CAR_Public/140901.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 1, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 173

                             Headlines


ABSOLUTE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AEGON USA: Faces "Weaver" Suit in South Carolina District Court
AFFINION GROUP: Court Order in Trilegiant Suit Faces Objection
AFFINION GROUP: High Court Won't Review Webloyalty Suit Dismissal
AFFINION GROUP: D. Conn. Suit v. Webloyalty in Limited Discovery

AFFINION GROUP: Court to Rule on Move to Junk Suit v. Webloyalty
AFFINION GROUP: Seeks to Dismiss Massachusetts Consumer Case
AFFINION GROUP: Faces Suit in Cal. for "Unauthorized" Billing
AHOLD USA: Accused of Discriminating Against Female Specialist
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal

AMC NETWORK: Sued Over Disclosing Consumers' Personal Information
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Paid $0.5 Million in Stipulation
ART EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Delgado" Suit Claims
AUSTRALIA: Asylum-Seekers File Class Action v. Immigration Dep't
B.P.M. FARM: "Bonilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

BANCO BILBAO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cuba Terror Victims' Claims
BP PLC: Neodesha Loses Bid for Retrial of Pollution Class Action
BUBBA GUMP: Judge Approves Amended Class Action Settlement
CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Illegally Calls Consumers' Phones, Suit Says
CAPITAL ONE: Removed "Rodriguez" Suit to New York District Court

CAPITAL ONE: Fair Value of Guarantee to Visa Was $0 as of June 30
CAPITAL ONE: Class Cert. Appeal Pending in British Columbia Court
CAPITAL ONE: Supreme Court Denied Writ of Certiorari in July 2014
CAPITAL ONE: Fact Discovery Closed in Interest Rate Litigation
CAPITAL ONE: Discovery in Overdraft Litigation to Conclude in Q3

CAPITAL ONE: Final Approval of TCPA Class Settlement in Q4
CARE ONE: To Pursue Sanctions v. Plaintiff in TCPA Class Action
CIR LAW: Faces Suit Alleging Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
COMPLETE DISCOVERY: Faces "Nurse" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims
DELTA MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
DIVERSIFIED WELL: Has Not Paid Overtime to Workers, Suit Claims
EHUD BOSKILA: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ESTES HEATING: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

ETHICON INC: Pelvic Mesh Bellwether Trial Begins in West Virginia
EXELON CORP: Cotter Faces Suit Over West Lake Landfill Operation
EXELON CORP: ComEd's Motion to Dismiss TCPA Violation Suit Denied
EZCORP INC: Sued in New York Over Misleading Financial Report
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Suit in U.S. Over Concussions

FORBES CONSTRUCTION: Required "Off-the-Clock" Work, Suit Says
GMRI INC: Labor Law Class Action Obtains Partial Certification
GUARDIAN HOME: Faces "Carroll" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HCA HOLDINGS: Oral Argument Set on Bid to Certify Tenn. Action
HOSPICE OF EAST TEXAS: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages and Overtime

INVENTURE FOODS: "Anderson" Suit Against Jamba Juice Dismissed
INVENTURE FOODS: Settlement Discussions Continue in "Lilly" Case
INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Montantes" Suit Over Recorded Phone Calls
IRR INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Claims
JBI INC: Seeks Approval for Settlement of Securities Litigation

JMI STAFFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
KBR INC: High Court Invites Briefs in Burn Pit Litigation
KBR INC: Plaintiffs Vie for Lead Status in Tex. Securities Suit
KODIAK OIL: Faces Lawsuits in Colorado Over Whiting Arrangement
LA CASA ANAHEIM: Accused by "Disabled Person" of Discrimination

LANGSTON CITY, OK: Faces "Sturdivan" Class Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaiting Oral Argument in 3rd Cir. Appeal
LIVE NATION: Ticketing Fees Consumer Suit Accord Gets Approval
LOUYA CORP: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages Pursuant to FLSA
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Barron" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MG HOSPITALITY: Accused of Discriminating Against Bahamian Worker
MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Muller" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
MIDLAND FUNDING: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
MICHAELS STORES: Can't Split Managers' Overtime Class Action

MORGAN STANLEY: Pact Reached in Mortgage Pass-Through Cert. Case
MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement Reached in IndyMac MBS Litigation
MORGAN STANLEY: Agreement Reached in "Dandong" Class Action
MORGAN STANLEY: Motion to Dismiss CDS Antitrust Litigation Filed
MSE2 INC: Removed "Hawkins" Suit to Middle District of Florida

NATIONAL HOCKEY: "LaCouture" Suit Consolidated in Concussion MDL
NCL CORP: Denial of Cert. to Crew Members Fla. Lawsuit Stands
NCL CORP: Crew Members Suit v. NCL (Bahamas) Remains Stayed
NCO FINANCIAL: Faces "Bereza" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action

NEW YORK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Inmates Recreation Time
OCWEN LOAN: Removed "Williams" Suit to Delaware District Court
OEP PHILIPPINES: Voluntarily Recalls Batches of Nicorandil
OFFICE DEPOT: "Heitzenrater" Class Action in Early Stage
OFFICE DEPOT: "Rivet" Class Action Still Pending

PAPA JOHN'S: Still Faces Delivery Drivers' Class Action
PACK-FIVE CORP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
PSCH INC: Faces "Bernard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
QLT INC: Faces Stockholder Class Action on Auxilium Merger
RF FOOD: Faces "Nava" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime

RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Zeus Shareholders' Lawsuit in Discovery
SENIORBRIDGE FAMILY: Faces "Hyatt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SMART CHICKEN: "Dabady" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
STATE AUTO FINANCIAL: Still Facing "Schumacher" Class Action
SUPERVALU INC: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach

TIME WARNER: Has MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Comcast Merger
TIME WARNER: Wins Summary Judgment for WD Ky. Antitrust Lawsuit
TNUVA USA: Recalls More Than 8,300 Pounds of Chicken Cutlets
TOWN SPORTS: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of TSI Labor Suits
TOWN SPORTS: March 2015 Deadline for Cert. Motion in "Labbe" Case

TRIANGLE CHAR: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, "Goodbar" Suit Says
UNITED HOMECARE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws
UNITED STATES: HHS Faces Suit Over Delayed Medicare Review
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Vonage America's Brief in "Smith" Due Sept. 24
WALMART STORES: Faces "Bell" Suit Over Pomegranate Juice Labeling

WEATHERFORD INT'L: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Removed "Russell" Suit to N.D. California
WESTERN SKY: 7th. Cir. Revives Class Action Over Payday Loans
WESTERN UNION: Still Faces Securities Suit by Retirement System
WESTERN UNION: Approval of Consumer Suit Accord Faces Objections

WESTERN UNION: Faces Ill. TCPA Violation Suit for Text Messages
WHITE HALL: Faces "Hartman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Removed "Krinsk" Class Suit to S.D. California
WHITING PETROLEUM: Faces Suits in Colo. Over Kodiak Transaction
WISCONSIN ENERGY: Sued in Illinois Over Unlawful Merger Process

XYZ CORPORATION: Faces "Geng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
YELP INC: Local Businesses Appeal Dismissal of Suits Over Ratings


                            *********


ABSOLUTE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bert James, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Absolute Credit, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05048
(E.D.N.Y., August 25, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


AEGON USA: Faces "Weaver" Suit in South Carolina District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becky A. Weaver and Rodney Weaver, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Aegon USA LLC, fka Aegon USA Inc.
and Transamerica Life Insurance Company, fka Life Investors
Insurance Company of America fka Equity National Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-03436-GRA (D.S.C., August 25, 2014)
asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Susan F. Campbell, Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER
          304 Church Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 833-8082
          Facsimile: (843) 833-8092
          E-mail: scampbell@mcgowanhood.com


AFFINION GROUP: Court Order in Trilegiant Suit Faces Objection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit over the sale of Trilegiant Corporation
membership programs, filed a motion seeking interlocutory
appellate review of portions a court order granting a motion to
consolidate cases, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this
lawsuit.

On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On
March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit
affirmed the decision of the District Court denying arbitration.

While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.
Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second
of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At
that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three
previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class
certification briefing schedule that had been set previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions
seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to
strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response
brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs
were filed on April 5, 2013.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to
dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from
the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the
consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs'
class action allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and
Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to dismiss certain
Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well
as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under CUPTA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to
consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases.
On June 13, 2013, the Court entered an order staying the date for
all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint and a related identical complaint.
On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking interlocutory
appellate review of portions of the court's order of March 28,
2014.  Briefing on the motion was completed on June 5, 2014.  The
Company does not know when the court will rule on that motion.


AFFINION GROUP: High Court Won't Review Webloyalty Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for
writ of certiorari in the dismissal of a consumer lawsuit against
Webloyalty, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s July 31, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty.com Inc. and one of its clients in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California alleging,
among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment,
fraud, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and
California Consumer Business Practice violations. This lawsuit
relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after
October 1, 2008. On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit. On April 12,
2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and dismissed all
claims against the defendants. On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a
notice appealing the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed its opening appeals
brief with the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2011, and defendants
filed their respective answering briefs on December 23, 2011.
Plaintiff filed its reply brief on January 23, 2012.

On January 11, 2013, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the
plaintiff's appeal and, thereafter, took the matter under
advisement. On April 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit decided
Plaintiffs' appeal dismissing the case without prejudice.
Thereafter, on May 9, 2013, Plaintiff petitioned for rehearing of
the Ninth Circuit's decision, which petition the Court rejected on
May 20, 2013. The District Court followed the mandate of the Ninth
Circuit and finally dismissed the action on June 24, 2013. On
August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Webloyalty filed
an opposition on October 21, 2013. On December 2, 2013, the United
States Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition for writ of
certiorari.


AFFINION GROUP: D. Conn. Suit v. Webloyalty in Limited Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
has allowed parties in a suit against Webloyalty.com, Inc. the
opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be completed by
September 26, 2014, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On August 27, 2010, another substantially similar class action
lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients
and one of the credit card associations in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among
other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil
theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act violations. This lawsuit relates to
Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1,
2008. On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the
initial complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19,
2010. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to
dismiss this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the Court heard oral
argument on plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for
judicial notice of the plaintiff's membership enrollment documents
filed in support of the Company's second motion to dismiss. On
July 17, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to strike.  The
Court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud,
but reserved until further proceedings the determination as to
whether all of plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and
whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible.  The
Court has permitted the plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend
his complaint and has allowed the parties the opportunity to
conduct limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014
concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. A further
motion to dismiss briefing schedule will be set following the
conclusion of this limited discovery.


AFFINION GROUP: Court to Rule on Move to Junk Suit v. Webloyalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
indicated that it would review the submissions and issue a
decision on plaintiff's motion to dismiss a suit against
Webloyalty.com, Inc. without oral argument, according to Affinion
Group, Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On June 7, 2012, another class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the foregoing
California and Connecticut actions. The action claims that
Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq.
and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with
enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged
plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained
through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from
plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact
information, as purportedly required under Restore Online
Shoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, scheduling a
hearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought
judicial notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and
account documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12,
2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7,
2013.

Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the Court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing, although it has not yet done so. On August
28, 2013, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint
without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30, 2013.

The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013,
adding purported claims under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2,
2013, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint.
Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February
6, 2014, the Court indicated that it would review the submissions
and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without oral argument.


AFFINION GROUP: Seeks to Dismiss Massachusetts Consumer Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed against
it in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On February 7, 2014 a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief.
Claims are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and
billed for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent
and knowledge.  On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss. A hearing on that motion was held on July 24, 2014.  The
Company does not know when the court will rule on that motion.


AFFINION GROUP: Faces Suit in Cal. for "Unauthorized" Billing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California - San Francisco
Division, alleging it enrolled and charged the plaintiff for an
Identity Theft Protection program without the latter's consent,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

On May 12, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California - San Francisco Division.
The complaint alleges plaintiff was unknowingly enrolled in and
charged for an Identity Theft Protection program.  By agreement of
the parties, the defendants have until August 8, 2014 to answer or
otherwise respond to the complaint.  An initial case management
conference with the court is scheduled for August 12, 2014.


AHOLD USA: Accused of Discriminating Against Female Specialist
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Maisuradze v. Ahold Usa, Inc., 1149 Harrisburg Pike,
Carlisle, PA 17013, and Carol A. Hughes, Individually, 1385
Hancock Street, Quincy, PA 02169, Case No. 1:14-cv-01662-JEJ (M.D.
Pa., August 26, 2014) asserts discrimination and harassment.

For her sex discrimination claim, Ms. Maisuradze alleges that she
is paid at least $20,000 per year less than similarly situated
males performing the same work as she performs.  She is employed
with the Defendant as a Service Delivery Specialist.

Ahold USA Inc. is a corporation authorized to conduct business in
Pennsylvania.  The Company operates a place of business in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.  Carol A. Hughes is a manager or officer
of the Company.  Ahold USA is organized into four regional
divisions -- Giant Carlisle, Giant Landover, Stop & Shop New
England, and Stop & Shop New York Metro -- along with Peapod, the
nation's leading online grocery shopping/delivery service, which
together operate around 770 supermarkets and 120 pick-up points in
13 states and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa Matukaitis, Esq.
          MATUKAITIS LAW LLC
          104 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 412-7759
          E-mail: lm@matlawllc.com


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a securities suit against Alphatec Holdings,
Inc. filed a notice of appeal against the dismissal of a Second
Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5,
2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and officers
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 17,
2011, an amended complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers adding alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. HealthpointCapital,
Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and
Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants
in this action.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects,
particularly relating to the Scient'x transaction and the
Company's financial guidance following the closing of the
acquisition. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 18, 2011. The district court granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend on March 22, 2012.

On April 19, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and violations of Section 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same
named defendants.

On May 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. The district court granted that motion without
leave to amend and entered final judgment in the Company's favor
on March 28, 2013.

