076

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIVERSAL USED: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Armado" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Armando and Romero Espinoza and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Universal Used Pallets Inc.
a/k/a Universal Pallets, Inc., Quality Pallets, Inc. and Jose R.
Lesteiro, Case No. 1:14-cv-22972 (S.D. Fla., August 14, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a pallet company located in Miami
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VESTAS WIND: Dec. 9 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON, PORTLAND DIVISION

In re VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS A/S SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No. 3:11-cv-00585-MO

SUMMARY NOTICE OF:
(1) PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION AND (2) HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO, DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 11, 2009,
THROUGH FEBRUARY 9, 2012, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"),
PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY
RECEIPTS ("ADRs") OR COMMON STOCK OF VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS A/S
("VESTAS") IN U.S. DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS, INCLUDING ON THE OVER-
THE-COUNTER MARKET.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action and that the Lead Plaintiff has
reached a proposed settlement with Vestas to resolve all claims in
the case for $5,000,000 in cash.

For settlement purposes, the Court has certified a Class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired ADRs for Vestas ordinary shares and Vestas common stock
(ordinary shares) in U.S. domestic transactions during the Class
Period.  The proposed settlement does not apply to purchases or
acquisitions of Vestas securities in non-U.S. transactions.

A hearing will be held on December 9, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., before
United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman, in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland
Division, located at Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse,
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, to determine
whether the Court should approve the proposed settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate and whether the Court should grant Lead
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS
SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
MONEY.

If you have not yet received the Notice of: (1) Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and (2) Hearing on Proposed
Settlement (the "Notice"), you may obtain it by contacting In re
Vestas Wind Systems A/S Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael,
CA 94912-8040, United States of America, telephone (877) 430-6692
or (317) 324-0701.  You may also download the Notice from:
www.vestassecuritieslitigation.com

To participate in the settlement, you must submit a Claim Form.
You may download the Claim Form from
www.vestassecuritieslitigation.com or you may contact the Claims
Administrator to request a Claim Form and to be added to the
mailing list.  Completed Claim Forms must be postmarked or
received by December 29, 2014, at the Claims Administrator's
address (printed above).

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ADRs or Vestas common stock
in U.S. domestic transactions during the Class Period, you will be
deemed a Class Member unless you ask to be excluded from the
Class.  Any requests for exclusion must be received by
November 19, 2014, at the Claims Administrator's address (printed
above).  Each request for exclusion must (i) state the name,
address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available) of
the person or entity requesting exclusion, (ii) state that such
person or entity requests exclusion from the Vestas settlement,
(iii) be signed by the person or entity requesting exclusion, and
(iv) provide the date(s), price(s), and number(s) of shares of all
purchases and sales of ADRs and Vestas common stock in U.S.
domestic transactions during the Class Period.  You will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the class action unless you timely
request exclusion from the Class as explained in the Notice,
even if you have pending or later file another lawsuit,
arbitration, or other proceeding relating to the claims covered by
this settlement.  If you submit a valid and timely request for
exclusion, you cannot share in the settlement money, cannot object
to the settlement, and will not be bound by the settlement or the
Court's rulings.

The Notice also describes how you may object to the settlement.
All objections must be received by the Court (at the address
printed above) and by the lawyers listed below no later than
November 19, 2014:

Lead Counsel for the Class

Henry Rosen, Esq.
Patrick Daniels, Esq.
Trig Smith, Esq.
Keith Park, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
(800) 449-4900

Vestas' Counsel

Ralph C. Ferrara, Esq.
Jonathan E. Richman, Esq.
Proskauer Rose LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400 South
Washington, DC 20004

Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Notice or for
inclusion in the mailing list for future notices, may be directed
to Lead
Counsel for the Class.

Dated: July 30, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT


WELLS FARGO: Settles Securities Lending Class Action for $62.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Durham, writing for Securities Lending Times, reports that
the US District Court, District of Minnesota has granted final
approval of a $62.5 million settlement in a class action against
Wells Fargo Bank on behalf of participants in the bank's
securities lending program.

The Miller Law Firm, led by Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com
-- and Sharon Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- and Glancy
Binkow, led by Peter Binkow -- pbinkow@glancylaw.com -- and
Kevin Ruf -- kevinruf@yahoo.com -- served as co-lead counsel.

The total settlement amount is among the largest recoveries
achieved in a securities lending class action stemming from the
2008 financial crisis.  The settlement was achieved on the
courthouse steps the weekend before a jury trial was scheduled to
commence.

