CAR_Public/140903.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 175

                             Headlines


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Trial in "Pacchia" Case in December 2014
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Benston's Motion for Leadership Role Denied
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion Papers Due in Massachusetts Case
AMGEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Federal Securities Litigation
AMGEN INC: Petition for Certiorari Granted in ERISA Litigation

AMERICAN WATER: Joint Briefing on Remand Issue Completed in July
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Halling & Cayo Files ETF Class Action
AMINCOR INC: Illegally Deducts Insurance Contribution, Suit Says
APEX WIND: Accused of Hurting Landowners' Health and Economy
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Second Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Claims

APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss Suits Over A7 and A8 Mergers
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss or Strike "Moses" Action
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss or Transfer "Wenzel" Action
ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI: "Musser" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
BIG CITY CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT, "Farias" Suit Claims
BOKAMPER'S SPORTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRANDY'S OF CHICAGO: Faces "Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CBOE HOLDINGS: 4 Class Actions Consolidated Into Providence Case

CBOE HOLDINGS: Faces "Lanier" Lawsuits Over Inferior Market Data
CHEVRON CORP: Court Dismissed With Leave to Amend "Ogala" Suit
CHICAGO PRIME: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Serafin" Suit Says
CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Hardt" Suit Over Transmission Defects
CIT GROUP: Files Lawsuit Against WPC for Indemnification

CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Class in Train Derailment Suit Not Certified
CVS CAREMARK: Appeal in Class Suit Pending Before Ala. High Court
CVS CAREMARK: Additional Discovery and Briefing in Managers Case
CVS CAREMARK: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Class Action
DELTA APPAREL: Discovery Ongoing in California Wage and Hour Case

EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Advisement
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defending "Hart" Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defending Likeness Licensing Litigation
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Recognized $30MM Accrual Associated With Accord
ELECTRONIC ARTS: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Battlefield Suit

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces "Mehr" Suit Over Players' Safety
FEDEX GROUND: Misclassified 3,000+ Drivers, 9th Cir. Ruled
FIRST SOLAR: Deadline to Complete Merits Discovery Is December 30
GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Tosses Motion to Block Asbestos Evidence
GEMINI DINER: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

GLOBAL TEL LINK: Faces "Murilla" Over Unlawful Telephone Charge
GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Still Defending Against Securities Action
GREEN LIGHT: Faces "Aguado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GROUPON INC: Sales Rep Overtime Class Action Can't Proceed
HANOVER INSURANCE: Motion to Alter or Amend Denied

HEWLETT PACKARD: Judge Casts Doubt on Autonomy Settlement
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Bank Faces Class Action in Johnson County
IEC ELECTRONICS: Responding to Amended Class Action Complaint
IMPAX LABORATORIES: 13 Actions Transferred to Massachusetts Court
IMPAX LABORATORIES: 4 Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions Filed

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Cases
INDIANA MUNICIPAL POWER: High Electric Rates Blamed on Coal
INTERMUNE INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Roche Holdings
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Shareholder Seeks to Stop Infineon Deal

INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Facing Securities Class Action Lawsuit
JC PENNEY: Accused of Issuing False and Misleading Statements
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 7,691 American Singles Cheese Product
L3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Action
LANNETT COMPANY: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act

LEGGETT & PLATT: Q1 2015 Trial for Direct Purchaser Class Actions
LEGGETT & PLATT: April 2015 Hearing on Motions for Certification
LEGGETT & PLATT: Discovery Has Commenced in "Baker" Action
LONDON METAL: Can Avert Antitrust Claim Due to Sovereign Immunity
MAJOR LEAGUE: Seeks Emergency Appeal From Antitrust Suit Ruling

M2 PRODUCTS: Dog Leash Product Liability Suit Settled for $1.3MM
MING'S GOURMET: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
MONAVIE INC: Suit Over Deceptive Cure-All Juice Will Continue
NABORS INDUSTRIES: C&J Energy Stockholders File Class Action
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Defending Class Action Over REMOXY Drug

PFIZER INC: Sued Over Manipulation of Celecoxib Patent Renewal
PURDUE PHARMA: Seeks to Disqualify Attorney in OxyContin Suit
QBE INSURANCE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Investigation
QEP RESOURCES: Defendants Asked for Review in "Gatti" Action
QEP RESOURCES: Cert. Hearings in Train Derailment Case Ongoing

RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Bused Patients to New Cities, Suit Says
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Actions Subject to Indemnification Pact
REGIONS FINANCIAL: 11th Cir. Reviewing Class Action Certification
REGIONS FINANCIAL: September 2014 Trial in E.D. Missouri Case
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Judge Dismisses West Lake Landfill Class Action

SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Defective Washing Machines Suit Can Proceed
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in New York
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Glancy Biskow Files Class Action in New York
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Exorbitant Prison Phone Call Rates

SPIRIT REALTY: Stipulation of Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
SQUARE FOOT MANAGEMENT: "Buntin" Suit Seeks To Recover Unpaid OT
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: UK Arbitration to Be Reconvened in September
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: BLFJ Postpones Filing of Class Action
STATE STREET: October 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

TARGET CORP: Plaintiffs Attorney Files Amended Class Action
UNIT CORPORATON: Faces Panola ISD Class Action in Oklahoma
UNITED PARCEL: February 2015 Trial in Franchisees' Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Defending One Outstanding Case in Ontario
UNITED PARCEL: Entered Into Agreement in Principle in June

UNITED STATES: ACLU Announced Deal on New Departure Procedures
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Settles Data Breach Class Action
VINTAGE PHARMA: Coordination of Birth Control Pill Suits Denied
VISTEON CORPORATION: 750+ Employees File Actions in Germany
VITACOST.COM INC: Faces Class Actions Over Merger With Kroger

VOLVO GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Boat Engine Defects
VULCAN MATERIALS: Faces Class Action Over Sinkhole
WHOLE FOODS: Greek Yogurt Label Is Deceptive, Class Suit Claims
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Epstein" Class Action
WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Botched TV Deal

ZAGG INC: Appeal in Shareholders' Suit Pending Before 10th Cir.
ZILLOW INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit in W.D. Wash. Fully Briefed


                            *********


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Trial in "Pacchia" Case in December 2014
-------------------------------------------------------------
Activision Blizzard, 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 on September 11, 2013,
a Company stockholder filed a putative class action and
stockholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,
et al., No. 8885-VCL.

The complaint names the Company's Board of Directors, Vivendi
S.A., Amber Holding Subsidiary Co., a Delaware corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi ("New VH"), ASAC II LP
("ASAC"), the General Partner of ASAC, Davis Selected Advisers,
L.P. ("Davis") and Fidelity Management & Research Co. ("FMR") as
defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant.

The Company said, "The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated certain provisions of our Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation by failing to submit the matters
contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement for approval by a
majority of our stockholders (other than Vivendi and its
controlled affiliates); that our Board of Directors committed
breaches of their fiduciary duties in approving the Stock Purchase
Agreement; that Vivendi violated fiduciary duties owed to other
stockholders of the Company in entering into the Stock Purchase
Agreement; that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman
usurped a corporate opportunity from the Company; that our Board
of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench our
Board of Directors and officers in their offices; that the ASAC
Entities, Davis and FMR aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Board of Directors and Vivendi; and that our Chief
Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and
FMR will be unjustly enriched through the Private Sale.

"The complaint seeks, among other things, the rescission of the
Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to the Company of
all or part of the shares that are the subject of the Private
Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the
alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order
requiring our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC
Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the Company the amounts by
which they have allegedly been unjustly enriched; and alleged
damages sustained by the class and the Company.

"In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary restraining order
preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions
contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without stockholder
approval.

"Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining
order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued a
preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement pending
(a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the merits;
(b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard stockholder vote on
the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement
under Section 9.1(b) of our Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation or (c) modification of such preliminary injunction
order by the Court of Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court."

On September 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery certified its order
issuing the preliminary injunction for interlocutory appeal to the
Delaware Supreme Court. The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme
Court to accept and hear the appeal on an expedited basis.

On September 23, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the
appeal of the Court of Chancery's decision and granted the
defendant's motion to hear the appeal on an expedited basis.

Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme
Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order issuing a preliminary
injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was
not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that
would require a vote of Activision's unaffiliated stockholders
under the charter.

On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added
factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October
29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with
the stockholder action, Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No. 8884-
VCL in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the
Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file
supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead
counsel no later than November 8, 2013.  On December 3, 2013, the
court selected Pacchia as lead plaintiff.  Pacchia filed a second
amended complaint on December 11, 2013 and Activision filed an
answer on January 31, 2014.

Also on January 31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs.
Robert A. Kotick, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Brian G.
Kelly, Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, Vivendi and
the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss
certain claims in the second amended complaint. On February 21,
2014, Pacchia filed a third amended complaint under seal.

In response to Pacchia's filing of a third amended complaint, the
special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, Vivendi and the
Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain
claims in the third amended complaint.

On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss such claims, with the exception of a breach of
contract claim. Subsequently, Pacchia filed a fourth amended
complaint containing substantially all of his prior claims, but
with the addition of new allegations gleaned from discovery in the
matter.

ASAC filed a motion to dismiss the re-pleaded breach of contract
claim and the other defendants filed answers in response to the
fourth amended complaint.  Discovery in the Pacchia case is
continuing.  The trial is scheduled for December 2014.

Activision Blizzard is a global developer and publisher of
interactive entertainment.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Benston's Motion for Leadership Role Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Activision Blizzard, 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 Mark Benston filed on
March 14, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
in the Court of Chancery, captioned Benston v. Vivendi S.A. et
al., No. 9447-VCL. The complaint makes claims similar to Hayes,
Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller, but also adds J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as defendants and a so-called
Brophy claim for insider trading against certain of the
defendants. Benston and his attorneys petitioned the Court of
Chancery to appoint them as co-lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel,
respectively, for purposes of pursuing the Brophy claim as part of
the consolidated Pacchia litigation. On June 6, 2014, the Court of
Chancery denied Benston's motion for a leadership role in the
consolidated Pacchia litigation.  As a result, Pacchia continues
to serve as the lead plaintiff and his fourth amended complaint is
the operative complaint for purposes of the consolidated Pacchia
litigation.

Activision Blizzard is a global developer and publisher of
interactive entertainment.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion Papers Due in Massachusetts Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, 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 a purported class
action complaint was originally filed on March 18, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled
Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al.,
Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was amended on September
15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010.

The Company said, "The second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on
December 17, 2010 alleged that we and our former President and
Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then-
members of our Board, and certain underwriters in our January 2010
offering of common stock violated certain federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and that our former President and Chief
Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated
Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged
omissions in a registration statement filed in January 2010. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our common stock pursuant to our common
stock offering on or about January 21, 2010."

On August 11 and 15, 2011, respectively, the District Court issued
an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  On September
14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11, 2012. On
February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part the District Court's Opinion and Order and
remanded the case to the District Court.

On February 19, 2013, AMAG filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing
and Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on March 15, 2013. On
March 22, 2013, AMAG filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding
the case to the District Court pending review by the U.S. Supreme
Court of the Court of Appeals' February 4, 2013 decision. The
Court of Appeals granted the Motion to Stay the Mandate on April
8, 2013.

On June 13, 2013, AMAG filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,
or the Petition, with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Court of Appeal's decision and to have that decision overturned.
On October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Petition,
resulting in the case's return to the District Court for further
proceedings relative to the SAC's surviving claims.

On November 6, 2013, AMAG filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss the
SAC's surviving claims. On December 6, 2013, the plaintiffs filed
a brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and AMAG filed a
reply brief in support of the Motion on December 27, 2013.

On April 7, 2014, the District Court denied the renewed Motion to
Dismiss. On May 7, 2014, the parties filed a joint status report
with the District Court in advance of a status conference held on
May 14, 2014. All defendants filed answers and affirmative
defenses to the pending complaint on May 19, 2014.

On June 6, 2014, the parties requested the District Court to stay
the proceedings, which the Court allowed on June 9, 2014.
Subsequently, the District Court set August 15, 2014 as the date
by which all associated motion papers and other documents are to
be filed.