On April 17, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The
appeal has been fully briefed.


AMC NETWORK: Sued Over Disclosing Consumers' Personal Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ethel Austin-Spearman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMC Network Entertainment LLC, a New York
limited liability company, and AMC Networks, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06840 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014),
is brought to put an end to the Defendant's unlawful practices of
disclosing consumers' personally identifiable information along
with a record of the video clips to third party Facebook.

According to the lawsuit, Facebook acts as data broker to collect
and maintain a database of consumers' detailed personal
information. The database will be used to develop comprehensive
profiles about individual consumers' entire digital lives, and
these profiles may be used for targeted advertisings, sold as a
commodity to other data brokers.

AMC Network Entertainment LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AMC
Networks, Inc. and is known as a leading entertainment company
that offers a variety of television programming through its
eponymous cable television channel and websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Wurgaft, Esq.
      KRAVIS & FILE, P.C.
      1 Meadowlands Plaza, Suite 200
      East Rutherford, NJ 07073
      E-mail: mattwurgaft@gmail.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
      Alicia E. Hwang, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              bthomassen@edelson.com
              ahwang@edelson.com


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Paid $0.5 Million in Stipulation
---------------------------------------------------------
Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against American Superconductor
Corporation and two of its officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"); one
complaint additionally asserted claims against the underwriters
who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities offering.  On
June 7, 2011, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al.,
Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.

On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities
offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, as well as
under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The
complaint alleged that during the relevant class period, the
Company and its officers omitted to state material facts and made
materially false and misleading statements relating to, among
other things, its projected and recognized revenues and earnings,
as well as its relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that
artificially inflated the value of the Company's stock price. The
complaint further alleged that the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering contained untrue statements of material facts
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, rescindment of the
Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On December 16, 2011, the Court issued a summary order
declining to dismiss the Securities Act claims against the Company
and its officers, and taking under advisement the motion to
dismiss the Exchange Act claims against the Company and its
officers and the motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims made
against the underwriters.

On July 26, 2012, the district court dismissed the Exchange Act
claims against the Company and its officers and denied the motion
to dismiss the Securities Act claims made against the
underwriters.

On May 17, 2013, the parties informed the Court that they had
reached a settlement in principle, and requested a 30-day stay of
the proceedings while the specific terms of the settlement
continue to be negotiated.

On November 19, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which resolved the
claims asserted against the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and the underwriters. The terms of
the Stipulation provided, among other things, a settlement payment
by the Company of $10.0 million, $8.2 million of which was to be
funded by the Company's insurers and $1.8 million of which was
paid through the issuance of 944,882 shares of its common stock
(the "Settlement Shares").  In the event that the value of the
Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) decreased
as of the effective date of the settlement, the Company was
required to make a cash payment for the difference in value.

American Superconductor said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that by a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered on May 5, 2014, the
Court approved the terms of the Stipulation and dismissed this
private securities class action litigation.  In addition, the
Court found that (i) the terms and conditions of the proposed
issuance of the Settlement Shares are fair to those who receive
these securities, and (ii) the terms and conditions of, and the
procedures for, the proposed issuance of the Settlement Shares are
fair.  The effective date of the Stipulation was June 5, 2014 (the
"Effective Date").

Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (i) on June 11, 2014,
the Company made a cash payment of approximately $0.5 million for
the decrease in value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated
under the Stipulation) as of the Effective Date, and (ii) on June
18, 2014, the Company issued the Settlement Shares.  The issuance
of the Settlement Shares was exempt from registration pursuant to
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act.  The payments by the
Company represented the final amounts to be paid to the plaintiffs
under the Stipulation.

American Superconductor is a provider of megawatt-scale solutions
that lower the cost of wind power and enhance the performance of
the power grid.


ART EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Delgado" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Alejandro Delgado and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. Art Express 30 Minute Custom Framing, Inc.
d/b/a Art Express and Anwar Zayden, Case No. 1:14-cv-23108 (S.D.
Fla., August 23, 2014), seeks to recover overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Art Express 30 Minute Custom Framing, Inc. is a Florida based
company that provides custom framing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: Asylum-Seekers File Class Action v. Immigration Dep't
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Wallace, writing for The Australian, reports that Immigration
Minister Scott Morrison and his department face the prospect of
another detention class action after lawyers for injured asylum-
seekers on Christmas Island filed a law suit on Aug. 26.

Maurice Blackburn filed class action proceedings in the Victorian
Supreme Court seeking compensation alleging that the government
had failed to provide adequate medical care to detainees.  The
suit also seeks orders from the court for the government to
provide proper medical care to detainees, who Maurice Blackburn
says are suffering a litany of health problems ranging from severe
mental illness to more basic issues such as dental care.

The class action was also designed to peel back the layers of
secrecy that surround the offshore processing system, the law firm
said.

The lead plaintiff in the action is a six-year-old girl known only
as "A.S" to protect her identity.

Maurice Blackburn lawyer Katie Robertson said the girl was
suffering separation anxiety and had been diagnosed with post-
traumatic stress disorder and was possibly also suffering major
depression. She has developed a stammer, has been bed wetting and
has been refusing food, according to lawyers.

Maurice Blackburn principal Jacob Varghese said AS was separated
from her mother for an extended period when the mother was
transferred to the mainland to give birth to her sister.

"In combination with being detained for over a year and having
medical and dental issues poorly treated, AS is an alarmingly sad
and anxious child with serious mental health issues," he said.

"The government is robbing AS of her childhood -- the government
is robbing far too many children of their livelihoods.

Mr. Varghese said the remote location of Christmas Island meant
the standard of medical care and education for children that was
provided there was very low.

"There is now a substantial body of evidence pointing to
widespread failings for people in detention on Christmas Island
including poor standard of health care and poor access to any
specialist care," he said.

Mr. Varghese said the suit was an open class action that any
asylum-seeker injured while on Christmas Island in the past three
years could join.

The law firm said it was running the suit -- which is one of
several lodged over the government's immigration detention program
-- pro bono.


B.P.M. FARM: "Bonilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Wil Bonilla and Rosa Emilia Argueta, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. B.P.M. Farm Corp, Bello Poultry
Market, Mused Abdulsalam, Abdul and Faisal, Case No. 2:14-cv-04918
(E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a poultry farm and maintains a
principal place of business at 411 Union Avenue, Holbrook, New
York, 11741.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eliot F. Bloom, Esq
      LAW OFFICES OF ELIOT F. BLOOM, PC
      1551 Kellum Place, Second Floor
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (516) 739-5300
      Facsimile: (516) 739-3202
      E-mail: eb.efbesq@gmail.com


BANCO BILBAO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cuba Terror Victims' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that after
winning about $3.5 billion in default judgments against the
Republic of Cuba, Fidel Castro's persecuted political opponents
and their families have cleared a hurdle in their bid to seize
frozen Cuban assets at global banks including Spain's Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA).

In a ruling issued on Aug. 22, U.S. District Judge Alvin Judge
Hellerstein in Manhattan denied BBVA's request that he dismiss
garnishment litigation the families brought in an attempt to
collect on the judgments in New York.  BBVA's lawyers at White &
Case argued that judgments issued against Cuba by courts in
Florida are void, and that therefore Hellerstein lacks
jurisdiction over the follow-on proceedings.  But the judge
disagreed, writing that the Florida rulings are entitled to
deference.

U.S. laws require banks to freeze wire transfers in which
blacklisted governments like the Republic of Cuba and the Republic
of Iran might have an interest.  Under the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act, those frozen funds can be used to satisfy the many
default judgments obtained by terrorism victims against the
designated governments in U.S. courts.

The garnishment proceedings before Judge Hellerstein relate to
three lawsuits brought by victims or family members of victims
that Castro had killed or tortured.  The plaintiffs won judgments
against the Cuban government in Florida ranging in size from $95
million to $2.7 billion.  In all of the cases, judges heard
testimony and determined that they'd had proven their allegations
of torture and extrajudicial killing.  The judges also concluded
that the Cuban government can't invoke sovereign immunity because
it falls under an exception for governments designated as sponsors
of terrorism.

Beginning in 2012, the families brought follow-on litigation in
Manhattan in hopes of enforcing the judgments.  They are jointly
seeking to recover funds frozen by 19 financial institutions,
including Bank of America NA and Credit Suisse AG.

Of the banks affected by the turnover proceedings, BBVA was the
only one to bring a motion to dismiss.  The bank made the case
that the Cuban government might have put forward if it had
appeared in the underlying litigation -- namely, that the
government is immune from suit since it wasn't designated as a
sponsor of terrorism when alleged crimes occurred.  The Cuban
government should have been absolved from liability in the first
place, the bank's lawyers at White & Case argued, putting the bank
assets off limits.

Judge Hellerstein gave no credence to that argument in the Aug. 22
ruling.  In his view, judges in Florida already addressed the
issue of sovereign immunity, and it's not his place to second-
guess them.

"The judgments granted to the plaintiffs by that court were each
supported by appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law
based on full and fair evidentiary hearings.  The judgments are
each entitled to full faith and credit," the judge wrote.

White & Case partner Kenneth Caruso -- kcaruso@whitecase.com --
wasn't available for comment. The Litigation Daily also couldn't
reach Robert Swift -- rswift@kohnswift.com -- of Kohn, Swift &
Graf, who represents the plaintiffs in the New York litigation
along with Jeffrey Glen -- jglen@andersonkill.com -- of Anderson
Kill.


BP PLC: Neodesha Loses Bid for Retrial of Pollution Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the southeast Kansas town of
Neodesha has lost its latest bid to retry a class-action lawsuit.
The suit claimed BP of North America should do more to clean up
industrial pollution from a refinery that closed in 1970.

The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected the request on Aug. 22 from
residents and officials of Neodesha who sued in 2004 for more than
$478 million dollars in cleanup costs plus damages.

A jury ruled for BP in 2007, but the trial judge later set the
verdict aside, concluding he gave jurors improper instructions.

The Kansas Supreme Court reinstated the jury's verdict in 2012,
which caused the plaintiffs to file for a retrial.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged problems with the first trial
but said it found no reason for a new one.


BUBBA GUMP: Judge Approves Amended Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
Florida federal judge has approved an amended settlement between
Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Restaurants Inc. and a former employee who
claimed she and other hourly paid servers were denied overtime
wages and forced to work off the clock in violation of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S. District Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. issued an order on Aug. 12
adopting Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding's July 17 report that
recommends the amended agreement, which gives named plaintiff
Jessica Stuyvenberg $5,000 in compensation, be approved because it
is equitable.  Judge Dalton dismissed the suit with prejudice.

Although Ms. Stuyvenberg filed this suit as a putative collective
action, no other individuals opted in to the suit and she did not
move for conditional certification, according to court documents.
See the judge's order and the magistrate's report.

Earlier this summer, the same magistrate had denied a proposed
settlement by the parties and requested amended responses from the
plaintiff Jessica Stuyvenberg to make sure the proposal was fair,
citing her concerns about sweeping releases as well as various
non-monetary concessions by Ms. Stuyvenberg.

In her amended responses to the court's interrogatories,
Ms. Stuyvenberg asserted that she was entitled to $750.37 in
unpaid minimum wage and $750.37 in liquidated damages, plus
attorney's fees and costs.

The June 19 amended settlement provides that in addition to the
$1,501 as final settlement of the claims asserted in this case,
Ms. Stuyvenberg will receive $3,250 for attorneys' fees and an
extra $249 to release claims beyond those alleged in her amended
complaint.

Based on the amended responses and amended agreement, the
magistrate wrote, Ms. "Stuyvenberg will receive all of the unpaid
FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation and liquidated damages
arguably due, as well as attorney's fees and additional
compensation for the execution of a release of all claims related
to her employment with Bubba Gump that have not been asserted in
this lawsuit."


CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Illegally Calls Consumers' Phones, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Love Animashaun, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. California Service Bureau, and Does 1
Through 10, Case No. 3:14-cv-03866-JCS (N.D. Cal., August 26,
2014) accuses the Defendant of illegally calling consumers'
cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing
system or artificial or prerecorded voice, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Novato, California-based California Service Bureau is an accounts
receivable management company for various consumer debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN, IV
          8730 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (323) 207-3885
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com

               - and -

          G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6565 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 410
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940-1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238-8094
          E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
                  Nick@mblawapc.com


CAPITAL ONE: Removed "Rodriguez" Suit to New York District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Rodriguez v. Capital One Financial Corporation,
et al., Case No. 23217/2013E, was removed from the Supreme Court
of the state of New York, County of Bronx, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-06932 to the proceeding.

The action seeks to recover damages for medical disability
discrimination and harassment committed by the Defendants against
the Plaintiff.

Capital One is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in
McLean, Virginia.  Iveline Morillo was, at all relevant times, one
of the Plaintiff's supervisors and a manager at Capital One.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          Matthew Cohen, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephanie L. Aranyos, Esq.
          Melissa J. Osipoff, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1745 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 492-2500
          E-mail: stephanie.aranyos@ogletreedeakins.com
                  melissa.osipoff@ogletreedeakins.com


CAPITAL ONE: Fair Value of Guarantee to Visa Was $0 as of June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a number
of entities, each purporting to represent a class of retail
merchants, filed in 2005 antitrust lawsuits (the "Interchange
Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several member banks,
including Capital One's subsidiaries and Capital One, alleging
among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level
of interchange fees. The complaints seek injunctive relief and
civil monetary damages, which could be trebled. Separately, a
number of large merchants have asserted similar claims against
Visa and MasterCard only.

In October 2005, the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were
consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery. In
July 2012, the parties executed and filed with the court a
Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to resolve the litigation on
certain terms set forth in a settlement agreement attached to the
Memorandum.

The class settlement provides for, among other things, (i)
payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs
totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) a distribution to the
class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of certain
interchange transactions for a period of eight months; and (iii)
modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding point
of sale practices. This agreement is contingent on final court
approval of the class settlement.