Previously, in the same court, Wells Fargo prevailed in a six-week
jury trial in a case brought by other plaintiffs alleging
substantially the same violations against the bank.

Mr. Miller stated: "Wells Fargo had prevailed on a similar case
just last year, but we were not about to back down.  This
settlement represents an outstanding result for the pensions and
other investors."

"Our success was only possible after years of hard-fought
litigation and intense trial preparation."

The settlement proceeds will be shared by a class of approximately
100 pension funds, corporations, insurance companies and others
that participated in Wells Fargo's securities lending program from
January 1, 2006 to the present day.

The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System, the
board of trustees of the Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust
Fund and the Arizona State Carpenters Defined Contribution Trust
Fund served as court appointed class representatives.

Mr. Binkow commented: "We are pleased to have achieved a
significant recovery for the class members and gratified that the
court agrees and has approved the settlement."

Miller Law attorneys Jayson Blake -- jblake@millerlawpc.com --
Christopher Kaye, Ryan Jarnagin, and Glancy Binkow attorneys
Kara Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Leanne Heine, and Casey
Sadler, also represented the plaintiffs.


WORLD WRESTLING: Vincent Wong Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Aug. 20 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of investors who purchased World Wrestling
Entertainment Inc. common stock between October 31, 2013 and
May 16, 2014.

Click here to learn about the case:
http://docs.wongesq.com/WWE-Info-Request-Form-356
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
violated securities laws by failing to disclose the Company's true
ability to command a premium fee in upcoming negotiations to renew
its television license agreement.

On May 16, 2014, the Company disclosed that it had reached a
multiyear deal with NBCUniversal for its television programs Raw
and SmackDown, stating that the annual value of its television
distribution agreements is expected to reach $200 million, far
below investor expectation.  On a May 19, 2014 earnings call,
Chairman and CEO Vince McMahon stated "We were a little
disappointed in our NBCU deal, quite frankly . . ."

If you suffered a loss in WWE you have until September 23, 2014 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com by telephone at
(212) 425-1140, or visit
http://docs.wongesq.com/WWE-Info-Request-Form-356

Vincent Wong, Esq. represents investors in securities litigations
involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights.


* SYMEA Files Class Action v. Licensed Lenders Over Foreclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constantinos Psillides, writing for Cyprus Mail, reports that the
head of union of small businesses and self-employed individuals
(SYMEA) Stavros Alampritis said on Aug. 18 their lawyers had filed
a class-action lawsuit against all licensed lenders, the first of
what is expected to be a "wave of lawsuits".

SYMEA is protesting the foreclosures bill, along with every
liquidation effort initiated by banks.  Instead of foreclosures,
SYMEA proposes a universal haircut on the principal of a loan, and
capping bank interest rates so that delinquent borrowers can
afford to repay their loans.

"Our lawyers started working on filing suits against all banks for
illegal charges on loans, bank accounts and credit cards.  We
demand that each and every one of these illegal charges is
deducted so people know how much money they really owe the banks,"
said Mr. Alampritis, according to the Cyprus News Agency.

Mr. Alampritis maintained that removing the charges is the only
way to effectively restructure loans.  He told CNA that filing
class-action suits also served a different purpose.  "While legal
proceedings are in place, no foreclosure can be carried out.  Even
if the foreclosures bill is passed by the House of Representatives
the banks can't go forward with foreclosures before the hearing is
done," said the SYMEA head.

Mr. Alampritis called upon all who believe they had been wronged
by the banks to join with his union and file a suit against their
lender.  "We work with a number of legal offices.  We will direct
all of our members to file suits, and the legal expenses will not
surpass EUR300 in any case," said Mr. Alampritis, adding that
anyone who was interested must first register as a member.

The head of SYMEA told CNA that a large number of legal firms had
approached SYMEA asking to represent them in court, "because this
is a case with tens of thousands of suits ready to be filed."

SYMEA is a young union, set up last April and numbering only some
2,000 members.

Talking to CyBC radio, Mr. Alampritis said the first item on their
agenda would be to block the foreclosures bill.  The bill,
currently opposed by all parliamentary parties with the exception
of governing DISY, is expected to be put to a plenum vote later in
the week.

Talking to the Cyprus Mail in July, Mr. Alampritis said that their
members were planning to stage a protest outside the parliament in
the event that the foreclosures bill passes, a protest
Mr. Alampritis warned would go on indefinitely.


                              *********

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  * * *