"We are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably
estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter,
if any, and have therefore not recorded any potential estimated
liability as we do not believe that such a liability is probable
nor do we believe that a range of loss is currently estimable,"
AMAG said.

AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that markets Feraheme(R) (ferumoxytol) Injection for Intravenous,
or IV, use to treat iron deficiency anemia, or IDA, in adult
patients with chronic kidney disease, or CKD, and MuGard(R)
Mucoadhesive Oral Wound Rinse for the management of oral
mucositis.


AMGEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Federal Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen 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 plaintiffs on May 5, 2014, filed
an unsealed, redacted version of their second consolidated amended
complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation - In re Amgen Inc.
Securities Litigation.  On May 13, 2014, Amgen and the other named
defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.

On August 4, 2014, the court issued an order granting Amgen's and
the other defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to certain of
the misrepresentations alleged in the complaint and otherwise
denying the motion to dismiss. Following the court's order, the
complaint continues to allege that Amgen and certain of its
officers and directors (the Federal Defendants) made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities; and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices.

The complaint also continues to make off-label marketing
allegations that, throughout the class period, the Federal
Defendants improperly marketed Aranesp(R) (darbepoetin alfa) and
EPOGEN(R) (epoetin alfa) for off-label uses while aware that there
were alleged safety signals with these products. The named
defendants have not changed and the alleged class period remains
the same.

Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers,
develops, manufactures and delivers innovative human therapeutics.


AMGEN INC: Petition for Certiorari Granted in ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen 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 U.S. Supreme Court granted on
June 30, 2014, the petition for certiorari filed by Amgen and the
other named defendants, vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court) and
remanded this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
class action case to the Ninth Circuit Court for reconsideration
in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third
Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, decided June 25, 2014.

Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers,
develops, manufactures and delivers innovative human therapeutics.


AMERICAN WATER: Joint Briefing on Remand Issue Completed in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that to date,
58 lawsuits have been filed against West Virginia-American Water
Company with respect to leakage of two substances from a chemical
storage tank owned by Freedom Industries, Inc. into the Elk River
near the West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") treatment
plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia or West
Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha, Boone, and Putnam counties.

Fifty-two of the state court cases naming WVAWC, and one case
naming both WVAWC and American Water Works Service Company, Inc.
("AWWSC," and together with WVAWC and the Company, the "American
Water Defendants") were removed to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, but are subject
to motions to remand the cases back to the state courts and have
been consolidated for the sole purpose of resolving venue issues.

Joint briefing on the remand issue for all cases was completed on
July 18, 2014.

Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were
consolidated for purposes of discovery and a new consolidated
complaint for those cases was filed on June 20, 2014 by several
plaintiffs, including, among others, individuals who allegedly
suffered personal injury from the Freedom Industries spill and
businesses that allegedly suffered economic harm as a result of
the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that suffered economic losses, property
losses and non-economic losses or injuries as a result of the
Freedom Industries spill.

The complaint names multiple individuals and corporate entities as
defendants, including the American Water Defendants.  The
consolidated complaint's allegations against the American Water
Defendants include various forms of negligence, strict products
liability, breach of warranty, breach of contract, nuisance,
trespass and breach of contract as a result of, among other
things, the American Water Defendants' alleged failure to address
the foreseeable risk posed by the Freedom Industries facility;
failure to operate WVAWC's water treatment plant according to
industry standards so as to protect public health and safety;
failure to implement an alternative water supply to avoid a risk
of water supply contamination allegedly identified by a state
agency; and failure to advise the purported class members of the
nature of the contaminated water.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for alleged personal injury,
property damage, and financial losses, and certain equitable
relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring
program to protect the purported class members from latent,
dreaded disease.

On July 20, 2014, WVAWC, AWWSC and the Company each filed a
separate Answer to the complaint.  Each Answer denied liability to
any of the plaintiffs for damages of any kind and asserted a
number of affirmative defenses.

Also on July 20, 2014, WVAWC and AWWSC together, and the Company
separately, filed motions to dismiss the complaint on several
grounds, including, in the case of the Company, the lack of
jurisdiction over the Company.

On May 21, 2014, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia
issued an Order initiating a General Investigation into certain
issues relating to WVAWC's response to the Elk River Chemical
Spill.  WVAWC is subject to discovery from Commission staff and
intervenors as part of the General Investigation.

The Commission has scheduled a hearing for October 7-9, 2014.

American Water Works Company, Inc. is the largest investor-owned
United States water and wastewater utility company, as measured
both by operating revenue and population served.  The primary
business involves the ownership of water and wastewater utilities
that provide water and wastewater services to residential,
commercial, industrial and other customers.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Halling & Cayo Files ETF Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, case 14-cv-00966, captioned William
Bourbonnais et al. v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. et al.
has been filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay
division by Attorney Sean M. Sweeney of Halling & Cayo with co-
counsel of Charles J. Crueger and Erin K. Dickinson of HRDC.

The Class includes all retail investors, whose accounts were not
approved for speculative investing, and who purchased non-
traditional leveraged or inverse exchange-traded-funds with
trading sessions of one day or less from the Defendants Ameriprise
or SII Investments in which those investments were held for 21
days or more as an intermediate or long-term investment.  There
are also two sub-classes regarding those that worked with
registered representative, Paul Renard.  The Claims for relief
include Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(10(b) Claim) on behalf of the Class, and Negligence, Wisconsin
Uniform Securities Law (WUSL), and Wisconsin's Organized Crime
Control Act (WOCCA) claims on behalf of the sub-Classes.

The Class period is defined as the time period beginning on the
date established by the Court's determination of any applicable
statute of limitations, after consideration of any tolling and
accrual issues, and ending on the date of entry of judgment.
Absent any tolling or accrual issues, the Claims would apply to
any Class or sub-Class member who purchased or held these
investments beginning August 8, 2009 for the Federal 10(b) claims
and the WUSL claims, and August 8, 2008 for the Negligence and
WOCCA claims.  It is possible that these time frames will be found
to be different by the Court.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than October 26, 2014, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the purported class, though you must meet certain
legal requirements to do so.  To be a member of the plaintiff
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 plaintiff class.

Contact:

Halling & Cayo, S.C., Milwaukee
Sean M. Sweeney, Esq.
414-271-3400
E-mail: sms@hallingcayo.com
Web site: http://www.hallingcayo.com


AMINCOR INC: Illegally Deducts Insurance Contribution, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Healey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and George Smith, individually v. Amincor, Inc., Tyree
Holdings Corp., Tyree Service Corp., Tyree Enviromental Corp.,
John R. Rice III, Joseph F. Ingrassia, Robert L. Olson, and
Stephen J. Tyree, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-05104 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by
failing to officially notify employees that their health insurance
was terminated and continuously deducts contribution from their
wages.

The Defendants own and operate a multi-dimensional petroleum
services and environmental firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: mm@shulmankessler.com
              tk@shulmankessler.com


APEX WIND: Accused of Hurting Landowners' Health and Economy
------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Walker, Cheyenne Ward, Julie Harris, Janelle Grellner, Elise
Kay Kochenower, Karri Parson and Cindy Shelley, Individually and
as representatives for those similarly situated v. Apex Wind
Construction LLC, Apex Clean Energy Inc., Apex Clean Energy
Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Wind LLC, Kingfisher Wind Land Holdings
LLC, Kingfisher Transmission LLC, Campbell Creek Wind LLC and
Campbell Creek Wind Transmission LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00914-L
(W.D. Oklahoma., August 27, 2014) is a Torts to Land case brought
as a proposed class action.

Courthouse News Service reports that the federal class action
against Apex Wind Construction, et al., claims industrial wind
turbines hurt the health and economy of nearby landowners, through
noise, "shadow flicker" and sleep disturbance.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dallas L. Dale Strimple, Esq.
          AAMODT LAW FIRM
          1723 E 15th Street, Suite 100
          Tulsa, OK 74104
          Telephone: (918) 347-6169
          Facsimile: (918) 398-0514
          E-mail: dallas@aamodt.biz


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Second Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") on
April 23, 2014, entered a summary order in the consolidated class
action referred to in the Company's prior filings as the In re
Apple REITs Litigation matter.

In the summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (the "District Court") of the plaintiffs' state and federal
securities law claims and the unjust enrichment claim.  The Second
Circuit also noted that the District Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' remaining state common law claims based on its finding
that the complaint did not allege any losses suffered by the
plaintiff class, and held that, to the extent that the District
Court relied on this rationale, its dismissal of the plaintiffs'
state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach
of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims is vacated and remanded
for further proceedings consistent with the summary order.

Following remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' remaining claims.

The Company will defend against the claims remanded to the
District Court vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss due to
these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"),
is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real
estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes.
The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income-
producing real estate in the United States.  As of June 30, 2014,
the Company owned 188 hotels with an aggregate of 23,489 rooms
located in 33 states.

Effective March 1, 2014, the Company completed its mergers with
Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc.
("Apple Eight") (the "A7 and A8 mergers").  Pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on August 7, 2013, as
amended (the "Merger Agreement"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight
merged with and into Apple Seven Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Seven
Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and
Apple Eight Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Eight Acquisition Sub"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, respectively.  Seven
Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub were formed solely for
engaging in the A7 and A8 mergers and have not conducted any prior
activities.

Upon completion of the A7 and A8 mergers, the separate corporate
existence of Apple Seven and Apple Eight ceased and Seven
Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub are the surviving
corporations.  Immediately following the effective time of the A7
and A8 mergers, the name of Seven Acquisition Sub was changed to
Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and the name of Eight Acquisition Sub was
changed to Apple REIT Eight, Inc.  In addition, effective with the
mergers, the Company's name changed from Apple REIT Nine, Inc. to
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss Suits Over A7 and A8 Mergers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on January 31,
2014, two shareholders of the Company commenced a purported class
action against the Company and its directors ("the Defendants") in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No. 3:14cv67, E.D.
Va.). An amended complaint was filed on March 24, 2014.

The amended complaint alleges (i) that the A7 and A8 mergers are
unfair to the Company's shareholders, (ii) various breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Company's directors in connection with the
A7 and A8 mergers, (iii) that the A7 and A8 mergers provide a
financial windfall to insiders, and (iv) that the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus mailed to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the A7 and A8 mergers contains false and
misleading disclosures about certain matters, and adds as parties
certain Company management employees.

The amended complaint demands (i) an order stating that the action
may be maintained as a class action, certifying plaintiffs as
class representatives, and that the action may be maintained as a
derivative action, (ii) that the merger and the conversion of
common and preferred shares be rescinded, (iii) an award of
damages, and (iv) reimbursement of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
other costs.

On May 5, 2014, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint and filed an answer.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intends to defend these cases vigorously. At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"),
is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real
estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes.
The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income-
producing real estate in the United States.  As of June 30, 2014,
the Company owned 188 hotels with an aggregate of 23,489 rooms
located in 33 states.

Effective March 1, 2014, the Company completed its mergers with
Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc.
("Apple Eight") (the "A7 and A8 mergers").  Pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on August 7, 2013, as
amended (the "Merger Agreement"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight
merged with and into Apple Seven Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Seven
Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and
Apple Eight Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Eight Acquisition Sub"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, respectively.  Seven
Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub were formed solely for
engaging in the A7 and A8 mergers and have not conducted any prior
activities.

Upon completion of the A7 and A8 mergers, the separate corporate
existence of Apple Seven and Apple Eight ceased and Seven
Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub are the surviving
corporations.  Immediately following the effective time of the A7
and A8 mergers, the name of Seven Acquisition Sub was changed to
Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and the name of Eight Acquisition Sub was
changed to Apple REIT Eight, Inc.  In addition, effective with the
mergers, the Company's name changed from Apple REIT Nine, Inc. to
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss or Strike "Moses" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 22, 2014,
Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple Seven
and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, filed a class action
against the Company and several individual directors on behalf of
all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple
Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased
additional shares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment
Plans ("DRIP") between July 17, 2007 and February 12, 2014 (Susan
Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., No.
503487/2014, N.Y. Sup. (Kings County)).

Plaintiff brought suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York in Kings County (Brooklyn) and alleged claims under Virginia
law for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors,
and constructive trust and unjust enrichment claims against the
Company.  Plaintiff alleges that the prices at which Plaintiff and
the purported class members purchased additional shares through
the DRIP were artificially inflated and not indicative of the true
value of units in Apple Seven and Apple Eight.