In November 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the
class settlement. In December 2013, the court granted final
approval of the proposed class settlement, which was appealed to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2014.

Several merchant plaintiffs have also opted out of the class
settlement, some of which have sued MasterCard, Visa and various
member banks, including Capital One (collectively "the Opt-Out
Plaintiffs").

Relatedly, in December 2013, individual consumer plaintiffs also
filed a proposed national class action against a number of banks,
including Capital One, alleging that because the banks conspired
to fix interchange fees, consumers were forced to pay more for the
fees than appropriate. These cases are in their preliminary
stages.

"As members of Visa, our subsidiary banks have indemnification
obligations to Visa with respect to final judgments and
settlements, including the Interchange Lawsuits," Capital One
said.

In the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock.
With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the
benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and
claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits.

"As a result, in the first quarter of 2008, we reduced our Visa-
related indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in
other liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-
interest expense. We made an election in accordance with the
accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets and
liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the fair
value of the guarantee as of June 30, 2014 was zero," Capital One
said.

Separately, in January 2011, Capital One entered into a MasterCard
Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with other
defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and its
member banks the costs and liabilities of any judgment or
settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
established in 1995 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a
diversified financial services holding company with banking and
non-banking subsidiaries. Capital One Financial Corporation and
its subsidiaries (the "Company") offers a broad array of financial
products and services to consumers, small businesses and
commercial clients through branches, the internet and other
distribution channels.  As of June 30, 2014, its principal
subsidiaries included: Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association ("COBNA"), which offers credit and debit card
products, other lending products and deposit products; and Capital
One, National Association ("CONA"), which offers a broad spectrum
of banking products and financial services to consumers, small
businesses and commercial clients.


CAPITAL ONE: Class Cert. Appeal Pending in British Columbia Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a
furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed in March 2011 a
proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One
(the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount
fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation
of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as
a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other
jurisdictions in Canada. In March 2014, the court granted a
partial motion for class certification, and in April 2014 both
plaintiffs and defendants filed a notice to appeal the decision to
the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
established in 1995 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a
diversified financial services holding company with banking and
non-banking subsidiaries. Capital One Financial Corporation and
its subsidiaries (the "Company") offers a broad array of financial
products and services to consumers, small businesses and
commercial clients through branches, the internet and other
distribution channels.  As of June 30, 2014, its principal
subsidiaries included: Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association ("COBNA"), which offers credit and debit card
products, other lending products and deposit products; and Capital
One, National Association ("CONA"), which offers a broad spectrum
of banking products and financial services to consumers, small
businesses and commercial clients.


CAPITAL ONE: Supreme Court Denied Writ of Certiorari in July 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in 2007,
a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to represent a
class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
several issuing banks, including Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
defendants conspired to fix the level of late fees and over-limit
fees charged to cardholders, and that these fees are excessive.

In May 2007, the cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of
federal statutes and state law. The amended complaint requests
civil monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive
relief.

In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal of their
claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions
Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition Law
(the "UCL"), but not their antitrust conspiracy claims.

In January, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's
dismissal of the case. In April 2014, plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which
was denied by the Supreme Court in July 2014.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
established in 1995 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a
diversified financial services holding company with banking and
non-banking subsidiaries. Capital One Financial Corporation and
its subsidiaries (the "Company") offers a broad array of financial
products and services to consumers, small businesses and
commercial clients through branches, the internet and other
distribution channels.  As of June 30, 2014, its principal
subsidiaries included: Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association ("COBNA"), which offers credit and debit card
products, other lending products and deposit products; and Capital
One, National Association ("CONA"), which offers a broad spectrum
of banking products and financial services to consumers, small
businesses and commercial clients.


CAPITAL ONE: Fact Discovery Closed in Interest Rate Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer
order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two
pending putative class actions against COBNA-Nancy Mancuso, et al.
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and
Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D.
Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred
into the MDL.

In August 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges in a
putative class action that COBNA breached its contractual
obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the UCL, the California
False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on
certain credit card accounts. The MDL plaintiffs seek statutory
damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an injunction against
future rate increases. Fact discovery is now closed.

In August 2011, Capital One filed a motion for summary judgment,
which remains pending with the court. In July 2013, the MDL
plaintiffs filed a supplemental opposition to Capital One's motion
for summary judgment.

In April 2014, the MDL was reassigned to a new Judge in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As a result
of a settlement in another matter, the California-based UCL and
TILA claims in the MDL are extinguished.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
established in 1995 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a
diversified financial services holding company with banking and
non-banking subsidiaries. Capital One Financial Corporation and
its subsidiaries (the "Company") offers a broad array of financial
products and services to consumers, small businesses and
commercial clients through branches, the internet and other
distribution channels.  As of June 30, 2014, its principal
subsidiaries included: Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association ("COBNA"), which offers credit and debit card
products, other lending products and deposit products; and Capital
One, National Association ("CONA"), which offers a broad spectrum
of banking products and financial services to consumers, small
businesses and commercial clients.


CAPITAL ONE: Discovery in Overdraft Litigation to Conclude in Q3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in May
2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank
(USA), National Association ("COBNA"), were named as defendants in
a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges practices
relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on
consumer checking accounts.

Capital One said, "Plaintiff alleges that our methodology for
posting transactions to customer accounts was designed to maximize
the generation of overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of
remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees."

In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern District of
Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-
district litigation (MDL) involving numerous defendant banks,
captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.

In January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
against CONA in the MDL court.

In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. In

March 2011, the MDL court granted CONA's motion to dismiss claims
of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under
Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects.

In June 2012, the MDL court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

"The modified scheduling order entered by the MDL court
contemplates the conclusion of discovery in the third quarter of
2014 and we anticipate a remand to the Eastern District of
Louisiana in the fourth quarter of 2014," the Company said.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
established in 1995 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a
diversified financial services holding company with banking and
non-banking subsidiaries. Capital One Financial Corporation and
its subsidiaries (the "Company") offers a broad array of financial
products and services to consumers, small businesses and
commercial clients through branches, the internet and other
distribution channels.  As of June 30, 2014, its principal
subsidiaries included: Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association ("COBNA"), which offers credit and debit card
products, other lending products and deposit products; and Capital
One, National Association ("CONA"), which offers a broad spectrum
of banking products and financial services to consumers, small
businesses and commercial clients.


CAPITAL ONE: Final Approval of TCPA Class Settlement in Q4
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in
December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was created
as a result of a transfer order issued by the United States
Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ("TCPA MDL"), which
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative class
actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles
C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D.
Illinois)-and several individual lawsuits. In February 2013, the
putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint and individual lawsuits allege that
COBNA and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to
do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent
and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief.

In June 2014, the parties executed and filed with the court a
Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to resolve the litigation for
an amount within previously established reserves. In July 2014,
the court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement.
The court is scheduled to determine whether to provide final
approval of the class settlement in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
established in 1995 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a
diversified financial services holding company with banking and
non-banking subsidiaries. Capital One Financial Corporation and
its subsidiaries (the "Company") offers a broad array of financial
products and services to consumers, small businesses and
commercial clients through branches, the internet and other
distribution channels.  As of June 30, 2014, its principal
subsidiaries included: Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association ("COBNA"), which offers credit and debit card
products, other lending products and deposit products; and Capital
One, National Association ("CONA"), which offers a broad spectrum
of banking products and financial services to consumers, small
businesses and commercial clients.


CARE ONE: To Pursue Sanctions v. Plaintiff in TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that health care
provider Care One LLC asked a New Jersey federal judge on Aug. 22
to slap a plaintiff and his counsel with sanctions in a proposed
class action alleging the company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, claiming the case is based on false statements.

In its motion for sanctions, Care One asks U.S. District Judge
Susan D. Wigenton to penalize plaintiff John Sacchi and his
attorney Stephen J. Simoni for allegedly falsely asserting in a
motion for judgment on the pleadings that Care One had admitted to
violating the TCPA.

Care One argues Mr. Simoni, who is also Mr. Sacchi's spouse and a
registered nurse, filed a complaint on Mr. Sacchi's behalf
claiming Care One violated the TCPA by soliciting Sacchi over the
telephone using an artificial or prerecorded message.  However,
Care One claims the calls actually went to Mr. Simoni's phone
after he registered with a company called Guide Publications to
receive telephone updates on potential employment opportunities.

According to Care One, Guide Publications hosts health care-
related career fairs and obtains contact information from the
attendees, including telephone numbers.  Care One, which is a
client of Guide Publications, claims attendees must give their
consent in order to receive phone or e-mail updates about possible
job openings.

Care One claims they performed an investigation revealing
Mr. Simoni filed a complaint on Mr. Sacchi's behalf despite having
voluntarily provided his own name and telephone number to Guide
Publications.  The communications Mr. Sacchi received were
therefore not unsolicited, according to Care One.

"It appears that plaintiff and Mr. Simoni, who are 'professional'
class action plaintiffs, set up this lawsuit, filing it in
plaintiff's name to conceal that Mr. Simoni gave his prior express
consent to be contacted by Guide Publications and falsely
asserting, over and over, that plaintiff received the calls," Care
One's motion states.

In a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed on Mr. Sacchi's
behalf in July, Mr. Simoni claimed Care One had admitted that it
made "unsolicited robocalls" to prospective employees.  Care One
argues that although the company admitted to making calls to
certain registered nurses regarding potential employment, it
categorically denied violating the TCPA or making any illegal
calls.

Care One claims Guide Publication's records show Mr. Simoni's name
is on a list of nurses the company was authorized to contact on
Care One's behalf.  Care One also argues that even if Mr. Sacchi
picked up Mr. Simoni's telephone, he was not the called party or
intended recipient of the calls and lacks standing to pursue a
claim.

Care One argues Mr. Simoni should be sanctioned because filing a
case under Mr. Sacchi's name on the basis of receiving unsolicited
calls rises to the level of advancing factual allegations in court
filings for an "improper purpose" and without "evidentiary
support."

"It appears that Mr. Simoni and plaintiff set up this lawsuit
against Care One for their financial gain and filed suit in
plaintiff's name to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Simoni, in
February 2013 or earlier voluntarily provided his prior express
consent to be contacted by Guide Publications," Care One's motion
states.  "Thus, neither Mr. Simoni nor plaintiff have a viable
claim under the TCPA against Care One or Guide Publications for
making the calls."

The motion asks for the case to be dismissed with prejudice and
for Mr. Simoni to be barred from refiling the complaint in his own
name, in addition to seeking attorneys fees and costs.

Mr. Simoni told Law360 he had not seen the motion for sanctions as
of Aug. 25.

John Sacchi is represented by Stephen J. Simoni of The Law Offices
of Stephen J. Simoni.

Care One is represented by Michael D. Sirota --
msirota@coleschotz.com -- and Jamie P. Clare --
jclare@coleschotz.com -- of Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard
PA.

The case is John Sacchi v. Care One LLC, case number 2:14-cv-
00698, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


CIR LAW: Faces Suit Alleging Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bassili, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CIR Law Offices, LLP, Case No. 3:14-cv-01995-DMS-BLM
(S.D. Cal., August 26, 2014) asserts claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Michael Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
an organized group of Chinese hackers copied and transferred
personal information kept by Community Health Systems on as many
as 4.5 million people, but the company put patients at undue risk
by delaying notifying officials and publicly announcing the
breach, according to a proposed class action.

Alabama resident Denise Alverson and four other former patients of
the 206-hospital chain claim the hacker incursion occurred "around
April and June," but that the Tennessee-based company did not
confirm the hacking until July and alerted the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 18. On Aug. 19, a message about the
break-in was posted to the company's website.

On Aug. 20, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, the plaintiffs filed Alverson v. Community Health
Systems, in which they allege the delay in spreading the word
deprived millions of former patients of critical time to protect
themselves from identity theft.

They also accuse the company of failing to follow federally
prescribed, industry-standard security procedures.  "Defendants
did not adequately encrypt, if at all, plaintiffs' sensitive
Information," the complaint alleges.

Unlike in many cyberattacks against retail firms and other health
care companies, the hackers are not believed to have stolen
patient financial or medical information, according to Community
Health Systems' statement.  Instead, the allegedly China-based
operation, classified as an "advanced persistent threat" by
security analysts, apparently copied patient names, birthdates,
addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers, according to
the company and the complaint.

The company, which operates hospitals and medical centers in 29
states, hired a forensic expert to investigate the breach and is
"implementing additional audit and surveillance technology to
detect unauthorized intrusions, adopting advanced encryption
technologies, and requiring users to change their access
passwords," it said.

The plaintiffs claim the fast-growing, privately held company
engaged in unjust enrichment, breach of contract, wantonness and
negligence, and violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.
They ask for damages and injunctive relief.

Representing the plaintiffs are Donald Stewart, Greg Foster and T.
Dylan Reeves of Stewart & Stewart.


COMPLETE DISCOVERY: Faces "Nurse" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Latania Nurse, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. Complete Discovery Source Inc., Deron
Smith, in his individual and professional capacities, and Dino
Medina, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No.
1:14-cv-06894-WHP (S.D.N.Y., August 25, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Bodansky, Esq.
          WIGGIN & DANA, LLP
          One Century Tower
          265 Church Street
          Post Office Box 1832
          New Haven, CT 06911
          Telephone: (914) 261-1614
          E-mail: bbodansky@wigdorlaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Michael Pearson, Esq.
          THOMPSON WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
          E-mail: lpearson@wigdorlaw.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
01151-CRE (W.D. Pa., August 26, 2014) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


DELTA MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Maximov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Delta Management Associates, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05068 (E.D.N.Y., August 26, 2014) is brought for
violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B. Litvak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Ave P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796-4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


DIVERSIFIED WELL: Has Not Paid Overtime to Workers, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Phillips, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated
v. Diversified Well Logging, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01149-MPK (W.D.
Pa., August 26, 2014) alleges that although the Defendant's day
rate workers, including the Plaintiff, regularly work more than 80
hours a week, it does not pay them overtime.

Diversified Well Logging, LLC, is a privately held business with
its corporate office in Louisiana and additional offices in Corpus
Christi, Texas, Eighty Four, Pennsylvania and Mexico.  The Company
specializes in mud logging and mud logging related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          James A. Jones, Esq.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  jjones@brucknerburch.com


EHUD BOSKILA: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jentry Smith, on behalf of herself  and all those similarly
situated  who consent to representation v. Ehud Boskila, Case No.
3:14-cv-00392 (N.D. Fla., August 22, 2014), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Ehud Boskila is a person residing in the North District of Florida
that transacts business in this District and the State of
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Thomas Peavey Hoffer, Esq.
      MATTHEWS & JONES LLP
      4475 Legendary Dr
      DESTIN, FL 32541
      Telephone: (850) 837-3662
      Facsimile: (850) 654-1634
      E-mail: thoffer@destinlaw.com


ESTES HEATING: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Lewis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Estes Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., a For-Profit Corporation,
John M. Waldorf and Joel Heller, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
02733 (N.D. Ga., August 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Air Conditioning, Inc. operates as a heating and air conditioning
systems contractor in Fulton County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
      Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM

         - and -

      Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      P.O. Box 4979
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


ETHICON INC: Pelvic Mesh Bellwether Trial Begins in West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the first federal bellwether trial began on Aug. 25 against
Johnson & Johnson in a case alleging one of its transvaginal mesh
devices is defective.

Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon Inc. unit faces 33,000 lawsuits
worldwide claiming its pelvic mesh devices, which are used to
treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, have caused
women pain and forced them to undergo subsequent surgeries to
remove them.

The Aug. 25 trial, which is taking place in Charleston, W.Va., is
the first before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin to tell jurors
about Ethicon's TVT-O pelvic mesh sling.  On Feb. 19, Goodwin
threw out the first pelvic mesh trial in federal court against
Ethicon involving another device, the TVT.

"This trial is critically important to women and their families
from across the U.S. who have needlessly suffered from injuries
related to pelvic mesh implants," said Jane Akre, news editor of
Mesh News Desk, in a prepared statement on Aug. 25.  Ms. Akre is
monitoring the trial on behalf of a consumer group called the We
Are Mesh Survivors Coalition, which plans to ask Congress this
week to consider investigating the devices.  "We will be closely
monitoring this case and will document testimony provided by the
plaintiffs, J&J and any medical experts with involvement."
Jo Huskey and her husband, Allen Huskey, sued Ethicon in 2012
after a TVT-O pelvic mesh eroded in her body.

"She developed an erosion -- an infection -- and had to have two
removal surgeries, one of which was pretty invasive," said Fidelma
Fitzpatrick -- ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com -- a member in the
Providence office of Motley Rice, one of the attorneys on the
plaintiffs trial team.  "Because of the mesh and scar tissue and
damage done, like excising the mesh, she has very significant pain
caused by damaged muscles on her pelvic floor."

On April 30, Motley Rice negotiated an $830 million settlement
with another pelvic mesh device manufacturer, Endo International
PLC, to resolve claims against subsidiary American Medical Systems
Inc. in Minneapolis.

The Huskey trial is expected to last eight days.

Edward Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- partner at Chicago's
Wexler Wallace, lead trial counsel, did not respond to a request
for comment.  Ethicon is represented at trial by Christy Jones --
christy.jones@butlersnow.com -- of Butler Snow in Ridgeland,
Miss., and David Thomas, founding member of Thomas Combs & Spann
in Charleston.

Johnson & Johnson spokesman Matthew Johnson issued a statement via
email: "We empathize with Mrs. Huskey's medical situation, and we
are always concerned when a patient experiences adverse medical
conditions.  However, we believe that the evidence will show that
Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research,
development and marketing of our TVT-O midurethral sling for the
treatment of stress urinary incontinence.  We have always made
patient safety a top priority and will continue to do so."
Last year, Johnson & Johnson lost an $11 million verdict in New
Jersey state court in a trial involving a South Dakota woman who
underwent 18 operations in six years after being implanted with a
different Ethicon device.

On April 3, a jury in Dallas, hearing a case in Texas state court,
awarded $1.2 million in the first trial in the nation over the
TVT-O sling, which they found was defectively designed.  Huskey,
who lives in Illinois, has sued under Illinois law.

"Texas has different law than Illinois, so we're applying a
different set of laws and different things we have to prove,"
Ms. Fitzpatrick said.  "But it is the same device, and we'll be
hopeful the jury in West Virginia does what the jury in Texas
did."


EXELON CORP: Cotter Faces Suit Over West Lake Landfill Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cotter Corporation is facing a lawsuit filed by individuals living
in the North St. Louis area over defendants' alleged negligent
handling of radioactive materials, according to Exelon
Corporation's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On April 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against Cotter
and six additional defendants. The complaint alleges that
individuals living in the North St. Louis area within a three-mile
radius of the West Lake Landfill suffered damage to property or
loss of use of property due to the defendants' negligent handling
of radioactive materials. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for
monetary damages under the Price-Anderson Act.


EXELON CORP: ComEd's Motion to Dismiss TCPA Violation Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion by Commonwealth Edison Company to dismiss a lawsuit
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") over its enrolment of customers in its Outage Alert text
message program, was denied, according to Exelon Corporation's
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to
customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such
messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd
from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages
could range from $500 to $1,500 per text. On February 21, 2014,
ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class action complaint and
intends to contest the allegations of this suit. On June 4, 2014,
ComEd's motion to dismiss was denied. As of June 30, 2014, ComEd
has a reserve, which is not material, representing its best
estimate of probable loss associated with this class action
complaint.


EZCORP INC: Sued in New York Over Misleading Financial Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Close, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ezcorp, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel, and Mark E.
Kuchenrither, Case No. 1:14-cv-06834 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose, that the implementation of certain
strategic and growth initiatives was less successful than
represented, certain of the Company's business units and
investments were not performing as well as represented, and based
on the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, lacked a reasonable
basis.

Ezcorp, Inc., offers customers multiple ways to access instant
cash, including pawn loans and consumer loans in the United
States, Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Suit in U.S. Over Concussions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a group of parents
sued several soccer organizations including the sport's
international governing body FIFA, saying they have failed to do
more about concussions among children.

The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 27 in a California federal court, says
FIFA and other groups such as the American Youth Soccer
Organization have not done enough to reduce preventable injuries
from repetitive ball heading.

The risks of head injuries in sports have been a recurring concern
in the United States.  Last month the National Collegiate Athletic
Association agreed to settle a head injury lawsuit by creating a
$70 million fund for concussion testing.  Some of the same lawyers
involved in that case filed the soccer lawsuit.

"Younger players are typically not provided professional medical
supervision, either during practices or at matches," the lawsuit
said.

The lawsuit seeks to institute a medical monitoring program, as
well as attorneys fees.

FIFA representatives could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a statement, the AYSO said its "highest priority is creating a
safe and nurturing environment where kids can play and have fun,"
adding that it requires any player exhibiting signs of a
concussion immediately be removed for the remainder of the day.

"For many families soccer is seen as a terrific alternative to
football," the lawsuit said.  "Parents are often relieved when
their children choose soccer.  However, soccer ranks among the top
sports in the number of concussions per game."

The case is Rachel Mehr et al. vs. Federation Internationale de
Football Association a/k/a/ FIFA et al., in U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California No. 14-3879.


FORBES CONSTRUCTION: Required "Off-the-Clock" Work, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frederic B. Ivester v. Forbes Construction, LLC, John R. Forbes,
and Mahmoud Khalil Saab, Case No. 1:14-cv-23112-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
August 25, 2014) alleges that the Defendants required the
Plaintiff to perform additional work "off-the-clock" for their
sole benefit; thus, they failed to comply with their recordkeeping
obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Forbes Construction, LLC, is a Florida for profit corporation
doing business in Florida.  The Individual Defendants are managing
members of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 403
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


GMRI INC: Labor Law Class Action Obtains Partial Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
major restaurant chain is having to face the music over alleged
rest period and meal break transgressions, striking a sour note
amongst thousands of would-be plaintiffs in a pending California
labor law class action.

The defendant is the venerable Olive Garden franchise, which is
operated by GMRI Inc.  In August, A federal judge granted a
partial class certification in a California labor lawsuit brought
against GMRI over the missed rest period issue.

The lawsuit is Antonio Romo, Jonathan Macias and Claudia Garcia v.
GMRI Inc., doing business as Olive Garden, case number 5:12-cv-
00715, in the US District Court for the Central District of
California.  According to court records, the plaintiffs had
originally filed two complaints alleging California labor code
violations in 2012 and 2103 respectively.  The two lawsuits were
consolidated when they were removed to California federal court,
and originally involved a third subclass with regard to an alleged
failure on the defendant's part to reimburse employees for the
purchase of nonslip shoes.

However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their petition for
certification in that subclass.

There were various reasons noted by Senior US District Judge
Justin L. Quackenbush for denying certification for the meal break
subclass.  However, he did give a nod to the subclass with regard
to missed or inadequate rest periods as required under California
labor employment law.

Under the California labor code, an employee who works a shift
lasting 7.5 hours is entitled to not one but two paid rest breaks.
Plaintiffs allege that manager guidelines observed by Olive Garden
managers reflect the provision for a single, 10-minute paid rest
period to an employee working a shift of that length.

"GMRI has not presented such overwhelming evidence that GMRI in
fact had a policy of providing second rest breaks to employees,
sufficient to inject fatal uncertainty as to the question of
commonality," Judge Quackenbush wrote in his certification filed
with the Court, on August 12.

The rest period subclass that achieved certification includes all
nonexempt, and/or all workers paid on an hourly basis, who were
employees at Olive Garden restaurants operated by GMRI in the
state of California from January 2011 until the date of
certification.

Rest breaks and meal periods are entrenched in California employee
labor law as a necessary right of employment for all employees
meeting the criteria.  When employers allegedly deny employees
their breaks as mandated under California state labor laws,
employees are not shy about pursuing their employment rights
through the courts.


GUARDIAN HOME: Faces "Carroll" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danette Carroll on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Guardian Home Care Holdings, Inc., and Accentcare,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01722 (M.D. Tenn., August 22, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation.

Guardian Home Care Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary company of
AccentCare, Inc., which is home healthcare and hospice services
provider.

Accentcare, Inc. owns and operates home healthcare companies in
California, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, New York, Oregon, Georgia,
Tennessee, and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      Seth Marcus Hyatt, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza, 414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
              jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
              shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

          - and -

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211, 715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


HCA HOLDINGS: Oral Argument Set on Bid to Certify Tenn. Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., was
filed on October 28, 2011, in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief.  The
case sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies
in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement.

Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated.

On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters &
Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the
consolidated action.

On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of
directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further
asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules
Holdings II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the
time of the initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company's
disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating
to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and
2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain
effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 11, 2012. The Court granted the motion in
part on May 28, 2013.

HCA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the action is
proceeding to discovery on the remaining claims. Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class has been briefed and is set for oral
argument in August 2014.

It is not known when the court will rule on the motion.

HCA Holdings, Inc. is a holding company whose affiliates own and
operate hospitals and related health care entities.


HOSPICE OF EAST TEXAS: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Cates v. The Hospice of East Texas, Case No. 6:14-cv-00714-
JDL (E.D. Tex., August 25, 2014) alleges that the Defendant has
failed to pay the Plaintiff and others similarly situated for
continuous workday activities, which are integral and
indispensable to their principal activities.  The Plaintiff seeks
her unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, all available
equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs.

The Hospice of East Texas is doing business in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 593-5588
          E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


INVENTURE FOODS: "Anderson" Suit Against Jamba Juice Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in March 2012, the
Company learned that Jamba Juice Company was named as a defendant
in a putative class action filed in the Federal Court for the
North District of California and captioned Anderson v. Jamba Juice
Company (the "Anderson Matter").  The plaintiff purports to
represent a class of individuals who purchased make-at-home
smoothie kits from Jamba Juice, and alleges that such smoothie
kits contain unnaturally processed, synthetic and/or non-natural
ingredients and that use of the words "All Natural" on the labels
of these smoothie kits is unfair and fraudulent and violates
various false advertising and unfair competition laws.  The
Anderson Matter is one of several "all natural" lawsuits recently
brought against various food manufacturers and distributors in
California.  In an amended complaint, the plaintiff also alleged
violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but the
court dismissed those claims in August 2012.

In a second amended complaint filed in September 2012, Inventure
Foods was added as a defendant.  Pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, on September 3, 2013 the court dismissed the Anderson
Matter.

Under its license agreement with the Jamba Juice, Inventure Foods
is obligated and has agreed to indemnify and defend Jamba Juice.


INVENTURE FOODS: Settlement Discussions Continue in "Lilly" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that on June 28, 2013, a
class action complaint against Jamba Juice and the Company,
captioned Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et al (the "Lilly Matter"),
was filed in the Federal Court for the Northern District of
California and makes nearly identical allegations as those made in
the Anderson Matter, except that the complaint also alleges that
the smoothie kits contain two additional allegedly non-natural
ingredients.  The plaintiffs in this new action are represented by
the same counsel that represented the plaintiff in the Anderson
Matter.

"While we currently believe the "all natural" statement on the
smoothie kits are not misleading and in full compliance with FDA
guidelines, we are investigating the claims asserted in the Lilly
Matter, and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.

According to the Company, "On September 17, 2013, we filed a
motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as to
gelatin and the Orange Dream Machine smoothie kit.  Our motion was
denied in November 2013."

On February 3, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class of all persons in California who bought certain Jamba Juice
smoothie kits.  The parties held a mediation on March 31, 2014.

Although the parties did not reach an agreement, settlement
discussions continue.