On May 19, 2014, defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss and strike
on June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 27,
2014 adding a claim for breach of contract.

On July 14, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss and strike
Plaintiff's amended complaint.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously. At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"),
is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real
estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes.
The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income-
producing real estate in the United States.  As of June 30, 2014,
the Company owned 188 hotels with an aggregate of 23,489 rooms
located in 33 states.

Effective March 1, 2014, the Company completed its mergers with
Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc.
("Apple Eight") (the "A7 and A8 mergers").  Pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on August 7, 2013, as
amended (the "Merger Agreement"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight
merged with and into Apple Seven Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Seven
Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and
Apple Eight Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Eight Acquisition Sub"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, respectively.  Seven
Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub were formed solely for
engaging in the A7 and A8 mergers and have not conducted any prior
activities.

Upon completion of the A7 and A8 mergers, the separate corporate
existence of Apple Seven and Apple Eight ceased and Seven
Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub are the surviving
corporations.  Immediately following the effective time of the A7
and A8 mergers, the name of Seven Acquisition Sub was changed to
Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and the name of Eight Acquisition Sub was
changed to Apple REIT Eight, Inc.  In addition, effective with the
mergers, the Company's name changed from Apple REIT Nine, Inc. to
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Moved to Dismiss or Transfer "Wenzel" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on June 16, 2014,
Plaintiff Dorothy Wenzel, purportedly a shareholder of Apple Seven
and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, filed a class action
against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc.,
AFM and several officers and directors of the Company on behalf of
all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple
Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased
additional shares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment
Plans ("DRIP") between July 17, 2007 and June 30, 2013 (Wenzel  v.
Knight, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00432-REP, E.D. Va.).

Plaintiff brought suit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia and alleged claims under Virginia law
for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors, as
well as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc., Apple Eight
Advisors, Inc., and AFM.  Plaintiff alleges that the prices at
which Plaintiff and the purported class members purchased
additional shares through the DRIP were artificially inflated and
not indicative of the true value of units in Apple Seven and Apple
Eight.

On July 18, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or to
transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York to be
consolidated with the Moses action.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., formerly known as Apple REIT Nine,
Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries (the "Company"),
is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a real
estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes.
The Company is a self-advised REIT that invests in income-
producing real estate in the United States.  As of June 30, 2014,
the Company owned 188 hotels with an aggregate of 23,489 rooms
located in 33 states.

Effective March 1, 2014, the Company completed its mergers with
Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc.
("Apple Eight") (the "A7 and A8 mergers").  Pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on August 7, 2013, as
amended (the "Merger Agreement"), Apple Seven and Apple Eight
merged with and into Apple Seven Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Seven
Acquisition Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and
Apple Eight Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Eight Acquisition Sub"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, respectively.  Seven
Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub were formed solely for
engaging in the A7 and A8 mergers and have not conducted any prior
activities.

Upon completion of the A7 and A8 mergers, the separate corporate
existence of Apple Seven and Apple Eight ceased and Seven
Acquisition Sub and Eight Acquisition Sub are the surviving
corporations.  Immediately following the effective time of the A7
and A8 mergers, the name of Seven Acquisition Sub was changed to
Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and the name of Eight Acquisition Sub was
changed to Apple REIT Eight, Inc.  In addition, effective with the
mergers, the Company's name changed from Apple REIT Nine, Inc. to
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.


ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
ARC Document Solutions, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a former employee,
individually and on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
non-exempt employees who work or worked for American Reprographics
Company, L.L.C. and American Reprographics Company in the State of
California at any time from October 21, 2006 through the present,
filed on October 21, 2010, an action against the Company in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i) provide meal
and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof, (ii) timely pay
wages due at termination, and (iii) that those practices also
violate the California Business and Professions Code. The relief
sought includes damages, restitution, penalties, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court deems
proper.

On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in a private mediation
session with claimants' counsel which did not result in resolution
of the claim. Subsequent to the mediation session, the mediator
issued a proposal that was accepted by both parties.

The Company has received preliminary court approval of the
settlement, and awaits final court approval. The Company recorded
a liability of $0.9 million as of June 30, 2014 related to the
claim, which represents management's best estimate based on
information available.

ARC Document Solutions, Inc. is the nation's leading document
solutions provider for the architectural, engineering and
construction ("AEC") industry while also providing document
solutions to businesses of all types. ARC offers a variety of
services including: Onsite Services, Digital Services, Color
Services, and Traditional Reprographics Services. In addition, ARC
also sells Equipment and Supplies. The Company conducts its
operations through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, American
Reprographics Company, L.L.C., a California limited liability
company, and its subsidiaries.


ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI: "Musser" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Musser, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
The Archdiocese of Miami, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation
other d/b/u St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic Church, Case No. 0:14-
cv-61963 (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, an additional amount as liquidated damages and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. is a non-profit corporation doing
business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frantz K. Vital, Esq.
      KANE & VITAL
      6190 NW 11th Street
      Sunrise, FL 33313
      Telephone: (954) 523-5123
      Facsimile: (954) 885-7375
      E-mail: fvital@kanevital.com


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning on
September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
Company and certain of its current and former employees and
directors on behalf of certain purchasers of its common stock.

The Company said, "The complaints were brought as purported
stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations
that we and certain of our current and former employees and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice.

On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the
second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all
parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the
action with prejudice.

On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20,
2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

"Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict
or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims," the Company said.

Arena Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering, developing and commercializing novel drugs that
target G protein-coupled receptors to address unmet medical needs.
The Company's US operations are located in San Diego, California,
and its operations outside of the United States, including its
commercial manufacturing facility, are located in Zofingen,
Switzerland.


BIG CITY CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT, "Farias" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Modesto Farias, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Big City Construction, Inc., and Adam Kopec,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06623 (N.D. Ill., August 27, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay  overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Big City Construction, Inc. and Adam Kopec own and operate a
construction company within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOKAMPER'S SPORTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Khan on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v.
P.D.K.N P-4 OP, LLC d/b/a Bokamper's Sports Bar & Grill, Case No.
0:14-cv-61967 (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

P.D.K.N P-4 OP, LLC owns and operates the Bokamper's Sports Bar &
Grill, a restaurant in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Behren, Esq.
      BEHREN LAW FIRM
      2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 636-3802
      Facsimile: (772) 252-3365
      E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com


BRANDY'S OF CHICAGO: Faces "Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Santos, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Brandy's of Chicago, Inc., and Savvas
Stolidakis, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06615 (N.D. Ill.,
August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

Brandy's of Chicago, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant within
the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CBOE HOLDINGS: 4 Class Actions Consolidated Into Providence Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 18, 2014, the
City of Providence sued CBOE and C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBOE Holdings, in
federal court in New York City on behalf of a proposed class of
all public investors who bought or sold stock, at any time since
April 18, 2009 (the "class period"), that was listed on a U.S.-
based exchange or alternate trading venue. Also named as
defendants are other securities exchanges and a proposed defendant
class of all firms that, during the class period, placed bids or
offers or trades in stocks on behalf of public investors, operated
alternate trading venues for placing bids, offers or trades in
stocks, or engaged in high frequency trading ("HFT") in stocks
(the "Firm Defendants").

As applicable to CBOE and C2 and the other exchange defendants,
the complaint alleges that the exchanges (i) participated in a
scheme by which HFT firms allegedly defrauded U.S. public
investors and manipulated the prices of stocks and (ii) failed to
operate their stock markets in accordance with their duties under
the Exchange Act. In addition to injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees, the complaint seeks unspecified amounts representing damages
resulting from defendants' alleged wrongdoing, restitution of
monies paid by the plaintiff class, disgorgement of defendants'
gains resulting from their alleged wrongdoing, and forfeiture of
fees and compensation paid by the plaintiff class to defendants.

American European Insurance Company, James Flynn and Dominic
Morelli filed three substantially similar lawsuits against CBOE
and C2, along with other securities exchanges and a similar group
of Firm Defendants, on behalf of a proposed class of public
investors.

On July 2, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
separate class actions into the Providence case and appointed the
City of Providence and several other institutional investors as
lead plaintiffs for the putative class.

CBOE Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated and other subsidiaries.  The
primary business of the Company is the operation of markets for
the trading of listed, or exchange-traded, derivatives contracts
on four broad product categories: 1) options on various market
indexes (index options), 2) futures on the VIX Index and other
products, 3) options on the stocks of individual corporations
(equity options) and 4) options on other exchange-traded products
(ETP options), such as exchange-traded funds (ETF options) and
exchange-traded notes (ETN options).


CBOE HOLDINGS: Faces "Lanier" Lawsuits Over Inferior Market Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 23, 2014, Harold
R. Lanier sued CBOE, as well as 13 other securities exchanges, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of himself and a putative class consisting of all
persons in the United States who entered into contracts to receive
market data through certain data plans at any time since May 19,
2008 to the present.  The complaint alleges that the market data
provided under the Consolidated Quotation ("CQ") and Consolidated
Tape Association ("CTA") Plans was inferior to the data that the
exchanges provided to those that directly receive other data from
the exchanges, which the plaintiffs allege is a breach of their
"subscriber contracts" and a violation of the exchanges'
obligations under the CQ and CTA Plans.  The plaintiffs seek
monetary and injunctive relief.

On May 30, 2014, Mr. Lanier filed two additional suits in the same
Court, alleging substantially the same claims and requesting for
the same types of relief against the exchanges who participate in
the UTP and the OPRA data plans.  CBOE is a defendant in each of
these suits, while C2 is only a defendant in the suit regarding
the OPRA Plan.

CBOE Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated and other subsidiaries.  The
primary business of the Company is the operation of markets for
the trading of listed, or exchange-traded, derivatives contracts
on four broad product categories: 1) options on various market
indexes (index options), 2) futures on the VIX Index and other
products, 3) options on the stocks of individual corporations
(equity options) and 4) options on other exchange-traded products
(ETP options), such as exchange-traded funds (ETF options) and
exchange-traded notes (ETN options).


CHEVRON CORP: Court Dismissed With Leave to Amend "Ogala" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Slamming a group of Nigerians for copying their $5 billion lawsuit
against Chevron over a weeks-long oil blaze "almost verbatim from
the original complaint," a federal judge warned that he may
dismiss the case with prejudice, reports Jonny Bonner at
Courthouse News Service.

Dr. Foster Ogala and others, on behalf of an estimated 65,000
residents of the Niger Delta region of southern Nigeria, sued the
energy giant in San Francisco earlier this year.  They claimed the
KS Endeavor, an offshore natural-gas rig drilling in North Apoi
Field, exploded on Jan. 16, 2012, igniting a fire that burned for
46 days.

Ogala and others said they were "directly affected by, interested
in and having claims arising out of the incident," and suffered
"losses to their livelihood, environmental damage, and health
problems as a result of the explosion and fire," according to a
summary of the case by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti.

They said KS Drilling negligently operated the KS Endeavor under
the management of Chevron Nigeria Ltd.

Chevron Corp., Chevron Investments and Chevron U.S.A. were named
as defendants in the lawsuit, but not Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron Investments.

Conti dismissed the original action in May, however, over a
failure to state claims against the defendant companies as alter
egos of Chevron Nigeria Ltd.

Tossing claims on behalf of unnamed nonparties, Conti also said
that the plaintiffs failed to "claim anywhere in the complaint to
represent a class."  He said the plaintiffs failed to cite
property damage and personal injury specifics, as well, or show
how their alleged injuries resulted from the defendants' conduct.

"There is no discussion whatsoever of how a fire on an offshore
rig damaged the businesses, livelihoods, property, or health of
Dr. Ogala or any of the other plaintiffs in this case," Conti
wrote.  "Plaintiffs make claims about damage to fish, livestock,
contamination of water and soil, and 'general health breakdown.'
But there are no allegations that the damaged livestock belonged
to plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs' livelihoods depended on
fisheries, that the contaminated water or soil harmed them or
their property, or that the 'general health breakdown' affected
them.  As for the claims of property damage and physical injury,
there are no allegations that the fire ever spread from the KS
Endeavor.  Plaintiffs need to allege facts that make their damages
claims plausible; in this case, they need facts that indicate how
the fire actually harmed them."