Counsel for the Company and Jamba Juice deposed both plaintiffs on
May 6, 2014.  The Company and Jamba Juice filed their response to
the plaintiffs' motion on June 30, 2014, and oral argument was
scheduled for August 21, 2014.

The court will hold a case management conference after it has
issued a class certification order.


INVENTURE FOODS: Faces "Montantes" Suit Over Recorded Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that on February 13, 2014,
the Company was sued in two putative class actions filed by
Vanessa Montantes alleging that it recorded telephone calls made
to its consumer affairs telephone number without obtaining consent
to recording as allegedly required by California law.

One of the actions was filed in California State Court and
captioned Vanessa Montantes v. Inventure Foods, Inc. doing
business as Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, Superior Court for the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles Case No.
BC536218.  This state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff
within a few days of its original filing date.

The other action was filed in Federal Court and captioned Vanessa
Montantes v. Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon Natural Foods,
United States District Court for the Central District of
California Case No. CV14-1128 MWF (RZx).  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2014, which was
denied on June 9, 2014.  The Company also demanded indemnity from
EMS, Inc., the independent contractor that answered the consumer
affairs calls, but EMS, Inc. has not agreed to indemnify the
Company.  On July 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint adding EMS, Inc. as a defendant.  The Company's answer
to the First Amended Complaint was due on August 1, 2014.


IRR INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Cutola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. I.R.R., INC. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:14-cv-
05357-ES-JAD (D.N.J., August 26, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


JBI INC: Seeks Approval for Settlement of Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JBI, Inc. is in the process of settling a securities lawsuit filed
against it and John Bordynuik, former Chief Executive Officer of
the Company and a former member of the Company's Board of
Directors, and Ronald C. Baldwin, former Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

As previously reported, on July 28, 2011, certain of the Company's
stockholders filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and
Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin on behalf of purchasers of its
securities.  In an amended complaint filed on July 10, 2012, these
stockholders sought to represent such purchasers during the period
from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012. The original and
amended complaints in that case, filed in federal court in Nevada,
allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements, or
both, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations and prospects in press releases and
filings made with the SEC. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
the Company made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose material information, or a combination thereof regarding:
(1) that certain media credits ("Media Credits") were
substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company improperly
accounted for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the Company's
financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; and (4) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls.  During the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case
and an amended complaint was filed. The Company's answer to the
amended complaint was filed during the fourth quarter of 2012.

On August 8, 2013, JBI, Inc., entered a stipulation agreement (the
"Stipulation Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously
reported class action lawsuit filed by certain stockholders of the
Company against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin
(both former officers of the Company) on behalf of a settlement
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012
(the "Proposed Class Period").  Under the Stipulation Agreement,
the Company would agree to issue shares of its common stock that
will comprise a settlement fund.  The number of shares to be
issued will be dependent on the price per share of the Company's
common stock during a period preceding the date of the Court's
entry of final judgment in the case (the "Judgment Date").  If the
price of the Company's common stock is less than $0.50 per share
based upon the average closing price for the 90 trading days
preceding the Judgment Date, the Company would issue 3 million
shares of its common stock. If the price of the Company's common
stock is between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based upon the same
90-day average closing price, the Company would issue 2.5 million
shares of its common stock.  If the price of the Company's common
stock is more than $0.70 per share based upon the same 90-day
average closing price the Company will issue 1.75 million shares
of its common stock.  The shares will not be distributed to class
members in kind.  At any time after final approval by the Court,
class counsel would have the option to sell all or any portion of
such shares for the benefit of class members, subject to certain
volume limitations.  Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees,
subject to Court approval, would be paid out of the settlement
fund.  The Company would also pay settlement-related costs up to a
maximum of $200,000.  The plaintiffs and each of the class members
who purchased the Company's common stock during the Proposed Class
Period and alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully
released all claims against the Company and other defendants upon
entry of judgment.  On September 10, 2013, that agreement was
submitted to the Court, and class counsel moved for entry of an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, including
the mailing of a settlement notice that will include, among other
things, the general terms of the settlement, proposed plan of
allocation, and terms of plaintiff's counsel's fee application.
On April 1, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying that motion.
It is anticipated that additional briefing will be submitted to
the Court in support of the motion, and that the Court will then
reconsider its Order.


JMI STAFFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Sanchez, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
JMI Staffing, Inc., a Florida profit corporation; JMI Cleaning
Services, Inc., a Florida profit corporation; and JMI Resource,
Inc., a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-02090-CEH-TGW
(M.D. Fla., August 26, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to
pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are Florida profit corporations headquartered in
Lutz, Florida.  They provide cleaning and set up services for
corporations, public entities and corporate events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
          Bernard R. Mazaheri
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com
                  bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


KBR INC: High Court Invites Briefs in Burn Pit Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order inviting the Solicitor
General to file briefs in the Burn Pit litigation against KBR,
Inc., expressing the views of the United States as to KBR's
pending applications for writ of certiorari, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

From November 2008 through March 2013, KBR was served with over 50
lawsuits in various states alleging exposure to toxic materials
resulting from the operation of burn pits in Iraq or Afghanistan
in connection with services provided by KBR under the LogCAP III
contract. Each lawsuit has multiple named plaintiffs and seeks
class certification. The lawsuits primarily allege negligence,
willful and wanton conduct, battery, intentional infliction of
emotional harm, personal injury and failure to warn of dangerous
and toxic exposures which has resulted in alleged illnesses for
contractors and soldiers living and working in the bases where the
pits were operated. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified
damages. All of the pending cases were removed to Federal Court
and have been consolidated for multi-district litigation treatment
before the U.S. Federal District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.

In February 2013, the Court dismissed the case against KBR,
accepting all of KBR's defense claims including the Political
Question Doctrine; the Combatant Activities Exception to the
Federal Tort Claims Act; and Derivative Sovereign Immunity. The
plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on
March 27, 2013. On March 6, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court vacated
the order of dismissal and remanded this multi-district litigation
for further action, including a ruling on state tort law and its
impact upon the "Contractor on the Battlefield" defenses. KBR has
filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Three
amicus briefs have been filed in support of KBR's legal arguments.
On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order inviting
the Solicitor General to file briefs in the burn pit litigation,
expressing the views of the United States as to KBR's pending
applications for writ of certiorari. We anticipate these briefs
will not be filed until the fourth quarter of 2014. At this time
we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to
this matter is remote. As of June 30, 2014, no amounts have been
accrued.


KBR INC: Plaintiffs Vie for Lead Status in Tex. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four parties have moved to be appointed as lead plaintiff in a
securities lawsuit filed against KBR, Inc. in the US District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

After the Company announced it would be restating its 2013 annual
financial statements, three complaints were filed in the federal
district court for the Southern District of Texas seeking class
action status on behalf of our shareholders and alleging damages
on their behalf arising from the matters that led to the
restatement. Two of those complaints were voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiffs. The defendants in the remaining case, Kohut v.
KBR, Inc et al, are the Company, our former chief executive
officer and our current and former chief financial officers. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the restatement of
our 2013 annual financial statements and seeks undisclosed
damages. Four parties, including the plaintiff in the Kohut
lawsuit, have moved to be appointed as lead plaintiff. The court
has not appointed a lead plaintiff, and we have not yet answered
or otherwise responded to the complaint.


KODIAK OIL: Faces Lawsuits in Colorado Over Whiting Arrangement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp.'s Board of Directors is facing lawsuits in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado over
its agreement with Whiting Petroleum Corporation, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Subsequent to the announcement of the Whiting Petroleum
Corporation Arrangement, four putative shareholder direct and
derivative class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties by the individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors. Those cases are captioned as: (i) Quigley et al. v.
Whiting Petroleum Corporation et al., No. 1:14-cv-02023-BNB, filed
on July 22, 2014; (ii) Fioravanti et al. v. Krysiak et al., No.
1:14-cv-02037 filed on July 23, 2014; (iii) Wilkinson v. Whiting
Petroleum Corporation et al., No. 1:14cv2074 filed on July 25,
2014; and (iv) Goldsmith v. Krysiak et al., No. 1:14cv2098 filed
on July 29, 2014. These lawsuits complain about the price offered
in the Arrangement and the process followed by the Company's Board
of Directors and generally seek, among other things, injunctive
relief prohibiting the Company and Whiting from consummating the
Arrangement, an order rescinding the Arrangement Agreement and
reimbursement of unspecified costs, including attorneys' and
experts' fees and other relief. The derivative claims seek a
recovery on behalf of the Company.


LA CASA ANAHEIM: Accused by "Disabled Person" of Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Loskot v. La Casa Anaheim Resort, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, dba Hotel Menage, and Does One to Ten,
inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01362-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., August 25,
2014) alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the
Plaintiff on the basis of his disability, and interfered with his
access to the "Hotel Menage" establishment, in violation of the
California Civil Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.

Mr. Loskot is, a "physically handicapped person, "physically
disabled person," and a "person with a disability," as these terms
are used under California law and under the ADA.

The Hotel Menage is located in Anaheim, California, and is owned
and operated by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason K. Singleton, Esq.
          SINGLETON LAW GROUP
          611 "L" Street, Suite "A"
          Eureka, CA 95501
          Telephone: (707) 441-1177
          Facsimile: (707) 441-1533
          E-mail: jason@singletonlawgroup.com


LANGSTON CITY, OK: Faces "Sturdivan" Class Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Sturdivan, for herself and all others similarly situated
v. Langston, City of, Case No. 5:14-cv-00907-HE (W.D. Okla.,
August 25, 2014) is brought under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaiting Oral Argument in 3rd Cir. Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal securities class action and shareholder derivative
lawsuit was filed on June 8, 2012, in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Genaera Corporation and its officers,
directors, major shareholders and trustee ("Genaera Defendants")
for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to Genaera
shareholders.  The lawsuit also names Ligand Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated and its Chief Executive Officer John Higgins as
additional defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the
Genaera Defendants' various breaches of fiduciary duties based on
the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a development-
stage pharmaceutical drug program from the Genaera Liquidating
Trust in May 2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of half of its
interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc.

Following an amendment to the complaint and a round of motions to
dismiss, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
on August 12, 2013.  Plaintiff appealed that dismissal on
September 10, 2013.

Briefing is now complete, and the parties are awaiting the
scheduling of oral argument before the Third Circuit, which
management anticipates will take place in the next few months,
Ligand Pharmaceuticals said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Management believes it is very likely to prevail on appeal, and,
for that reason, believes the litigation presents a remote
likelihood of material loss, the Company said.

Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is a biopharmaceutical company
that develops and acquires royalty and other revenue generating
assets and couples them with a lean corporate cost structure.


LIVE NATION: Ticketing Fees Consumer Suit Accord Gets Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California preliminarily approved a
settlement reached in a lawsuit challenging Ticketmaster's charges
to online customers for shipping fees, according to Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2014.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.

In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint,
then pleading the case as a putative class action and adding the
claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in respect of its
ticket order processing fees constitute false advertising in
violation of California's False Advertising Law. On this new
claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of
the entire amount of order processing fees charged by Ticketmaster
during the applicable period.

In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a)
Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable under the
UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further
violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs
later filed a third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed
a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's
demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order.

In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and the
Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate.  In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the
plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior
Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion
to certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation
continued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
approved preliminarily, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties reached a
revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court
in April 2014. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not
acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with
the matter.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company has accrued $35.4 million, its
best estimate of the probable costs associated with the settlement
referred to above. This liability includes an estimated redemption
rate. Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption
rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the
final settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


LOUYA CORP: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages Pursuant to FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Gomez Rios, Eliezer Francis, Gildardo Ojeda-Juarez, Carlos
Suarez, Pedro Tlacomulco, and Rene Almazo, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Louya Corp. d/b/a Jacques
Brasserie, Service Corp. d/b/a Jacques 1534, JBB Bar and Grill
Inc. d/b/a The Pitch & Fork, and Hamimi "Jacques" Ouari, Case No.
1:14-cv-06800 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014), seeks to recover
minimum wage, overtime compensation, spread-of hours pay,
misappropriated gratuities, and statutory penalties in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate the JRG Restaurants, which
maintains a principal place of business at 204 206 East
85th St, New York, NY 10028.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
      Nicholas P. Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Barron" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Barron, R.N., individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.,
a Maryland corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01970 (S.D. Cal., August
22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation which,
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by medical assistants, nurses, therapists,
medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
      Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
      501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
      San Diego, CA 92101-3579
      Telephone: (619) 238-1333
      Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
      E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
              mlk@classactionlaw.com

         - and -

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


MG HOSPITALITY: Accused of Discriminating Against Bahamian Worker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredericka Black v. MG Hospitality Services, Inc. d/b/a J.W.
Marriott Hotel Miami, Case No. 1:14-cv-23149-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
August 26, 2014) is an action for declaratory and injunctive
relief and damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the
Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 to redress injury done to the
Plaintiff by the Defendant's alleged discriminatory treatment on
the basis of race and national origin.

The Plaintiff is black individual of Bahamian origin.

MG Hospitality Services, Inc., doing business as J.W. Marriott
Hotel Miami, is a Florida corporation authorized to conduct
business in the state of Florida, in Dade County, Florida.
Marriot Hotel is a hotel that provides hospitality services to
patrons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mindy Hami, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Does 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06687 (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Muller" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Muller, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Midland Funding, LLC, and Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-81117-KAM (S.D. Fla., August 26, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND FUNDING: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Vecchio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-01366-PGB-DAB
(M.D. Fla., August 25, 2014) asserts claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan K. Mickler, Esq.
          MICKLER & MICKLER
          5452 Arlington Expressway
          Jacksonville, FL 32211
          Telephone: (904) 725-0822
          Facsimile: (904) 725-0855
          E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com


MICHAELS STORES: Can't Split Managers' Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge ruled on Aug. 25 that Michaels Stores Inc. can't
split into multiple trials a certified class action alleging the
national crafts chain illegally refuses to pay overtime to Golden
State store managers, saying the claims of the three named
plaintiffs have enough commonalities to proceed together.