Dismissing the first amended complaint, or FAC, on August 21,
2014, Conti again found that the plaintiffs failed to state injury
specifics.

"Plaintiffs 'must allege and show that they personally have been
injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified
members of the class to which they belong and which they purport
to represent,'" Conti wrote.  "Plaintiffs appear to be aware of
that requirement.  But their FAC includes only allegations of
injury to unidentified class members. Nowhere does the FAC ever
describe any injury to any of the named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
must describe a specific injury to each of the named plaintiffs.
Because they fail to do so, their FAC is insufficient to establish
standing for their negligence claims."

In alleging that they "suffered: losses to their livelihood;
environmental disaster impacting upon food and water supplies;
health problems all arising out of the gross negligence of the
defendant," the plaintiffs "copied almost verbatim from the
original complaint," according to the 15-page decision.

Conti declined to strike or dismiss the class allegations, and
dismissed the lawsuit with leave to amend.

Failure to properly amend their claims by Aug. 28 "may result in
dismissal of this action with prejudice," Conti warned.

Joining Ogola as named plaintiffs are Elder Endure Humphrey Fisei,
Mr. Fresh Talent, Matthew Kingdom Mieseigha, Chris Wilfred Itonyo
and Natto Iyela Gbarabe.

"To establish standing, plaintiffs must explain specifically how
each of these people was injured," the 15-page ruling states.
"Plaintiffs 'must allege and show that they personally have been
injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified
members of the class to which they belong and which they purport
to represent.'"

The case is Foster Ogola, et al. v. Chevron Corporation, Case No.
14-cv-173-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


CHICAGO PRIME: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Serafin" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Serafin, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Chicago Prime Meats LLC and Skender Agojci,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06603 (N.D. Ill., August 27, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Chicago Prime Meats LLC is a supplier of premium meat and seafood
within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Hardt" Suit Over Transmission Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Hardt and Marta Hardt, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Chrysler Group LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 8:14-cv-01375 (C.D.
Cal., August 27, 2014), alleges that the Manual Transmission of
2013 Dodge Dart and 2014 Dodge Dart contains design and
manufacturing defects that cause, the clutch pedal to go soft and
remain depressed to the floor, the transmission to fail to engage
or disengage, the gear shift to burn out, the clutch and
transmission to burn out, and stalling, and failure to accelerate
or decelerate. These defects causes unsafe conditions such as;
inability to shift gears, thereby rendering the vehicle, unable to
speed up or slow down, often while the vehicle is already in
motion.  Chrysler Group LLC designs and manufactures motor
vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in the United States
and throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
      Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
      Robert Friedl, Esq.
      Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Century Park East Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
              Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
              Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com


CIT GROUP: Files Lawsuit Against WPC for Indemnification
--------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2013, a freight train including five locomotives and
seventy-two tank cars carrying crude oil derailed in the town of
Lac-Megantic, Quebec. Nine of the tank cars were owned by The CIT
Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. ("CIT/EF") (a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company) and leased to Western Petroleum Company
("WPC"), a subsidiary of World Fuel Services Corp. ("WFS"). Two of
the locomotives are owned by CIT/EF and were leased to Montreal,
Maine & Atlantic Railway, Ltd. ("MMA"), the railroad operating the
freight train at the time of the derailment, a subsidiary of Rail
World, Inc.

The derailment was followed by explosions and fire, which resulted
in the deaths of over forty people and an unknown number of
injuries, the destruction of more than thirty buildings in Lac-
Megantic, and the release of crude oil on land and into the
ChaudiĆ gere River. The extent of the property and environmental
damage has not yet been determined.

Twenty lawsuits have been filed in Illinois by representatives of
the deceased in connection with the derailment. The Company is
named as a defendant in seven of the Illinois lawsuits, together
with 13 other defendants, including WPC, MMA (who has since been
dismissed without prejudice as a result of its chapter 11
bankruptcy filing on August 7, 2013), and the lessors of the other
locomotives and tank cars.

CIT Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that liability could be
joint and several among some or all of the defendants. All but two
of these cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of Illinois and transferred to the U.S.
District Court in Maine.

The Company has been named as an additional defendant in a pending
class action in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. Other cases
may be filed in U.S. and Canadian courts. The plaintiffs in the
pending U.S. and Canadian actions assert claims of negligence and
strict liability based upon alleged design defect against the
Company in connection with the CIT/EF tank cars. The Company has
rights of indemnification and defense against its lessees, WPC and
MMA (a debtor in bankruptcy), and also has rights as an additional
insured under liability coverage maintained by the lessees.

On July 28, 2014, the Company commenced a lawsuit against WPC in
the U.S. District Court in the District of Minnesota to enforce
its rights of indemnification and defense. In addition to its
indemnification and insurance rights against its lessees, the
Company and its subsidiaries maintain contingent and general
liability insurance for claims of this nature, and the Company and
its insurers are working cooperatively with respect to these
claims.

CIT Group provides financing, leasing and advisory services
principally to middle market companies in a wide variety of
industries primarily in North America, and equipment financing and
leasing solutions to the transportation industry worldwide.


CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Class in Train Derailment Suit Not Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused to certify a class of people who say they
lost income when a freight train dumped 25,000 gallons of
dangerous chemicals into a New Jersey creek, according to Rose
Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service.

The accident occurred on the morning of Nov. 30, 2012, when the
East Jefferson Street railroad bridge in Paulsboro, N.J.,
allegedly failed to lock back into place for a freight train to
cross after swinging open to let water flow along the creek.

Despite a red signal warning that the rails were not properly
positioned that day, the train tried to cross and derailed.  Four
of its cars plunged into Mantua Creek below, flooding the air and
water with 25,000 gallons of vinyl chloride, which locals call a
potent carcinogen.

While nearly 600 residents were evacuated from the area for about
a week, the borough told those living outside the danger zone to
stay indoors until the spill was cleaned up.

Residents and local businesses later sued Consolidated Rail,
Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation for their
allegedly negligent train operation and bridge maintenance.

In addition to expenses or lost income, some residents say that
the evacuation or other orders left them with mental or physical
harm including coughing fits.

The cases were ultimately consolidated in New Jersey, where Donald
Wilson, individually and dba Don's Barbershop, and Tracy Lee now
serve as lead plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler declined to strike class
allegations this past April but followed that order up in August
with one that refused to certify the alleged "hundreds, if not
thousands" of class members.

"While for the class representative, a barbershop, it is intuitive
that the business relies upon a physical presence to generate
revenue, it is not so clear that all 381 businesses with mailing
addresses in the shelter-in-place zone have a similar business
model," Kugler wrote.  "The court cannot simply assume that each
business organization with an address in a specified geographic
area suffered income loss as a result of not being able to have
its doors open to the public or to employees for a period of three
days.  It is not clear that many of the businesses on the
preliminary list generate any income at all through operations in
the affected area.  A number of the listings appear to simply be
the names of individual persons, which would appear to leave open
the question of how they generate income, and whether they
suffered income loss merely due to having an address in the
affected area."

The defendants have shown they settled with 486 evacuees, the
unpublished ruling states.

"Not only have plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence showing
how many of the remaining residents meet the class definition, but
evidence exists suggesting that some remaining residents would not
be class members," Kugler wrote.  "Defendants established an
assistance center in Paulsboro, where evacuees could obtain
reimbursement for expenses as well as gift cards for future
expenses, without signing releases."

In fact, Wilson and Lee received more than $4,000 and $2,000,
respectively, the ruling states.

"Finally, with annual revenue ranging from less than $50,000 to
over $3,000,000, the potential 'disparities among class members''
damages is great, which weighs against a finding of predominance,"
the judge added.

The court also granted the defendants' unopposed motion to seal
some documents that were submitted in opposition to the motion for
class certification.


CVS CAREMARK: Appeal in Class Suit Pending Before Ala. High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation or its subsidiaries was named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama
state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of
participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class
action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other
defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to
Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello
lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages
plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the
amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits
was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark,
several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in
the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed
class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene
in the Lauriello action.

Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an
Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1).

In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class
representatives and class counsel.

"The defendants' appeal and plaintiffs' cross-appeal are pending
before the Alabama Supreme Court. The proceedings in the trial
court are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and
cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court," CVS Caremark 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.

CVS Caremark, together with its subsidiaries, is the largest
pharmacy health care provider in the United States with integrated
offerings across the entire spectrum of pharmacy care.


CVS CAREMARK: Additional Discovery and Briefing in Managers Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark 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 various lawsuits have
been filed alleging that Caremark has violated applicable
antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy
networks for client health plans.

In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community
Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against
Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration
based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.

In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.,
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages
and injunctive relief.  The North Jackson Pharmacy case against
two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred
to Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate
Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms
between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was
then stayed by the parties pending developments in the North
Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision
which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the
proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the
Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of
the Bellevue case.

Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue case sought dismissal
of their complaint to permit an immediate appeal of the reinstated
order compelling arbitration and pursued an appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

In November 2012, the Third Circuit Court reversed the district
court ruling and directed the parties to proceed in federal court.

Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy
case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain
additional class discovery and briefing.  The consolidated action
is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.

CVS Caremark, together with its subsidiaries, is the largest
pharmacy health care provider in the United States with integrated
offerings across the entire spectrum of pharmacy care.


CVS CAREMARK: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark 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 November 2009, a
securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island purportedly on
behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation stock between May
5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the
lawsuit to allege a class period beginning October 30, 2008. The
lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants and
includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public
disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and
allegations of insider trading.

In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in
December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain
officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which was stayed pending
developments in the related securities class action, includes
allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider
trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that
the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly
inflated prices under its share repurchase program.

In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June
2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
securities class action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the
court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.

In May 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the prior
ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings. In December 2013, the district court denied the
Company's renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The derivative
lawsuit is presently stayed pending further developments in the
class action.

CVS Caremark, together with its subsidiaries, is the largest
pharmacy health care provider in the United States with integrated
offerings across the entire spectrum of pharmacy care.


DELTA APPAREL: Discovery Ongoing in California Wage and Hour Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. was served with a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or
about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of the Company's Delta
Activewear business unit at the Company's Santa Fe Springs,
California distribution facility alleging violations of California
wage and hour laws and unfair business practices with respect to
meal and rest periods, compensation and wage statements, and
related claims (the "Complaint"). The Complaint is brought as a
class action and seeks to include all of the Company's Delta
Activewear business unit's current and certain former employees
within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage
and hour laws. The Complaint also names as defendants Junkfood,
Soffe, an independent contractor of Soffe, and a former employee,
and seeks to include all current and certain former employees of
Junkfood, Soffe and the Soffe independent contractor within
California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and
hour laws. The Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
monetary damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre-judgment interest.

Delta Apparel said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that the discovery process
in this matter is ongoing and the issue of class certification
remains pending.

"While we will continue to vigorously defend this action and
believe we have a number of meritorious defenses to the claims
alleged, we believe a risk of loss is probable," the Company said.
"Based upon current information, we believe there is a range of
likely outcomes between approximately $15,000 and $975,000. During
the quarter ended September 28, 2013, we recorded a liability for
the most likely outcome within this range. However, depending upon
the scope and size of any certified class and whether any of the
claims alleged ultimately prevail at trial, we could be required
to pay amounts exceeding $975,000."


EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss Taken Under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company 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 subsequent to the
Company's bankruptcy filing, between January 27, 2012 and March
22, 2012, several putative class action suits were filed in
federal court in the Western District of New York against the
committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ("SOP") and
Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and
current executives of the Company. The suits have been
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the
Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP.
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was heard on May 23,
2013 and has been taken under advisement. On behalf of the
defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is
without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their
behalf.

Kodak is a technology company that provides commercial imaging
products and services built on a foundation of materials science,
digital imaging science, and deposition processes.  Kodak's
portfolio of products and services is designed to meet needs of
customers in different sectors and cycles of the commercial
imaging and printing markets, including prepress and digital
printing, and functional and packaging printing.  Kodak also
offers brand licensing and intellectual property opportunities,
and products and services in entertainment imaging (motion
pictures) and other commercial films, and it maintains a presence
in the sales of ink for its existing installed consumer inkjet
printer base.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defending "Hart" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts 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 Company is
defending a putative class action lawsuit brought by Ryan Hart, a
former college football player, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey in June 2009, which alleges
that EA misappropriated his likeness in its college-themed
football game. In September 2011, the district court granted EA's
motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 21, 2013, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court's decision and
remanded the case back to the district court.

Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game
software content and services that can be played by consumers on a
variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as
PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony and Xbox 360 and Xbox One from
Microsoft), personal computers, mobile phones and tablets.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defending Likeness Licensing Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts 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 In re NCAA Student-
Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
involves two groups of common claims brought by several different
former collegiate student-athletes in 2009. These various actions
were consolidated into one action in February 2010.

EA said, "The first group of claims is a class action against us,
the NCAA and the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) alleging that
our college-themed video games misappropriated the likenesses of
collegiate student-athletes without their authorization. On July
31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's denial of our motion to strike the complaint. The second
group of claims is a federal antitrust class action against us,
the NCAA and the CLC that challenges NCAA/CLC licensing practices
and the NCAA By-Laws and regulations."

Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game
software content and services that can be played by consumers on a
variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as
PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony and Xbox 360 and Xbox One from
Microsoft), personal computers, mobile phones and tablets.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Recognized $30MM Accrual Associated With Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts 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 in September 2013, EA
reached an agreement to settle all actions brought by college
athletes.  EA said, "On May 30, 2014, counsel for plaintiffs filed
a motion for the court to approve the settlement of all actions.
The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion. We recognized a
$30 million accrual during the second quarter of fiscal 2014
associated with the anticipated settlement."

EA also said that on November 4, 2013, the NCAA filed a complaint
against the Company and CLC in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Georgia that alleged that the Company is contractually
obligated to defend and indemnify the NCAA against claims asserted
in In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing concerning
the alleged misappropriation of student-athletes' publicity rights
in EA's collegiate video games. On June 9, 2014, the NCAA
dismissed its complaint without prejudice.

Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game
software content and services that can be played by consumers on a
variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as
PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony and Xbox 360 and Xbox One from
Microsoft), personal computers, mobile phones and tablets.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss Battlefield Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts 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 on December 17, 2013, a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its officers by an individual
purporting to represent a class of purchasers of EA common stock.
A second purported shareholder class action lawsuit alleging
substantially similar claims was subsequently filed in the same
court. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action.

The lawsuits, which assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, allege, among other things,
that the Company and certain of its officers issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the rollout of the
Company's Battlefield 4 game. The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, which have not been quantified.

"On June 9, 2014, we filed a motion asking the court to dismiss
all claims. The court has not yet ruled on our motion," EA said.

Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game
software content and services that can be played by consumers on a
variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as
PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony and Xbox 360 and Xbox One from
Microsoft), personal computers, mobile phones and tablets.


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces "Mehr" Suit Over Players' Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Mehr, Beata Ivanauskiene, as parent of minor R.K.I. Jr.,
Sarah Aranda, as parent of minors B.A., D.A., and I.A.; Kira Akka-
Seidel, Karen Christine O'Donoghue, as parent of minor L.L.M., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Federation Internationale De Football Association a/k/a "Fifa;",
The United States Soccer Federation, Inc., US Youth Soccer
Association, Inc., American Youth Soccer Organization,  National
Association of Competitive Soccer Clubs, Inc. d/b/a/ US Club
Soccer, and California Youth Soccer Association, Case No. 4:14-cv-
03879 (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to take appropriate actions in regards to
protecting the safety of their soccer players.

The Defendants are members of the soccer association in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Jon T. King, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              jonk@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1144 W. Lake Street, Suite 400
      Oak Park, IL 60301
      Telephone: (708) 628-4949
      Facsimile:  708.628.4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
              toma@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Jack W. Lee, Esq.
      Derek G. Howard, Esq.
      Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
      MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
      360 Post St., 8th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415)788-9000
      E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
              dhoward@minamitamaki.com
              seant@minamitamaki.com


FEDEX GROUND: Misclassified 3,000+ Drivers, 9th Cir. Ruled
----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx misclassified more than 3,000 delivery drivers in California
and Oregon as independent contractors rather than employees,
reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service, citing a 9th Circuit
ruling entered on August 27, 2014.

The decision upends a finding from a multidistrict litigation
court in Indiana against three separate class actions on behalf of
2,300 California-based drivers for FedEx Ground and FedEx Home
Delivery and 363 in Oregon that were consolidated with similar
complaints from 40 states.

In both the California and Oregon cases, the drivers claimed that,
between about 1999 and 2009, FedEx forced drivers to purchase
company-approved trucks, uniforms and other equipment as if they
were independent contractors, while controlling minute details of
their appearance and behavior, right down to their body odor.

FedEx argued that the operating agreement at issue offered drivers
entrepreneurial opportunities beyond those available to employees,
and said that it controlled the drivers only to a point -- noting
that, among other things, it did not require them to follow
specific routes or deliver packages in order.

The Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) court granted FedEx summary
judgment in most of the cases, including those from California and
Oregon.  It found that the drivers were independent contractors as
a matter law because of their "class-wide ability to own and
operate distinct businesses, own multiple routes, and profit
accordingly."

Reversing the MDL court in separate opinions on August 27, 2014, a
three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit returned the two cases to
their respective district courts for summary judgment in the
drivers' favor.

FedEx's operating agreement, which controlled "drivers' clothing
from their hats down to their shoes and socks" and required that
they be "clean shaven, hair neat and trimmed, [and] free of body
odor," failed the "right-of-control" test in both states, the
unanimous panel found.

"The drivers must wear FedEx uniforms, drive FedEx-approved
vehicles, and groom themselves according to FedEx's appearance
standards," Judge William Fletcher wrote in both rulings.  "FedEx
tells its drivers what packages to deliver, on what days, and at
what times.  Although drivers may operate multiple delivery routes
and hire third parties to help perform their work, they may do so
only with FedEx's consent."

"Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to FedEx, the OA
grants FedEx a broad right to control the manner in which its
drivers' perform their work," Fletcher added.  "The most important
factor of the right-to-control test thus strongly favors employee
status."

FedEx said on August 27, 2014, that it no longer uses the same
operating agreement at issue in the cases.

"Since 2011, FedEx Ground has only contracted with incorporated
businesses, which treat their drivers as their employees," the
company said in a statement.

FedEx added that it plans to "transition to new independent
service provider agreements in the states of California, Oregon,
Washington, and Nevada."

Nevertheless, the company will file a petition for review of the
ruling by a full, 11-judge panel of the appellate court, FedEx
said.

"We fundamentally disagree with these rulings, which run counter
to more than 100 state and federal findings . . . upholding our
contractual relationships with thousands of independent
businesses," said Cary Blancett, FedEx Ground's senior vice
president and general counsel, in a statement.  "The operating
agreement on which these rulings are based has been significantly
strengthened in recent years, and we look forward to continuing to
work with service providers across our network to provide
customers the industry's most reliable service."

The drivers' attorney, Beth Ross of Leonard Carder, said in
statement that "FedEx Ground built its business on the backs of
individuals it labeled as independent contractors, promising them
the entrepreneurial American Dream."

"Nationally, thousands of FedEx Ground drivers must pay for the
privilege of working for FedEx 55 hours a week, 52 weeks a year,"
Ross added.  "Today, these workers were granted rights and
benefits entitled to employees under California law.  To be clear,
the Ninth Circuit exposed FedEx Ground's independent contractor
model as unlawful."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees are represented by:

          Mark A. Friel, Esq.
          Steve Douglas Larson, Esq.
          Scott Alden Shorr, Esq.
          STOLL BERNE
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OREGON 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: mfriel@stollberne.com
                  slarson@stollberne.com
                  sshorr@stollberne.com

The Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant is represented by:

          Jonathan Hacker, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5285
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: jhacker@omm.com

               - and -

          Anton Metlitsky, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: ametlitsky@omm.com

               - and -

          Robert Schwartz, Esq.
          Scott Voelz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: rschwartz@omm.com
                  svoelz@omm.com

Amicus Curiae American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Oregon
Trucking Associations, Inc., are represented by:

          Richard Pianka, Esq.
          ATA LITIGATION CENTER
          AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.
          950 N. Glebe Road
          Arlington, VA 22203
          Telephone: (703) 838-1889
          Facsimile: (703) 838-1705
          E-mail: rpianka@trucking.org

The appellate cases are Edward Slayman, et al. v. FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., dba Fedex Home Delivery, Inc., Case Nos. 12-
35525 and 12-35559, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The District Court cases are Edward Slayman, et
al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., dba Fedex Home Delivery,
Inc., Case Nos. 3:05-cv-01127-HZ and 3:07-cv-00818-HZ, in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon.


FIRST SOLAR: Deadline to Complete Merits Discovery Is December 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 15, 2012, a
purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC, was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona (hereafter
"Arizona District Court") against the Company and certain of our
current and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April
30, 2008, and February 28, 2012. The complaint generally alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
prospects. The action includes claims for damages, and an award of
costs and expenses to the putative class, including attorneys'
fees. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss. On February 26, 2013, the court directed the parties
to begin class certification discovery, and ordered a further
scheduling conference to set the merit discovery schedule after
the issue of class certification has been decided.

On June 21, 2013, the Pension Schemes filed a motion for class
certification. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court
granted the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification.

The deadline to complete merits discovery is December 30, 2014.
The deadline to file motion(s) for summary judgment is January 20,
2015.

Merits discovery is continuing.

"We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse
effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any," First Solar said.


GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Tosses Motion to Block Asbestos Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a judge has overruled an emergency motion seeking to
block a gasket-maker going through bankruptcy from releasing
information subpoenaed by Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of
North Carolina said the names of people who sued Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC before it filed for bankruptcy and who cast
creditors' ballots in the In re Flintkote Co. bankruptcy can be
disclosed to Imperial Tobacco.

Other information that can be disclosed includes the type of
diseases the plaintiffs claim stem from their exposure to
asbestos, the plaintiffs' law firms and other bankruptcy cases in
which they filed ballots.

Imperial Tobacco has agreed to keep the data confidential and only
to use it in litigation regarding Flintkote.

A group of asbestos claimants filed the emergency motion seeking
to block the gasket-maker from releasing the information.

Garlock said that complying with Imperial Tobacco's subpoena would
not violate a protocol established to allow people and companies
to object to the unsealing of evidence of alleged
misrepresentation by asbestos plaintiffs lawyers.

Judge Hodges has set out the protocol to govern public access to
evidence of misrepresentation by plaintiffs' lawyers in several
cases that Garlock settled in the past or in which Garlock lost
jury verdicts.  That alleged evidence of misrepresentation led him
to estimate that Garlock likely owes $125 million to asbestos
plaintiffs, not around $1 billion to $1.3 billion as the
plaintiffs alleged.

The official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants said
that Garlock and related debtors intended "to release sealed
information that is subject to the public-access protocol prior to
any affected person having an opportunity to seal it as
contemplated by that order."


GEMINI DINER: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sergio Galicia, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Gemini Diner Inc. and Konstantine
Kassimis, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06990 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Gemini Diner Inc. owns and operates a full-service restaurant
located at 641 Second Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


GLOBAL TEL LINK: Faces "Murilla" Over Unlawful Telephone Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Murilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Tel Link, Case No. 0:14-cv-03275 (D. Minn.,
August 27, 2014), seeks to recover damages for the unjust,
unreasonable, and unfair rates they charged for telephone calls by
the inmates in prison serviced in violation of the Federal
Communications Act.

Global Tel Link is a private telephone company based in Reston,
Virginia, it provides telephone service to approximately 50
percent of all inmates in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raina Borrelli, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      E-mail: rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Mpls, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Simon B. Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
      1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-8282
      Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
              phoward@smbb.com
              ckocher@smbb.com

         - and -

      Donald Perelman, Esq.
      Roberta Liebenberg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK
      One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com
              rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com

           - and -

      Todd. A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
      E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600


GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Still Defending Against Securities Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March
19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's
announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second
and third quarter 2012 financial statements.

Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and
Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on
March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three
actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge
& Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115,
on June 10, 2013.

The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on August
9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013.
The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend this
action.

The Company is the largest provider of dredging services in the
United States.


GREEN LIGHT: Faces "Aguado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benito Aguado, Ivan Alfonso, Angel Barrios, Alexei Beiro, Jesus
Cobas, Gonzalo Gutierrez, Jorge Hernandez, Moises Hernandez,
Guillermo Molina, Alexis Montoya, Carlos Navarro, Luis E. Perez,
Heriberto Puerto, Ruben Quesada, Enrique Quintero, Chester Rivera,
Alberto Rodriguez, Guillermo Rojas, Jose Val, Onay Valdes, Sergio
Viera, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Green Light Electric Systems, Inc., a Florida corporation, and
Abel Demien, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23156 (S.D. Fla.,
August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are licensed electrical contractor doing business
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Eichenbaum, Esq.
      LAW FIRM OF ALAN EICHENBAUM
      10059 NW 1st Court
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 916-1202
      Facsimile: 916-1232
      E-mail: alanlaw@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
      ROBERT D. SOLOFF PA
      7805 SW 6th Court
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 472-0002
      Facsimile: 472-0052
      E-mail: soloffpa@bellsouth.net


GROUPON INC: Sales Rep Overtime Class Action Can't Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a Chicago
federal judge on Aug. 27 said Groupon Inc. sales representatives
cannot pursue a class-action lawsuit over the Internet commerce
company's failure to pay for overtime before and after its 2011
initial public offering.

U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang said the roughly 1,500
representatives' claims, job duties and alleged injuries were too
disparate to justify letting them sue as a group over allegations
that Groupon violated Illinois' minimum wage law.

Judge Chang noted that Groupon did eventually adopt more uniform
management policies, and that these could "serve as markers" for
the plaintiffs to pursue a smaller class action.  He gave the
plaintiffs until Sept. 23 to propose a narrower class, or else
pursue their claims on an individual basis.

More than 100 Groupon sales representatives are pursuing related
claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Douglas Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com -- a partner at Werman Salas
representing the plaintiffs, said: "We're disappointed in the
court's decision, and believe it is factually and legally flawed.
We are currently evaluating our options."

Groupon spokesman Bill Roberts said the Chicago-based company is
pleased with the decision.

Class actions can enable plaintiffs to pursue larger recoveries at
lower cost than if they sued individually.

A 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
which Chang cited, made it harder for many plaintiffs to pursue
such cases.

According to the decision, the Groupon lawsuit sought class
certification covering the periods Aug. 19, 2008 to March 19,
2011, and Aug. 23, 2011 to the present, when Groupon paid no
overtime.  The lawsuit also sought certification for the interim
five-month period when Groupon paid overtime, but allegedly less
than it was supposed to pay.

Known for its "daily deals," Groupon has under Chief Executive
Eric Lefkofsky been trying to evolve into an e-commerce retailer
better able to compete with rivals such as Amazon.com Inc.

Groupon went public at $20 per share on Nov. 4, 2011, but have not
traded that high since February 2012.

The case is Dailey et al v. Groupon Inc, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, No. 11-05685.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Motion to Alter or Amend Denied
--------------------------------------------------
A putative class action suit captioned Jennifer A. Durand v. The
Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash
Balance Pension Plan was filed on March 12, 2007, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The
named plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum
distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at
or about the time of her termination, claims that she and others
similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum
distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and
the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The
plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and
those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an
additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value
of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the
lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65.

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation
of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included: (a) a
claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account
balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits
were based solely upon the performance of each participant's
selection from among various hypothetical investment options (as
the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater of that
performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the
2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all
participants from the performance of participant's investment
selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") for participants who had account balances as of the
amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based
interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements
arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum
distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain.

On March 31, 2011, the District Court granted the Company and the
Plan's Motion to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds the
additional claims set forth in (a) and (b) above, however, in
response to a motion for reconsideration, the Court allowed the
new breach of fiduciary duty claim to stand, but only as to
plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case.  On June
22, 2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Partial Motion for
Summary Judgment to dismiss the "whipsaw" claim of one of the
named plaintiffs who received his lump sum distribution after
December 31, 2003.

On October 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company and the Plan's
Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice
the "whipsaw" claim of the named plaintiff who received a lump sum
distribution after December 31, 2003 and the similar claims of the
putative class members he sought to represent.

On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a
class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty
claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum
distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003, and a
subclass to bring such claims consisting of all persons who
received lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and March
12, 2002.

On December 17, 2013, the Court also granted plaintiffs' motion
for entry of a final order allowing an immediate appeal by the two
named plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint of their dismissed
claims that the 2004 Plan amendment reduced benefits in violation
of ERISA, and for one of them, that his post-2003 lump sum
distribution should have been greater.

On January 14, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
the Court's December 17, 2013 Order requesting that the Court
reverse its order making the dismissed claims final and appealable
or, in the alternative, stay merits discovery on the claims
remaining in the district court pending resolution of the
dismissed plaintiffs' appeal.

The Court denied this motion on April 30, 2014, Hanover 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.

"At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The extent to which any of the
plaintiffs' multiple theories of liability, some of which are
overlapping and others of which are quite complex and novel, are
accepted and upheld on appeal will significantly affect the Plan's
or the Company's potential liability. The statute of limitations
applicable to the class has not yet been finally determined and
the extent of potential liability, if any, will depend on this
final determination. In addition, assuming for these purposes that
the plaintiffs prevail with respect to claims that benefits
accrued or payable under the Plan were understated, then there are
numerous possible theories and other variables upon which any
revised calculation of benefits as requested under plaintiffs'
claims could be based. Any adverse judgment in this case against
the Plan would be expected to create a liability for the Plan,
with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay
benefits. The Company's future required funding of the Plan could
also be impacted by such a liability," the Company said.

Hanover Insurance's business operations consist of four operating
segments: Commercial Lines, Personal Lines, Chaucer and Other.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Judge Casts Doubt on Autonomy Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a U.S. judge cast doubt on Aug. 25 over a
proposed agreement struck between Hewlett Packard Co and plaintiff
shareholders to settle a lawsuit over the computing giant's
botched acquisition of Autonomy Plc.

At a hearing on Aug. 25 in San Francisco, U.S. District Judge
Charles Breyer said the settlement contained a "potentially fatal"
provision, under which HP would hire shareholder attorneys to
pursue claims against ex-Autonomy executives.  He said that
provision may prevent his approving the deal.

Judge Breyer said he would not approve the proposed fees for
shareholder lawyers.

"That's out," he said.  Additionally, Judge Breyer said that in
order to approve the remainder of the deal, the judge may have to
conduct a separate inquiry into the merits of dismissing claims
against HP officers, including current Chief Executive Officer Meg
Whitman.

HP announced an $8.8 billion writedown in November 2012, just over
one year after buying Autonomy, and linked more than $5 billion to
accounting fraud and inflated financials by Autonomy executives.
The British company and its executives have denied any wrongdoing.

Under the terms of the settlement reached in June, shareholder
attorneys agreed to drop all claims against HP's current and
former executives, including Ms. Whitman, board members and
advisers to the company.

HP, in turn, agreed to team up with the shareholder attorneys to
bring claims against former Autonomy executives, including Chief
Executive Michael Lynch.  The shareholder attorneys stand to
recoup millions in fees.

Multiple parties objected to the deal.  Former Autonomy Chief
Financial Officer Sushovan Hussain said in a court filing that the
"collusive and unfair" settlement, if approved by Judge Breyer,
would let HP "forever bury from disclosure the real reason for its
2012 writedown of Autonomy: HP's own destruction of Autonomy's
success after the acquisition."

The case is In re: Hewlett-Packard Co Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
No. 12-06003.


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Bank Faces Class Action in Johnson County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation 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 suit was filed on
April 24 , 2014, against Hills Bank and Trust Company in the Iowa
District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the
fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection
of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act.
The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have
paid overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on
their consumer accounts.  The Bank has filed a motion to dismiss,
and litigation is ongoing.

At this stage of the litigation, it is not possible for management
of the Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss,
the Company said.


IEC ELECTRONICS: Responding to Amended Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
IEC Electronics Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that, in connection with the
restatement of consolidated financial statements, the Audit
Committee conducted an independent review of the underlying facts
and circumstances, and the Company is responding to a formal
investigation by the staff of the SEC relating to the restatement
and other matters and an amended complaint in a consolidated
shareholder class action originally filed June 28, 2013 in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against the Company and its CEO and former CFO seeking unspecified
compensatory damages.  While the Company believes the complaint is
without merit, it is too early to determine the potential outcome.

IEC Electronics Corp. specializes in the custom manufacture of
high reliability, complex circuit boards and system-level
assemblies; a wide array of cable and wire harness assemblies
capable of withstanding extreme environments; and precision metal
components.  It primarily serves the aerospace & defense
(previously discussed as military & aerospace), medical,
industrial and communications markets.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: 13 Actions Transferred to Massachusetts Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that from July to October
2013, thirteen class action complaints were filed against
manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic
equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

In each case, the complaints allege that Medicis engaged in an
overarching anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, filing
frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a technology-based, specialty
pharmaceutical company.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: 4 Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that from June to July 2014,
four class action complaints were filed against manufacturers of
the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo Pharmaceuticals
engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things,
entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with the
Company to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in
violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek,
among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable
relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a technology-based, specialty
pharmaceutical company.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 7, 2013 and
April 8, 2013, two class action complaints were filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Denis Mulligan, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, and Haverhill Retirement
System, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
respectively ("Securities Class Actions"), alleging that the
Company and those named officers and directors violated the
federal securities law by making materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the
public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the
Hayward, California manufacturing facility, including but not
limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's
ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's branded
product candidate, RYTARY(TM) and its generic version of
Concerta(R). These two Securities Class Actions have subsequently
been consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead plaintiff
has been chosen. The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint
was filed on September 13, 2013.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18, 2014, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss. Discovery is proceeding,
and a trial date has not been set.

On March 19, 2013, Virender Singh, derivatively on behalf of the
Company, filed a state court action against certain current and
former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment in the Superior Court of the State of California
County of Santa Clara, asserting similar allegations as those in
the Securities Class Actions.  That action has been stayed pending
resolution of the Securities Class Actions.

In addition, the Company is aware of two letters from stockholders
demanding action by the Company's board of directors, including
to: (i) undertake an independent internal investigation into
management's alleged violations of Delaware and/or federal law;
(ii) commence a civil action against members of management to
recover damages sustained as a result of alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties; and/or (iii) spearhead meaningful corporate
reform to address alleged internal control inadequacies. Each
letter further states that if such action is not commenced within
a reasonable period of time, the stockholder will commence a
stockholder's derivative action on behalf of the Company.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a technology-based, specialty
pharmaceutical company.


INDIANA MUNICIPAL POWER: High Electric Rates Blamed on Coal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class
action, residents of a far west Chicago suburb claim they are
overcharged for electricity because a slew of utility companies
and agencies misrepresented the problems of producing power with
polluting, high-sulfur coal.

Lead plaintiff Joe Marconi, on behalf of the residents of Batavia,
sued the Indiana Municipal Power Agency, IMPA Services Corp., CEO
Rajeshwar Rao, and Sargent & Lundy and Skelly and Loy, consulting
firms, in Kane County Court.

Eighteen other companies and agencies, including Peabody Energy,
Bechtel Corp., Science Applications International Corp., and
Batavia are named as respondents in discovery in the tangled, 37-
page lawsuit.

"Beginning in the 1990s and continuing into the 2000s, Peabody
mines in southern Illinois began exporting high-sulfur coal, which
was unsaleable in the United States, to China and other Asian
countries," the complaint states.

"In 2001, Peabody announced plans to construct a mine-mouth,
pulverized-coal-fueled power generating facility with two unites
adjacent to its existing high-sulfur coal reserves in southern
Illinois called the Prairie State Energy Campus (PSEC).  The
construction of PSEC was part of a scheme by Peabody to create a
market for its high-sulfur, high-ash coal reserves in Southern
Illinois."

Peabody marketed the project as an affordable, long-term source of
electricity, prompting the Indiana Municipal Power Authority
(IMPA) to acquire a partial ownership in facility, the complaint
states.