During a hearing in Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge George Wu
denied Michaels' motion for separate trials in the class action --
which is one of two such suits consolidated in a multidistrict
litigation -- but granted the retailer's motion for partial
summary judgment, tossing the claims of named plaintiff
Sophia Sadlowski and narrowing the number of former store managers
named as plaintiffs from four to three.

Judge Wu said he was making his tentative ruling final, which
found that Ms. Sadlowski's claims are barred by judicial estoppel
because she had failed to disclose her claims in a Chapter 13
bankruptcy proceeding.

As for Michaels' motion for separate trials, Judge Wu said he
reserved the right to change his mind at a future point in time --
should it be shown that each plaintiff's claims requires different
sets of witnesses or that a single trial would place burdensome
travel requirements on potential witnesses -- but for now, he said
he's "not going to have separate trials."

The suit was originally filed by four former Michaels store
managers in Orange County Superior Court in September 2011,
alleging the national craft stores chain illegally misclassifies
its store managers as managerial employees, which are exempt from
overtime requirements, even though said managers engage primarily
in nonexempt work.

In November 2013, Orange County Superior Court Judge Kim G.
Dunning certified a class of all California store managers
employed by Michaels from September 2007 to September 2013,
excluding anyone who had been a named plaintiff before September
2011 in any of pending federal wage-and-hour suits against
Michaels.

After the suit had been removed to federal court, the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 5  consolidated
the suit with four other federal wage-and-hour claims pending in
California federal courts and transferred the resulting MDL to the
Central District.

On Sept. 14, Michaels moved to dismiss Ms. Sadlowski's claims,
arguing that because the former manager had failed to disclose her
claims during her bankruptcy proceedings, despite filing her
lawsuit while her bankruptcy plan was still in effect, she would
be obtaining an "unfair advantage" if her claims are allowed to
proceed without her creditors having included them in her
bankruptcy plan.

The plaintiffs have stipulated to dismiss with prejudice the
claims of three of the named plaintiffs.  And on Aug. 25, Judge Wu
dismissed Ms. Sadlowski's claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by David J. Gallo of the Law
Offices of David J. Gallo.

Michaels is represented by Catherine A. Conway --
cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- and Justin T. Goodwin --
jgoodwin@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn.

The case is In re: Michaels Stores Inc. Wage and Hour Employment
Practices Litigation, case number 2:14-ml-02531, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.


MORGAN STANLEY: Pact Reached in Mortgage Pass-Through Cert. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 22, 2014, the
parties in In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Litigation reached an agreement in principle to settle the
litigation. The settlement is subject to court approval.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Wealth
Management and Investment Management. The Company, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, provides a wide variety of products
and services to a large and diversified group of clients and
customers, including corporations, governments, financial
institutions and individuals.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement Reached in IndyMac MBS Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 23, 2014, the
parties in In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation
reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The
settlement is subject to court approval.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Wealth
Management and Investment Management. The Company, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, provides a wide variety of products
and services to a large and diversified group of clients and
customers, including corporations, governments, financial
institutions and individuals.


MORGAN STANLEY: Agreement Reached in "Dandong" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 17, 2014, the
parties in Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd. reached
an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement
is subject to court approval.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Wealth
Management and Investment Management. The Company, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, provides a wide variety of products
and services to a large and diversified group of clients and
customers, including corporations, governments, financial
institutions and individuals.


MORGAN STANLEY: Motion to Dismiss CDS Antitrust Litigation Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company and the
other recipients of the Statement of Objections issued by the
European Commission ("EC") in July 2013 with respect to the
development of exchange traded credit default swap products
attended oral hearings before the EC during the period May 12-19,
2014.  The Company's oral hearing took place on May 15, 2014. On
May 23, 2014, the defendants in In Re: Credit Default Swaps
Antitrust Litigation filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
second consolidated amended class action complaint.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments -- Institutional Securities, Wealth
Management and Investment Management. The Company, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, provides a wide variety of products
and services to a large and diversified group of clients and
customers, including corporations, governments, financial
institutions and individuals.


MSE2 INC: Removed "Hawkins" Suit to Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Alva Hawkins v. MSE2, Inc., Case
No. 2014-CA-007244-O, was removed from the 9th Judicial Circuit
Court, Orange County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Orlando).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-01375-GKS-TBS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew K. Fenton, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: mfenton@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lillian Chaves Moon, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 246-8452
          Facsimile: (407) 246-8441
          E-mail: MoonL@jacksonlewis.com


NATIONAL HOCKEY: "LaCouture" Suit Consolidated in Concussion MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled LaCouture, et al. v. National
Hockey League, Case No. 1:14-cv-02531, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-03234-SRN to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation,
MDL No. 0:14-md-02551-SRN.

The actions in the litigation arise from allegations against the
NHL stemming from injuries resulting from the long-term effects of
concussions while playing professional hockey in the NHL.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          120 E Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 961-2271
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: cobrien@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 S Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 454-7724
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  malba@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M Rothman, Esq.
          LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 S Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: RRothman@lerachlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shepard Goldfein, Esq.
          James A. Keyte, Esq.
          Matthew Michael Martino, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3610
          Facsimile: (917) 777-3610
          E-mail: sgoldfei@skadden.com
                  james.keyte@skadden.com
                  mamartin@skadden.com


NCL CORP: Denial of Cert. to Crew Members Fla. Lawsuit Stands
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied a petition by plaintiffs
for review of a ruling denying class certification to a labor
lawsuit filed against NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida, according to NCL
Corporation Ltd.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits. In December 2010, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In February 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the
Court's Order on Class Certification which was denied. The Court
tried six individual plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012
awarded wages aggregating approximately $100,000 to such
plaintiffs. In October 2013, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings as to the
denial of Class Certification and the trial verdict. The
Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court's
decision which was denied in March 2014.


NCL CORP: Crew Members Suit v. NCL (Bahamas) Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed by a purported class of crew members against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida remains stayed, according to the company's
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract. In July 2012,
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July
2009.


NCO FINANCIAL: Faces "Bereza" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Bereza, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:14-cv-05316-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 25, 2014) arises from
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP representing investors of NetSol
Technologies, Inc., on Aug. 25 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class comprising purchasers
of NetSol securities between November 12, 2009 and November 8,
2013, inclusive.

Please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, at (888) 773-9224 or (310)
201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.
If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.

NetSol designs, develops, markets and exports software products
primarily to the automobile finance and leasing, banking,
healthcare and financial services industries worldwide.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements or failed to
disclose material facts, including that: (1) NetSol's next
generation product was not expected to be completed when promised
by the Company; (2) serious interest in the next generation
solution had not been expressed by relevant potential customers,
and the product was not ready for testing at customer sites; (3)
NetSol did not expect future growth through increased revenues
from both the current version and the next generation of its
NetSol Financial Suite; (4) NetSol did not have a reasonable basis
for stating that its target customers, who were still using old
systems, were planning to replace their legacy systems or that
NetSol was in a good position to gain new business from these
companies; and (5) all internal data pointed to a continued
business decline -- not "growth and strength across the business"
-- as represented by the Company.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than September 23, 2014, to serve as lead
plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
by toll-free telephone at (888) 773-9224 or by telephone at (310)
201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


NEW YORK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Inmates Recreation Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam West and others similarly situated v. The City of New York,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06839 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014), arises from
the pattern and practice of denial of pre-trial and post-trial
detainees constitutional rights, specifically that pre-trial and
post trial, detainees and inmates are sent to solitary confinement
at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center, at Rikers Island jail for
violating rules and have to endure multiple days in a row locked
in their 7- by 12-foot cells without access to outdoor recreation
cages for 1 hour per day.

City of New York owned, operated, controlled and maintained the
New York City Department of Corrections, by charter, or by law,
under the provisions of the State and/or City of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew F. Plasse, Esq.
      ANDREW F. PLASSE
      352 7th Avenue, Suite 1222
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 695-5811


OCWEN LOAN: Removed "Williams" Suit to Delaware District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Williams, et al. v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing LLC, Case No. N14C-08-035 WCC, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(Wilmington).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
01096-UNA to the proceeding.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege six causes of action --
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, conversion,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and
breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter K. Schaeffer, Esq.
          AVENUE LAW
          1073 S. Governor's Ave.
          Dover, DE 19904
          Telephone: (302) 674-2210
          E-mail: pschaeffer@avenuelaw.com

               - and -

          Mark M. Billion, Esq.
          BILLION LAW
          2 Mill Road, Suite 202
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Telephone: (302) 428-9400
          Facsimile: (302) 450-4040
          E-mail: markbillion@billionlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William P. Bowden, Esq.
          Toni-Ann Platia, Esq.
          Peter H. Kyle, Esq.
          500 Delaware Ave., 8th Floor
          P.O. Box 1150
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 654-1888
          E-mail: wbowden@ashby-geddes.com
                  tplatia@ashby-geddes.com
                  pkyle@ashby-geddes.com


OEP PHILIPPINES: Voluntarily Recalls Batches of Nicorandil
----------------------------------------------------------
Jocely Uy, writing for Philippine Daily Inquirer, reports that a
pharmaceutical firm has voluntarily recalled from the market a
drug used in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease due to non-
compliance with the recommended guidelines for the manufacture and
sale of drug and active pharmaceutical products.

In an advisory, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said OEP
Philippines Inc. was initiating a product recall of specific
batches of Nicorandil (Aprior) 5mg and 10mg tablet with
registration numbers DR-35217 and DR-XY31195.

"[The product recall] is in response to the statement of non-
compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice issued by the Italian
Medicines Agency to Societa Italiana Medicinali Scandicc, srl,
(SIM), the manufacturer of the active pharmaceutical ingredient,
Nicorandil," stated the FDA.

It further said Nicorandil was used in the manufacture of Aprior
5mg and 10mg by Antipolo-based Hizon Laboratories Inc.  The
products were distributed by Zuellig Pharma Corporation.
Nicorandil is a medicine used to treat angina, a pain that stems
from the heart usually caused by the narrowing of the coronary
arteries.  The drug helps maintain the blood flow to the heart and
helps prevent angina pain from occurring.



OFFICE DEPOT: "Heitzenrater" Class Action in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
In September 2012, Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc.,
et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York as a putative class action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant
store managers as exempt employees, willfully failed to pay
overtime compensation, and seeks unpaid wages, punitive damages,
and penalties for record keeping violations.

"The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for
probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in
light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty
of litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably determine the
full effect of the potential liability in the matter. OfficeMax
intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit," Office Depot
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 28, 2014.

Office Depot, Inc., is a global supplier of office products and
services.  On November 5, 2013, the Company merged with OfficeMax
Incorporated.


OFFICE DEPOT: "Rivet" Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
Office Depot Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that Kyle Rivet v. Office
Depot, Inc., is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Office
Depot's use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was
unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary
and failed to provide its assistant managers with a clear and
mutual understanding that they would receive a fixed weekly salary
for all hours worked.  The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes in this case as well that adequate provisions
have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not
material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to
reasonably determine the full effect of the potential liability in
these matters. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself.

Office Depot, Inc., is a global supplier of office products and
services.  On November 5, 2013, the Company merged with OfficeMax
Incorporated.


PAPA JOHN'S: Still Faces Delivery Drivers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA,
Inc. is a conditionally certified collective action filed in
August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of Missouri, alleging that delivery drivers were not reimbursed
for mileage and expenses in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Approximately 3,900 drivers out of a potential
class size of 28,800 have opted into the action. Additionally, in
late December 2013, the District Court granted a motion for class
certification in five additional states, which will add
approximately 15,000 plaintiffs to the case.

"We intend to vigorously defend against all claims in this
lawsuit. However, given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the outcome of this case cannot be predicted and the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. A negative outcome
in this case could have a material adverse effect on the Company,"
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014.

Papa John's International, Inc. operates 4,487 Papa John's
restaurants (731 Company-owned and 3,756 franchised) in all 50
states and in 37 international countries and territories.  The
revenues are principally derived from retail sales of pizza and
other food and beverage products to the general public by Company-
owned restaurants, franchise royalties, sales of franchise and
development rights, sales to franchisees of food and paper
products, printing and promotional items, risk management
services, and information systems and related services used in
their operations.


PACK-FIVE CORP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Pantoja, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Pack-Five Corp. d/b/a Mini Star Restaurant
and Ioanna Pakkou, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-05007
(E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full-service restaurant doing
business as Mini Star Diner and located at 3002 Steinway Street,
Astoria, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway Ste 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com
              jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


PSCH INC: Faces "Bernard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Bernard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PSCH, Inc. d/b/a Promoting Specialized Care and
Health, and Charlene Densen and Andrew Carbonara, in their
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-05008
(E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

PSCH, Inc. is a human service agency which maintains its principal
place of business at 142-02 20th Avenue, 3rd Floor, Flushing, New
York, 11351.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Gastman, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI AND ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com


QLT INC: Faces Stockholder Class Action on Auxilium Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
QLT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that since the merger was announced on
June 26, 2014, Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Auxilium's
directors, QLT, QLT Holdings Corp., and QLT Acquisition Corp.,
have been named as defendants in purported stockholder class
actions filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County,
Pennsylvania seeking to enjoin the proposed Merger on the grounds
that the Board of Directors of Auxilium breached their fiduciary
duties by approving a proposed transaction that purportedly does
not reflect the true value of Auxilium.

QLT said it is possible that additional lawsuits making similar or
additional claims relating to the Merger may be brought. One of
the conditions to the closing of the Merger is that no order
(whether temporary, preliminary or permanent) shall be in effect
that prevents or prohibits completion of the Merger. As such, if
the plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the defendants from completing the Merger, then such
injunction may prevent the Merger from becoming effective, or from
becoming effective within the expected time frame.