Batavia then hired IMPA to suggest electric supply options for the
city, and IMPA recommended participating in the PSEC project --
allegedly without disclosing its own stake in the plant.

At IMPA's suggestion, Batavia signed an agreement obligating it
"to purchase from NIMPA [Northern Illinois Municipal Power
Authority] 50 megawatts of electric capacity and energy which was
to be generated by the to-be-built PSEC. . . .

"Under this agreement, Batavia ratepayers are charged for
Batavia's pro-rata costs of PSEC and related debt whether PSEC
produces power or not.

"Under this agreement, if PSEC is not providing NIMPA its
entitlement share of electricity.  NIMPA must purchase additional
power from a separate source, and Batavia is required to pay for
that additional power in addition to its pro rata share of PSEC
costs and debt payments.

"Under this agreement, if Batavia does not need all of its
entitlement share of electricity, it must sell it.  If Batavia is
forced to sell electricity from PSEC, it generally must do so at a
loss, as the cost of the electricity from PSEC is more expensive
than the price at which Batavia can sell that electricity in the
wholesale market at any given time," according to the complaint.

By 2006, Batavia had spent $1.8 million on the project, and could
not withdraw without all losing its money, the residents say.

They claim the price of power generated by the plant is
significantly more than the $46/megawatt-hour represented to the
city when it entered the contract, and that the price for building
the plant escalated drastically over a 10-year period.

"The estimated total coast of construction for PSEC has increased
from $2.754 billion in 2004 to $4.095 billion in 2007, to $4.933
billion in 2010, and to $5.1 billion as of 2013.  The current
estimated cost of construction for PSEC is unknown," the lawsuit
states.

"These increased reflect the industry-wide experience where,
starting in the years before 2005, the costs of constructing new
coal-fired power plants began to increase significantly, and was
thus known to defendants in 2007 when defendants were pressuring
Batavia to finalize its commitment to the PSEC project.

"Specifically, during 2007, while defendants were pressuring
Batavia to finalize its commitment to the PSEC project, several
major industry reports warns of the skyrocketing construction
costs of coal plants.  While these reports were no doubt closely
watched by industry insiders, defendants did not provide this
information to Batavia."

PSEC has never achieved full capacity, and operated a net 60
percent capacity in 2013, the class claims.

"Additional capacity for storage of the coal ash wastes produced
by PSEC will also be required.  The cost of acquiring this
additional ashfill capacity will be passed on to Batavia's
ratepayers and will mean further increases in the cost of power
from PSEC," the residents claim.

"Contrary to what Batavia was told, it was known to defendants
that the poor quality of the high sulfur, high ash, unwashed coal
would lead to shutdowns and reduced operational efficiency.  On
information and belief, the poor quality of the high sulfur, high
ash, unwashed coal has indeed led to such shutdowns and reduced
operational capacity."

Plaintiffs seek class certification and punitive damages for
negligent misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Childress, Esq.
          CHILDRESS DUFFY
          500 N. Dearborn, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494-0200
          Facsimile: (312) 494-0202
          E-mail: mchildress@childresslawyers.com


INTERMUNE INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Roche Holdings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Directors are selling InterMune too cheaply through an unfair
process to Roche Holdings, for $74 a share or $8.3 billion,
shareholders claim in Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shiva Y. Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. International Rectifier Corporation, Robert S.
Attiyeh, Mary B. Cranston, Richard J. Dahl, Dwight W. Decker,
Didier Hirsch, Oleg Khaykin, Thomas Lacey, James D. Plummer,
Barbara L. Rambo, Rochus E. Vogt, Infineon Technologies AG, and
Surf Merger Sub Inc, Case No. BC556149 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., August 28, 2014) alleges that Infineon is attempting
to shortchange the Company's shareholders by acquiring
International Rectifier for inadequate consideration just as the
Company is poised for substantial growth.

International Rectifier Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in El Segundo, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  IRC is a
world leader in power management technology.  IRC's analog,
digital, and mixed signal integrated circuits, and other advanced
power management products, enable high performance computing and
save energy in a wide variety of business and consumer
applications.

Infineon Technologies AG is a stock company organized and existing
under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany with its
principal executive offices located in Neubiberg/Munich, Germany.
Infineon offers semiconductor and system solutions addressing
energy efficiency, mobility, and security.  Surf Merger Sub Inc.
is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Infineon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Shareholder Seeks to Stop Infineon Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Heron, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. International Rectifier Corporation, Oleg Khaykin,
Richard J. Dahl, Rochus E. Vogt, James D. Plummer, Robert S.
Attiyeh, Thomas Lacey, Mary B. Cranston, Dwight W. Decker, Barbara
L. Rambo, 24 Didierhirsch, Infineon Technologies AG, and Surf
Merger Sub Inc., Case No. BC556078 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., August 27, 2014) seeks to enjoin the merger of Merger Sub
with and into IRC, with IRC surviving the merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Infineon.

International Rectifier Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in El Segundo, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  IRC is a
world leader in power management technology.  IRC's analog,
digital, and mixed signal integrated circuits, and other advanced
power management products, enable high performance computing and
save energy in a wide variety of business and consumer
applications.

Infineon Technologies AG is a stock company organized and existing
under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany with its
principal executive offices located in Neubiberg/Munich, Germany.
Infineon offers semiconductor and system solutions addressing
energy efficiency, mobility, and security.  Surf Merger Sub Inc.
is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Infineon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 231-4313
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Michael Swick, Esq.
          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: michael.swick@ksfcounsel.com
                  michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Facing Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed July 31, 2014,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Francis Reynolds, its former
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants.

"We have not yet been served with process in this matter. The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
related to the timing and completion of the clinical study of our
scaffold product. The plaintiff seeks class certification for
purchasers of our common stock during the period from April 5,
2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. The Company
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit," the Company said.

InVivo Therapeutics is a pioneering biomaterials and biotechnology
company with a focus on the treatment of spinal cord injuries.


JC PENNEY: Accused of Issuing False and Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan P. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., Myron E. Ullman,
III, and Kenneth H. Hannah, Case No. 6:14-cv-00722 (E.D. Tex.,
August 26, 2014) arises out of a series of false and misleading
statements and omissions of material facts allegedly made by the
Defendants regarding the Company's liquidity, business operations,
and financial condition, which the Defendants used to inflate and
falsify the Company's true prospects and financial results.


J. C. Penney Company, Inc., is a holding company whose principal
operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc.  The
Company describes itself as "one of the largest department store
and e-commerce retailers in the United States."  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Bianco, Esq.
          Bridget V. Hamill, Esq.
          FRANK & BIANCO LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 705
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 628-1853
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: mfrank@frankandbianco.com
                  bbianco@frankandbianco.com
                  bhamill@frankandbianco.com


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 7,691 American Singles Cheese Product
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Kraft voluntarily recalled 7,691
cases of its American Singles cheese product on Aug. 29 because an
ingredient was stored improperly by a supplier.  The food maker
said that, while unlikely, the product may spoil prematurely or
cause a food borne illness.

Kraft Foods Group Inc., which is based in Northfield, Illinois,
said the suppler didn't keep the ingredient stored in accordance
with its temperature standards.  The recalled products come in
four varieties with "Best When Used By" dates of Feb. 20, 2015,
and Feb. 21, 2015.

Kraft said customers can return the products to the store they
bought them from for a refund or an exchange.  Customers can also
call Kraft at 800-396-5512.


L3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on Aug. 26 disclosed that it
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, 14cv06939, on behalf of purchasers
of common stock of L3 Communications between January 30, 2014 and
July 30, 2014, inclusive, pursuing remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  This matter is pending before the Honorable
Richard Berman.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by
September 30, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R.
Gross at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via email at
debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com
The firm has expertise in prosecuting class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  Any person who
purchased the common stock of L3 Communications during the Class
Period may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of his choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) L-3
Communications' financial statements contained errors related to
the improper deferral of cost overruns on a fixed-price
maintenance and logistics support contract resulting in
overstatement of operating income; (2) net sales with respect to
the fixed-price maintenance and logistics support contract were
overstated; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  Noteworthy is that defendant,
Michael T. Strianese, CEO sold over 100,000 shares of L3 common
stock during the Class Period.

On July 31, 2014, L-3 Communications reported preliminary second
quarter 2014 financial results. Therein, the Company noted that
the results were "preliminary because the Company is currently
conducting an internal review that could result in increases to
the preliminary adjustments included in this release," but in
light of the review, it expects to incur a charge of $84 million
"against operating income and a related reduction in net sales of
approximately $43 million."  Additionally, the Company disclosed
that it believed that "the amounts associated with these
adjustments are the result of misconduct and accounting errors at
the Aerospace Systems segment," and that it had terminated a
number of employees in the Aerospace Segment.  On this news,
shares of L-3 Communications fell $14.68 per share, or more than
12 percent, to close at $104.96 on July 31, 2014.

To discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
Notice with respect to these matters,

PLEASE CONTACT:

      Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
      Susan R. Gross, Esq.
      Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
      Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
      E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
              debbie@bernardmgross.com
      Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


LANNETT COMPANY: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Schaefer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., Arthur P. Bedrosian, Martin P.
Galvan, and G. Michael Landis, Case No. 2:14-cv-05008 (E.D. Pa.,
August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Securities Exchange Act.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of branded pharmaceutical
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
      DONOVAN AXLER LLC
      1845 Walnut St Ste 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 732-6067
      Facsimile: (215) 732-8060
      E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com


LEGGETT & PLATT: Q1 2015 Trial for Direct Purchaser Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 beginning in August
2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated in several U.S.
federal courts and in Canada against over 20 defendants alleging
that competitors of the Company's carpet underlay business unit
and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products had engaged
in price fixing in violation of U.S. and Canadian antitrust laws.
A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most
without prejudice.

The Company said that, of the U.S. cases remaining, it has been
named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class action
cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended
class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011 on behalf of a
class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b)
an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed
on March 21, 2011; and an indirect purchaser class action case
filed on May 23, 2011; (c) 38 individual direct purchaser cases
filed between March 22, 2011 and October 16, 2013; and (d) two
individual cases alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims
under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29,
2012 and the other on April 11, 2013.

All of the pending U.S. federal cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant, have been filed in or have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196.

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

The Company said, "On April 15 and May 6, 2011, we filed motions
to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser and indirect purchaser class
actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a
legally valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the
motions to dismiss.

"Discovery is underway in the U.S. actions. Motions for class
certification have been filed on behalf of both direct and
indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motions was held January 15,
2014.

"On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the direct and indirect
purchaser classes. We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal
from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014. This petition to
appeal is pending. The Court ordered all parties to attend non-
binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing.

"The trial date for the direct purchaser class cases is expected
to take place in the first quarter of 2015."

Leggett & Platt has four operating segments that supply a wide
range of products: Residential Furnishings -- components for
bedding, furniture and other furnishings, as well as related
consumer products; Commercial Fixturing & Components -- retail
store fixtures, and components for office and institutional
furnishings; Industrial Materials -- drawn steel wire, specialty
wire products, titanium and nickel tubing for the aerospace
industry and welded steel tubing; and Specialized Products --
automotive seating components, specialized machinery and
equipment, and commercial vehicle interiors.


LEGGETT & PLATT: April 2015 Hearing on Motions for Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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, "We have been
named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect
purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi
Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Company, et al. in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November
2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011)."

"In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13
defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged,
general and special damages in the amount of $100 [million],
punitive damages of $10 [million], pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. The
first issued class action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of
polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is on behalf of
purchasers of carpet underlay.

"We are not yet required to file our defenses in these or any
other Canadian actions.

"In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case
(for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products)
styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits
Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of
Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended
motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers
of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which
was granted. This action has a pending motion for certification
which is to be heard in January 2015.

"We also were notified in June 2014 of two motions to add us as
parties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Those
proceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that one
proposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (Majestic
Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362
Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers of
carpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory
Springs Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 Vancouver
Registry).

"The motion to add us as parties to these actions has been
scheduled to be heard with the motions for certification in the
two actions in April 2015.

"The British Columbia actions involve British Columbia purchasers
only whereas the Ontario actions propose classes of Canadian
purchasers. No certification motions will be brought in the
Ontario actions until after the British Columbia motions for
certification have been determined."