QLT is a biotechnology company dedicated to the development and
commercialization of innovative ocular products that address the
unmet medical needs of patients and clinicians worldwide.

On June 25, 2014, QLT entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") among QLT, Auxilium Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Auxilium"), QLT Holding Corp., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of QLT
("HoldCo"), and QLT Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and
a wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo ("AcquireCo"). The Merger
Agreement provides for a business combination whereby AcquireCo
will be merged with and into Auxilium (the "Merger"). As a result
of the Merger, the separate corporate existence of AcquireCo will
cease and Auxilium will continue as the surviving corporation. On
the date of the closing of the Merger, Auxilium will become an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of QLT (the "Combined Company")
and Auxilium stockholders will own approximately 76% of the
outstanding common shares of the Combined Company on a fully
diluted basis. QLT is the legal acquirer and accounting acquiree
in the Merger transaction. While the Merger has been unanimously
approved by the Boards of Directors of Auxilium, QLT, HoldCo and
AcquireCo, the transaction is still subject to various conditions
and approvals.


RF FOOD: Faces "Nava" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amador Nava, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RF Food and Restaurant Corp., 172 Bleeker St. Rest.,
Inc., Rosendo Fernandez, Pablo Manso, and Ignacio Manso, Case No.
1:14-cv-06797 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
beyond 40 per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate the Cafe Espanol restaurant located
at 78 Carmine Street and 172 Bleecker Street in New York, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
      Nicholas P. Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Zeus Shareholders' Lawsuit in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a suit by Zeus Technology Ltd.
shareholders over a share purchase agreement with Riverbed
Technology, Inc., and the Superior Court of the State of
California has approved a class treatment of the former
shareholders, according to Riverbed's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "In October 2012 we served the representative of
the Zeus shareholders, as lead defendant and proposed defendant
class representative for all other similarly situated former
shareholders of Zeus, with a lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, for declaratory relief.  The lawsuit
seeks declaratory judgment that, among other things, (a) Riverbed
is not in breach of the share purchase agreement, and (b) Riverbed
does not owe any acquisition-related contingent consideration
under the share purchase agreement because the necessary
conditions precedent to the payment of acquisition-related
contingent consideration did not occur."

"In November 2012, the representative of the Zeus shareholders
filed a cross-complaint against Riverbed and Riverbed Technology
Limited in the Superior Court of the State of California. The
cross-complaint claims breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks declaratory
judgment that Riverbed has breached the share purchase agreement
and that the entire $27.0 million in contingent consideration is
payable to Zeus shareholders. Discovery is ongoing, and the Court
has approved a class treatment of the former shareholders, though
several have declined to participate. The trial is currently
scheduled for August 31, 2015, though may be rescheduled to an
earlier date pending the Court's availability. We believe that the
contention of the representative of the Zeus shareholders, and the
Court-appointed class representatives for shareholders, is without
merit and intend to vigorously defend our determination."


SENIORBRIDGE FAMILY: Faces "Hyatt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Hyatt, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Seniorbridge Family Companies (Fl), Inc., a Florida profit
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00486 (M.D. Fla., August 22, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief and attorney's fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Seniorbridge Family Companies (Fl), Inc. is a Florida corporation,
which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of
a variety of conditions by medical assistants, nurses, therapists,
medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      Suite 300, 1003 Del Prado Blvd
      Cape Coral, FL 33990
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


SMART CHICKEN: "Dabady" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rony Dabady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Smart Chicken Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-05015 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Smart Chicken Corp. owns and operates a fast food business in the
New York tri-state area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


STATE AUTO FINANCIAL: Still Facing "Schumacher" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in April
2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs. State
Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed against
State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C in
Federal District Court in Ohio.

Plaintiffs claim that in connection with the homeowners policies
of various State Auto companies, the coverage limits and premiums
were improperly increased as a result of an insurance to value
("ITV") program and Plaintiffs allege that they purchased coverage
in excess of that which was necessary to insure them in the event
of loss. Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair
dealing, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the
Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement.
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages to be determined by the court.

The Company intends to deny any and all liability to plaintiffs or
the alleged class and to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


SUPERVALU INC: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
fresh from its announcement that it had fallen victim to a major
cyber attack, supermarket chain Supervalu Inc. now faces a
proposed class action that accuses the company of failing to
protect customers' payment card information.

On Aug. 15, the company revealed that it had suffered a "criminal
intrusion" of its system that processes credit and debit card
transactions, exposing account numbers, passwords, three-digit
security codes and other sensitive information of customers at
Supervalu's 209 stores.  The company has declined to estimate how
many accounts were laid bare during the June 22 to July 17 breach.
But on Aug. 18, plaintiff Steve McPeak and three others targeted
Supervalu with a class complaint that cited an estimate made by
Supervalu that "approximately 40 million credit and debit card
accounts might have been impacted."

Supervalu cautioned that the list of victims could substantially
mushroom to encompass customers of food stores Albertson's, ACME
Markets, Jewel-Osco, Shaw's and Star Markets located in nearly
half of the states.  Supervalu is the information technology
services provider for AB Acquisition, the operator of those
stores.  AB Acquisition reported it had been hacked at the same
time as Supervalu and authorities suspect the hackers accessed
entered via Supervalu's system.

In McPeak v. Supervalu in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, the plaintiffs allege Supervalu violated the
federal Stored Communications Act, the Illinois Personal
Information Protection Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act and similar statutes in other states.

The supermarket chain failed to detect the intrusion for weeks,
and then waited even longer to alert the public, the complaint
contends, arguing that Supervalu put consumers at greater risk by
the delays and by not employing sufficient defenses against
hackers.

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher Quinn and John Driscoll
of the Driscoll Firm.


TIME WARNER: Has MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Comcast Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the litigation over the Comcast merger entered into
a memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an
agreement, subject to final approval by the New York Supreme
Court, according to Time Warner Cable Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Following the announcement of the Comcast Corporation merger on
February 13, 2014, eight putative class action complaints
challenging the merger were filed on behalf of purported TWC
stockholders, seven in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York and one in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware. These complaints were captioned: Barrett v. Time
Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Karl Graulich IRA v.
Marcus, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Wedeking v. Time Warner Cable
Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Lassoff v. Time Warner Cable Inc.,
et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Thomas v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.);
Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.);
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Black,
et al. (Del. Ch.); and Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner
Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). On March 25, 2014, the
plaintiff in Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc. voluntarily
discontinued the action in the New York Supreme Court and re-filed
the action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under
the caption Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (Del.
Ch.). Likewise, on March 26, 2014, the plaintiffs in Empire State
Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. voluntarily
discontinued the action in the New York Supreme Court, and re-
filed the action on March 27, 2014 in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware under the caption Empire State Supply Corp. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.). On March 28, 2014, the
plaintiffs in Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.) filed an amended complaint. On
April 2, 2014, the Court orally granted a motion to consolidate
the pending actions in the New York Supreme Court under the
caption Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.), which the Court did formally by written order on April
15, 2014.

On April 3, 2014, the plaintiffs in Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner
Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The various complaints name as defendants the Company,
the members of the Company's Board of Directors, Comcast and Tango
Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The complaints assert that
the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders during the Comcast
merger negotiations and by entering into the Comcast merger
agreement and approving the Comcast merger, and that Comcast and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints also allege that the Company and its Board of
Directors failed to disclose in the registration statement related
to the Comcast merger material facts relating to the merger. The
complaints seek, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining
the shareholder vote on the Comcast merger and the Comcast merger,
unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount, and costs and fees.

On July 22, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement,
subject to final approval by the New York Supreme Court and
certain other conditions, to settle all of the outstanding
litigation challenging the merger.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in the
lawsuits are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive
final approval by the New York Supreme Court or otherwise is not
consummated, intends to defend the litigation vigorously.


TIME WARNER: Wins Summary Judgment for WD Ky. Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Time Warner Cable
Inc., according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that
Insight Communications Company, L.P. violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable
television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes,
which is similar to the federal claim against the Company in In
re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, discussed
above. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified
treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices. On July 19, 2013, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment, which argued that Insight Communications
Company, L.P. did not coerce the plaintiffs to lease a set-top
converter box, a necessary element of the plaintiffs' claim, which
the court granted on July 29, 2014. The time to appeal this
decision has not yet expired.


TNUVA USA: Recalls More Than 8,300 Pounds of Chicken Cutlets
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a New Jersey company is
recalling more than 8,300 pounds of chicken cutlets because of
possible listeria contamination.

Federal officials announced the recall by Fairfield-based Tnuva
USA on Aug. 27.

The possible contamination involving the "Mom's Chicken Extra Thin
Cutlets" product was discovered during a routine sampling by
federal officials.  The company is recalling roughly 8,316 pounds
of cutlets that were produced on Aug. 18, 2013 and shipped to the
company's distributor in New Jersey.

Officials say the product was held and didn't enter the
marketplace. But further investigation determined other products
were produced on the same line without clean up between products.

There have been no reports of illnesses associated with any of
these products.

Listeria can sicken people with weakened immune systems and can
cause miscarriages in pregnant women.


TOWN SPORTS: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of TSI Labor Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court upheld the dismissal by the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County of two labor lawsuits against
TSI, LLC, according to Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in
the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On or about June
18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class
action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI,
LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
all New York purported hourly employees. On September 17, 2010,
TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of
both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to
certify the class actions. The court granted the motions on
January 29, 2013, dismissing the class action allegations in both
lawsuits. Following an appeal in April 2014, the Appellate
Division upheld the dismissal. Currently, only the plaintiffs'
individual claims remain pending.


TOWN SPORTS: March 2015 Deadline for Cert. Motion in "Labbe" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for the completion of pre-class certification
discovery in the labor suit James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports
International, LLC, is December 31, 2014 and the deadline for a
class certification motion is March 2, 2015, according to Town
Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations. The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery.
The deadline for the completion of pre-class certification
discovery is December 31, 2014 and the deadline for a class
certification motion is March 2, 2015.


TRIANGLE CHAR: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, "Goodbar" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Goodbar, and Ian Andrew Taylor, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Triangle Char & Bar East LLC, Kevin
Scott Long, and Edward I. Condon, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-
03422 (D.S.C., August 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Triangle Char & Bar Restaurants
located at 1440 Ben Sawyer Boulevard Mount Pleasant, South
Carolina and 828 Savannah Highway Charleston, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

         - and -

      Theodore H. Huge, Esq.
      HARRIS AND HUGE
      180 Spring Street
      Charleston, SC 29403
      Telephone: (843) 805-8031
      E-mail: thh@thehugelawfirm.com


UNITED HOMECARE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals v.
United Homecare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23090 (S.D. Fla.,
August 22, 2014), seeks to recover money damages for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family Medical Leave Act.

United Homecare Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation that owns
and operates a home health and community care agency.

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


UNITED STATES: HHS Faces Suit Over Delayed Medicare Review
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Lessler, Veronica Exley, Patricia Belade, Lorraine Cooper,
and Harry Voet, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Case No. 3:14-cv-01230-MPS (D. Conn., August 26, 2014)
is brought on behalf of a nationwide class consisting of all other
Medicare beneficiaries harmed by the Defendant's alleged systemic
denial of a timely, meaningful, and statutorily mandated review
process.

The Medicare program's system of administrative review has four
levels of appeal.  Only the third level, the administrative law
judge (ALJ) level, provides the right to an oral hearing before
the adjudicator, including witness testimony, allows a beneficiary
to present his or her case with more than written evidence and
argument, and provides the only opportunity for meaningful review,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiffs say they are Medicare beneficiaries, who have
waited more than 90 days to receive an ALJ decision.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell is the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services.  She is responsible for the overall
operation of the Medicare program and in particular for the Office
of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, which is a staff division within
the Office of the Secretary and includes all the ALJs, who decide
Medicare appeals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alice Bers, Esq.
          Gill Deford, Esq.
          Judith A. Stein, Esq.
          Margaret M. Murphy, Esq.
          CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
          P.O. Box 350
          Willimantic, CT 06226
          Telephone: (860) 456-7790
          Facsimile: (860) 456-2614
          E-mail: abers@medicareadvocacy.org
                  gdeford@medicareadvocacy.org
                  jstein@medicareadvocacy.org
                  mmurphy@medicareadvocacy.org


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Vonage America's Brief in "Smith" Due Sept. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage America, Inc.'s appellate brief to pursue arbitration for
the suit Merkin & Smith, et als. is due on September 24, 2014,
according to Vonage Holdings Corp.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a United
States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge. On November 26,
2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint.  On December 4,
2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On February 4,
2014, the Court denied Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On
March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the decision denying Vonage's
Motion to Compel Arbitration.  On March 6, 2014, Vonage moved to
stay the district court proceedings pending its appeal; the Court
granted Vonage's stay motion on March 26, 2014.  Vonage's
appellate brief is due on September 24, 2014.


WALMART STORES: Faces "Bell" Suit Over Pomegranate Juice Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart after class members
claim it marketed its Great Value brand cranberry pomegranate
juice as being composed of two fruits when it is made up of five
fruit juices and contains very little pomegranate.

Ira Reynolds and Patricia Bell claim Walmart markets its juice
blend as "100% Juice Cranberry Pomegranate" on its label with much
more prominence than other words on the label that show the juice
to be a blend of five juices, according to a complaint filed
July 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida.

"In truth, the . . . product contains very little pomegranate
juice concentrate when compared to the apple juice and white grape
juice concentrates," the complaint states.  "Far less than the
100% cranberry pomegranate juice that is predominately advertised
on the front of their label."

The defendant knowingly and purposefully failed to disclose to its
consumers that the primary ingredients in the juice are actually
"cheap apple and grape juice," according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim to this day, Walmart has taken no meaningful
steps to clear up consumers' misconceptions regarding its product.

"As a consequence of defendant's unfair and deceptive practices,
plaintiffs and numbers of the class have purchased GV Pomegranate
Juice under the false impressions that, by drinking defendant's
product, they would enjoy the healthful and nutritional benefits
associated with a product they believe at least primarily contains
pomegranate juice," the complaint states.

Significantly, each consumer has been exposed to the same material
misrepresentations and/or omissions which are prominently
displayed on the product packaging for the GV pomegranate juice
prior to purchasing the product, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim Walmart violated the Florida Food Safety Act,
which also constitutes violations of Florida's Consumer Protection
Statutes and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act.

"It has become recently well-known that pomegranate juice is high
in powerful antioxidants, recognized for years to be helpful in
maintaining health and preventing disease," the complaint states.

With the nutritional and health benefits of pomegranate juice
becoming widely known, consumer demand for pomegranate juice has
increased rapidly, according to the suit.  The plaintiffs claim it
was this enormous new market that Walmart hoped to tap with the
sale of its pomegranate juice product.

"Even though GV Pomegranate juice contains very little pomegranate
juice, Walmart made a tactical marketing and/or advertising
decision to create a deceptive and misleading label with many
elements not required by state or federal regulation," the
complaint states.

Walmart knowingly and intentionally sold the misbranded products
to consumers with the intent to deceive them, according to the
suit.  The plaintiffs claim Walmart has been unjustly enriched at
consumers' expense.  The plaintiffs are seeking class
certification, an order for the defendants to engage in corrective
advertising of the juice, and compensatory damages.

They are being represented by Tim Howard of Howard & Associates.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Mark E. Walker.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida case
number: 4:14-cv-00381


WEATHERFORD INT'L: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-02440
(S.D. Tex., August 22, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Weatherford International, LLC is a Delaware corporation that owns
and operates an oilfield.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Removed "Russell" Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Russell v. Werner Enterprises,
Inc., Case No. RG14727797, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-03839-KAW to
the proceeding.

In her complaint, Antonia Russell seeks to collect unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: borgen@gdblegal.com

               - and -

          James Mitchel Sitkin, Esq.
          DACEY & SITKIN
          255 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

               - and -

          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alison Jacquelyn Cubre, Esq.
          Damon M. Ott, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 677-3121
          Facsimile: (415) 743-6507
          E-mail: acubre@littler.com
                  dott@littler.com

               - and -

          John Kevin Lilly, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          2049 Century Park East, #500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 772-7212
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: klilly@littler.com


WESTERN SKY: 7th. Cir. Revives Class Action Over Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an
embattled provider of online payday loans who allegedly used his
standing as a member of a Sioux Indian tribe to tailor loan
agreement terms to skirt state and federal law will need to defend
yet more of those loans in federal court after the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals panel determined arbitration procedures designed
to give jurisdiction over the contracts to tribal courts failed to
pass legal muster.

In a 42-page opinion issued on Aug. 22, more than a year after
arguments were heard, the federal appeals panel reversed U.S.
District Judge Charles P. Kocoras' July 2012 decision to dismiss
the suit three Illinois residents brought against lender Martin A.
Webb and a collection of his payday loan companies.

Judge Kenneth F. Ripple wrote the opinion, in which Judge Ilana
Diamond Rovner and U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker
concurred.  Judge Barker, of the Southern District of Indiana, sat
on the panel by designation.

The Seventh Circuit panel found Judge Kocoras had erred in
dismissing the matter based on a clause within the loan agreements
stipulating disputes between the lender and borrower be settled
under arbitration procedures established by tribal courts within
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, whose reservation is located in
South Dakota.

The panel said this clause is unenforceable under federal and
Illinois law as the tribal government lacks the legal rules,
policies and mechanisms needed to actually arbitrate the dispute,
making the arbitration provision in the agreements "unreasonable"
and "unconscionable" to the borrowers.

"With respect to substantive unconscionability, the dispute-
resolution mechanism set forth in the loan agreements --
'conducted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Nation by an
authorized representative in accordance with its consumer dispute
rules' -- did not exist," Judge Ripple wrote for the panel

As such, "there simply was no prospect 'of a meaningful and fairly
conducted arbitration;' instead this aspect of the loan agreements
'was a sham and an illusion,'" Judge Ripple added, citing language
from a lower court ruling.

The panel's opinion stems from the suit plaintiffs Deborah
Jackson, Linda Gonnella and James Binkowski, all of Illinois,
brought in 2011 in Cook County Circuit Court.  It was later
removed to Chicago's federal court.

All three borrowed $2,525 from Western Sky Financial LLC, an
online payday loan business operated by Mr. Webb as part of a
family of such payday loan processing companies collectively known
in court filings as the Webb Entities.  They filed a class action
against Mr. Webb and his businesses, alleging the loans, which
included interest rates as high as 139 percent, violated federal
and state lending laws.

The suit is just one of several legal problems Webb is dealing
with.  Western Sky and his other companies face a federal
racketeering class action suit and he agreed to pay almost $1
million in fines as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade
Commission over a regulatory action accusing them of engaging in
"unfair and deceptive tactics to collect on payday loans."

Those actions are separate from the suit brought by Ms. Jackson,
Ms. Gonnella and Mr. Binkowski.

In response to the Jackson suit, Mr. Webb, who is a member of the
Cheyenne River tribe, persuaded Judge Kocoras to initially dismiss
the matter based on an arbitration provision in the loan
agreements, a move that handed jurisdiction over disputes to
Cheyenne River tribal courts.

Following oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit in January
2013, the panel issued a limited remand to the federal court for a
determination on whether the tribal courts could actually oversee
such arbitration.

Judge Kocoras determined they could not, noting a number of
difficulties, including potential arbitrator bias, a lack of
arbitration experience and knowledge among tribal officers and a
lack of clear rules pertaining to arbitration in consumer loan
disputes.

In reversing the lower court's dismissal and remanding the matter
for further proceedings, the appeals panel cited those findings
and said the suit never should have been dismissed because the
arbitration provision in the agreements is "illusory."

"The arbitration clause here is void not simply because of a
strong possibility of arbitrator bias, but because it provides
that a decision is to be made under a process that is a sham from
stem to stern," Ripple wrote for the panel.

The appeals judges also determined the tribal courts, under
federal law, likely lacked jurisdiction to decide consumer finance
matters involving the plaintiffs and similar matters involving
citizens who are not members of the Cheyenne River tribe.

Chicago attorney Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin argued on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Seventh
Circuit. Washington D.C. attorney Claudia Callaway --
claudia.callaway@kattenlaw.com -- of Katten Muchin Rosenman
represented the defendants.


WESTERN UNION: Still Faces Securities Suit by Retirement System
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company continues to face a securities lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

On December 10, 2013, the City of Taylor Police and Fire
Retirement System filed a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado against
The Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive
Officer, and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that during the alleged class period, February
7, 2012 through October 30, 2012, defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse facts known to
them, including: (1) the Company was experiencing difficulties in
complying with its increased duties required by the Southwest
Border Agreement and that the State of Arizona was dissatisfied
with the Company's efforts; (2) the Company was spending
significantly more than forecast on its efforts to satisfy the
compliance and monitoring program; (3) the Company had downplayed
the impact that changes in its compliance and regulatory
environment were having on its operations, including its
operations in Mexico and Latin America; (4) the scope of the
Monitor's review was being expanded to include Western Union
Business Solutions, which would increase compliance costs; and (5)
the Company's ability to charge a premium for its core money
transfer product was under competitive pressure, which would
require drastic price reductions to stem market share losses.


WESTERN UNION: Approval of Consumer Suit Accord Faces Objections
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard
oral arguments on objections to the final approval of a settlement
reached in consumer lawsuits against The Western Union Company,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille
complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended
complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory
relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25, 2011, the
Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to
compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the
action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied
the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request. Both
companies appealed the decision.

On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District
Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth quarter
of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the
Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013,
the Court entered an order certifying the class and granting final
approval to the settlement. Under the approved settlement, a
substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as well as all of
the class counsel's fees, administrative fees and other expenses,
would be paid from the class members' unclaimed money transfer
funds, which are included within "Settlement obligations" in the
Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the final
approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement
that had been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of
those class members filed notices of appeal. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments on
March 18, 2014. The settlement requires Western Union to deposit
the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class
settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative
fees and class counsel's fees, as well as other expenses will be
paid.

On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified
Western Union of the California Controller's position that Western
Union's deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the
class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement "will not satisfy
Western Union's obligations to report and remit funds" under
California's unclaimed property law, and that "Western Union will
remain liable to the State of California" for the funds that would
have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The
State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have expressed
similar views. Thus, there is reason to believe that these and
potentially other jurisdictions may bring actions against the
Company seeking reimbursement for amounts equal to the class
counsel's fees, administrative costs and other expenses that are
paid from the class settlement fund. If such actions are brought
or claims that may otherwise require Western Union to incur
additional escheatment-related liabilities are asserted, Western
Union would defend itself vigorously.


WESTERN UNION: Faces Ill. TCPA Violation Suit for Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company continues to face a lawsuit alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent. This
action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with it.


WHITE HALL: Faces "Hartman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Hartman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. White Hall Pharmacy, LLC, C. Gene Wright, Terri
Vilain, and Jeffrey Tucker, Case No. 1:14-cv-00141 (N.D. W. Va.,
August 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

White Hall Pharmacy, LLC is a West Virginia pharmacy, owned and
operated by C. Gene Wright, Terri Vilain, and Jeffrey Tucker.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julie Ann Arbore, Esq.
      STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC
      PO Box 1616
      Morgantown, WV 26507-1616
      Telephone: (304) 598-8000
      Facsimile: (304) 598-8116
      E-mail: julie.arbore@steptoe-johnson.com

         - and -

      Larry J. Rector, Esq.
      STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
      400 White Oaks Blvd
      Bridgeport, WV 26330
      Telephone: (304) 933-8151
      Facsimile: (304) 933-8753
      E-mail: Larry.Rector@steptoe-johnson.com


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Removed "Krinsk" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Krinsk v. Whitewave Foods Company,
et al., Case No. 37-2014-0026075-CU-CT-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-01984-GPC-BLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Leland Knutson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN AND KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3593
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Angela C. Agrusa, Esq.
          LINER LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3518
          Telephone: (310) 500-3500
          Facsimile: (310) 500-3501
          E-mail: aagrusa@linerlaw.com


WHITING PETROLEUM: Faces Suits in Colo. Over Kodiak Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whiting Petroleum Corporation faces shareholder lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado over its
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. acquisition, according to the company's
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Transactions such as the Kodiak Acquisition are often subject to
lawsuits by stockholders.  In connection with the Kodiak
Acquisition, four purported class action lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of Kodiak shareholders in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado: Quigley and Koelling v.
Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02023,
filed July 22, 2014; Fioravanti v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-02037, filed July 23, 2014; Wilkinson v. Whiting Petroleum
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2074, filed July 25, 2014;
and Goldsmith v. Krysiak et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2098, filed July
29, 2014. It is possible that other related suits could
subsequently be filed.

The allegations in the four lawsuits are similar. They purport to
be brought as class actions on behalf of all shareholders of
Kodiak. The complaints name as defendants the Kodiak board of
directors and us and list Kodiak as a nominal party. The
complaints allege that the Kodiak board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties to Kodiak shareholders by, among other things,
failing to engage in a fair sale process before approving the
Kodiak Acquisition and to maximize shareholder value in connection
with the Kodiak Acquisition. Specifically, the complaints allege
that the Kodiak board of directors undervalued Kodiak in
connection with the Kodiak Acquisition and that the Kodiak board
of directors agreed to certain deal protection mechanisms that
precluded Kodiak from obtaining competing offers. The four
complaints also allege that we aided and abetted the Kodiak board
of director's alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints
seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the closing
of the Kodiak Acquisition, rescission of the Kodiak Acquisition or
an award of rescissory damages to the purported class in the event
that the Kodiak Acquisition is consummated, and damages, including
counsel fees and expenses.


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Sued in Illinois Over Unlawful Merger Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Steiner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Integrys
Energy Group, Inc. v. Albert J. Budney, Jr., William J. Brodsky,
Ellen Carnahan, Michelle L. Collins, Kathryn M. Hasselblad-
Pascale, John W. Higgins, Paul W. Jones, Holly Keller Koeppel,
Michael E. Lavin, William F. Protz, Jr., charles A. Schrock and
Wisconsin Energy Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06509 (N.D. Ill.,
August 22, 2014), alleges that Proposed Merger of Integrys with
and into Wisconsin Energy demonstrates unfairness of the
negotiating process and also contains material omissions and
misrepresentations that need to be corrected prior to any vote on
the Proposed Merger.

Integrys Energy Group, Inc. is an Illinois public utilities
company, with its principal executive offices located at 130 East
Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601.

Wisconsin Energy Corporation is a Wisconsin corporation which
maintains offices at 231 West Michigan Street, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53201.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Wisconsin
Energy Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      Anna Karin F. Manalaysay, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100

         - and -

      Emily Komlossy, Esq.
      KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.
      2131 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 408
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 842-2021


XYZ CORPORATION: Faces "Geng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baiming Li, Debao Geng, Junmin Shen, and Youmin Shen, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Tai Shen Hau a/k/a
"Frank", Sharley Chuang, and XYZ Corporation d/b/a Zen Palate,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06853 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with its principal
place of business located at 663 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York
10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 1IE
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718)888-7788


YELP INC: Local Businesses Appeal Dismissal of Suits Over Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of lawsuits by local
businesses against Yelp Inc., according to the company's July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In February and March 2010, the Company was sued in two putative
class actions on behalf of local businesses asserting various
causes of action based on claims that the Company manipulated the
ratings and reviews on its platform to coerce local businesses to
buy its advertising products. These cases were subsequently
consolidated in an action asserting claims for violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, extortion and attempted
extortion based on the conduct the plaintiffs allege and seeking
monetary relief in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. In
October 2011, the court dismissed this consolidated action with
prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard the appeal on July 11,
2013. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision.


                              *********

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  * * *