Leggett & Platt has four operating segments that supply a wide
range of products: Residential Furnishings -- components for
bedding, furniture and other furnishings, as well as related
consumer products; Commercial Fixturing & Components -- retail
store fixtures, and components for office and institutional
furnishings; Industrial Materials -- drawn steel wire, specialty
wire products, titanium and nickel tubing for the aerospace
industry and welded steel tubing; and Specialized Products --
automotive seating components, specialized machinery and
equipment, and commercial vehicle interiors.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Discovery Has Commenced in "Baker" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 June 22, 2012,
the Company was made party to a lawsuit brought in the 16th
Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number
1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself
and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt,
Incorporated."

"The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect
purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri,
alleged that we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
based upon our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible
polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual
damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney
fees. We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied
on November 5, 2012," the Company said.

Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class
certification. The parties' briefing is completed, and a hearing
on the motion was held on February 20, 2014.

"We deny all of the allegations," the Company said.

Leggett & Platt has four operating segments that supply a wide
range of products: Residential Furnishings -- components for
bedding, furniture and other furnishings, as well as related
consumer products; Commercial Fixturing & Components -- retail
store fixtures, and components for office and institutional
furnishings; Industrial Materials -- drawn steel wire, specialty
wire products, titanium and nickel tubing for the aerospace
industry and welded steel tubing; and Specialized Products --
automotive seating components, specialized machinery and
equipment, and commercial vehicle interiors.


LONDON METAL: Can Avert Antitrust Claim Due to Sovereign Immunity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that when the
New York Times reported last year on warehousing practices that
drive up the cost of aluminum, plaintiffs lawyers might have
thought a winning case fell into their laps.  But the resulting
litigation lost a bit of its firepower last week, thanks to a
daring and novel argument by Latham & Watkins on behalf of the
London Metal Exchange Ltd.

In a 31-page ruling issued on Aug. 25, U.S. District Judge
Katherine Forrest in Manhattan ruled that LME is an "organ" of the
U.K. government, and therefore is shielded by sovereign immunity
from claims that it conspired with Goldman Sachs & Co., JPMorgan
Chase & Co. and others to restrain aluminum supplies and drive up
prices.  Judge Forrest acknowledged that her conclusion might seem
"surprising and counterintuitive" because LME is a privately held
for-profit company.  Beginning in 2010, Goldman and JPMorgan
acquired companies involved in owning and operating metal
warehouses.  The hoarding of aluminum allegedly inflates its
price, because storage costs are added to aluminum prices.

LME is the world's leading metals exchange and oversees warehouses
around the world.  After it adopted rules that allowed banks to
stockpile much more metal than they were selling, the warehouses
became cash cows for Goldman and JPMorgan. (The Times didn't
specify how much money they made, stating only that it was "many
millions.") The banks have recently sought to exit the warehousing
business amid mounting regulatory scrutiny, according to The Wall
Street Journal.

The Times reported in July 2013 that wait times for aluminum
orders had increased dramatically, forcing companies that rely
heavily on aluminum, such as the Coca-Cola Company, to raise their
prices.  The U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission later opened investigations into these
practices.

The Times report also triggered the filing of 26 lawsuits on
behalf of direct purchasers and end-users, which have been
consolidated before Judge Forrest.  Plaintiffs lawyers sued LME,
arguing that it profited from conspiring with warehouse owners and
metal traders, and that until recently it was controlled by
representatives from warehousing companies.

In April LME's lawyers at Latham, led by Margaret Zwisler --
margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- argued that the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act barred these claims.  They noted that the U.K.
Government has tasked their client with regulating the metals
market, which is a public function.

Judge Forrest sided with Latham.  While LME is privately owned, it
is actively supervised by the government and clearly serves as a
market regulator, she wrote.

Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart Halebian & Jacobson, an
attorney for the plaintiffs, didn't immediately return a call
seeking comment.  In addition to Lovell Stewart, the firms
appointed to serve as lead counsel for various plaintiffs include
Grant & Eisenhofer, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Cuneo Gilbert
& LaDuca.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Seeks Emergency Appeal From Antitrust Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Major League Baseball asked the federal judge who ruled in August
that it must face antitrust charges for limiting broadcasts to
grant it an emergency appeal before the trial starts, because it
is confident that the judgment against it will be overturned.

U.S. District Judge Shira Sheindlin ruled on Aug. 4 that two class
action antitrust lawsuits filed by fans in 2012 could proceed, and
that the league's antitrust exemption on the books does not
protect it from antitrust claims for restricting out-of-market
games.

In his request for immediate appeal, MLB attorney Bradley I.
Ruskin, with Proskauer Rose, wrote that there is a "'substantial
ground for difference of opinion' concerning the Court's
interpretation of the exemption and its ruling that the exemption
is inapplicable here."

Ruskin said he sought to stem the costs of defending MLB against a
trial that, if it found baseball culpable of antitrust violations,
would be reversed on appeal.

"If the 2nd Circuit must wait until after a costly and time-
consuming trial to determine that this court does not even have
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, the court and the parties
will have already incurred significant trial costs and resources,
as well as the costs related to the appeal of merits issues,"
Ruskin wrote.  "Certification may prevent these unnecessary
expenditures."

Scheindlin has the final decision on whether to grant the
emergency appeal before the matter goes to trial.

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

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

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

In his letter seeking emergency appeal, Ruskin said that the
Supreme Court has at least six times upheld the exemption, while
the 2nd Circuit has "expressly concluded that the broadcasting of
baseball is the business of baseball."

He urged a "quick resolution of the issue" by the 2nd Circuit to
"prevent additional improper litigation from which, the Supreme
Court has held, MLB must be protected."

The Yankees' attorney, Jonathan D. Schiller with Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, late on August 27, 2014, asked the judge to allow it to
file a separate brief for emergency appeal by Sept. 3.

But the fans' attorney, Edward Diver, with Langer Grogan & Diver,
also wrote a letter on August 27, 2014, urging Scheindlin to
disallow the Yankees' appeal as "untimely and duplicative."

"The MLB defendants have now moved for interlocutory appeal with a
memorandum of law that is twice as long as their summary judgment
briefing on baseball's asserted antitrust exemption," Diver wrote.
"That the Yankees should add to this with another eight pages
covering the same ground is unjustifiable."

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

In her ruling, Scheindlin said the broadcasting structure allows
baseball "to avoid competition."

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
          Colin Kass, Esq.
          Jordan B. Leader, Esq.
          Stephen Ahron, Esq.
          Joelle Milov, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: bruskin@proskauer.com
                  jscullion@proskauer.com
                  ckass@proskauer.com
                  jleader@proskauer.com
                  sahron@proskauer.com
                  jmilov@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Ostertag, Esq.
          Senior Vice President and General Counsel
          OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL
          245 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10167
          Telephone: (212) 931-7855
          Facsimile: (212) 949-5653
          E-mail: tom.ostertag@mlb.com

The case is Fernanda Garber, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner
of Baseball, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-03704-SAS-MHD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


M2 PRODUCTS: Dog Leash Product Liability Suit Settled for $1.3MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Stapleton, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that a building contractor who lost the vision in one eye after a
retractable dog leash recoiled and struck his face has settled his
product liability lawsuit against a Connecticut company for $1.3
million.

On Feb. 5, 2010, Michael Slugg was walking his dog near his home
in Fairfax, Va., using a retractable leash called a Hip Hugger,
which was manufactured by a Chinese supplier for M2 Products Inc.
of New Canaan.

His dog, a 40-pound bluetick coonhound named Sally, was wearing a
collar, which was attached to a short leash, which was in turn
clipped to the Hip Hugger leash.  Mr. Slugg was holding the hand-
held spool mechanism of the Hip Hugger, and using the device's
spool locking button to retract or release the leash as the dog
moved ahead of him.

At one point during the walk, the "dog took off at a dead run,"
according to Mr. Slugg's lawyer, Brenden Leydon, of Tooher Wocl &
Leydon in Stamford.  "The side-release buckle on the Hip Hugger
leash unfastened, separating the short training leash from the
rest of the retractable leash.  The retractable leash recoiled
back and struck Slugg in the left eye, while the dog took off with
the short training leash."

Mr. Slugg, 54, suffered a rupture injury to his eye.  He was
rushed to the hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery, but
he lost most of his vision in the eye.  Two subsequent surgeries
to restore additional vision were unsuccessful.  "He is now able
to count fingers and make out basic shapes, but he has no useful
sight in the eye," Mr. Leydon said.  "His past medical expenses
totaled about $71,600, and his future medical expenses were
estimated at about $56,000."

Mr. Slugg sued M2 Products, in Superior Court in Stamford,
alleging that the leash was defectively designed in that the side-
release buckle that provided a connection to the smaller side
leash was unnecessary.  The lawsuit also alleged that the buckle
was prone to unfasten, which could cause it to snap back and
strike the user in the face.

Along with his losses for medical expenses, Mr. Slugg sought
recovery of lost wages and diminished earnings.  He was a self-
employed building contractor, and claimed that the vision loss and
resulting lack of depth perception negatively affected his return
to work.

Mr. Slugg claimed that his business had declined because of his
inability to perform work at his previous level of proficiency.
He said he was also unable to bid on projects that were more than
one story tall because he could not safely function in high places
due to his compromised eyesight.  Further, Mr. Slugg claimed his
ability to obtain employment in a related field had diminished due
to his work restrictions and physical limitations.

Mr. Leydon said his client was prepared to present deposition
testimony from M2's corporate owner admitting that the leash was
defective as originally designed; that two other users sustained
eye injuries when the side-release buckle housing broke; and that
the leash had been redesigned since the accident to eliminate the
short leash and side-release buckle.

The owner of M2 Products, Mark Morrison, also admitted that he had
no formal design training and had relied on a Chinese manufacturer
to design and test the leash, Mr. Leydon said.  Additionally,
Mr. Slugg retained an engineering test firm, Technology
Associates, which performed tests on four Hip Hugger leashes that
were purchased online.  According to Mr. Leydon, "although the
manufacturer claimed the leash was suitable for a 100-pound dog,"
each of the four leashes tested failed at less than 100 pounds.

M2 Products was represented by James Mahar --
jamahar@ryandelucalaw.com -- of Ryan, Ryan Deluca in Stamford.
Mr. Mahar argued that his clients had discontinued the sale of the
leash, and that the leash in question was produced by a "knock-
off" manufacturer.  The defendants also disputed the amount of Mr.
Slugg's lost earnings and economic losses.

The case was scheduled to go to trial in May, but the two sides
agreed to a mediation session before James Robertson --
jrobertson@carmodylaw.com -- of Carmody TorranceSandak & Henneseey
in Waterbury.  At the mediation, the two sides agreed to settle
the case for $1.3 million, to be paid by the defendant's insurer.


MING'S GOURMET: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wang Qin Zheng, Wen Qing Chen, Xiaoqian Zhu, Qiao Ling Zheng, Bi
Yu Li, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Ming's Gourmet Garden LLC d/b/a Hibachi Grill & Supreme Buffet,
Ming Zhu Zhang, Li Zhong Chen, Hibachi Grill Supreme Buffet
Cinnaminson Inc., and Shu Ying Chen, Case No. 1:14-cv-05396
(D.N.J., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of buffet restaurants
serving Chinese and Japanese cuisine under the trade name of
Hibachi Grill & Supreme Buffet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bin Xue, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN B. XUE, P.C.
      401 Broadway, Suite 1009
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 219-2275
      Facsimile: (212) 219-2276
      E-mail: bbxlaw@gmail.com


MONAVIE INC: Suit Over Deceptive Cure-All Juice Will Continue
-------------------------------------------------------------
A recidivist scammer must face a class action alleging it falsely
advertises a pricey "super juice" as a cure for cancer,
Alzheimer's and heart disease, reports Rose Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Lisa Pontrelli filed a putative class action against MonaVie Inc.
and MonaVie LLC in New Jersey last year, alleging that they cannot
deliver the promised curative results after charging "outrageously
inflated" prices for their exotic fruit juices.

The Utah-based manufacturers allegedly advertise that the acai
berry can prevent blood clots, arteriosclerosis and Alzheimer's,
while improving circulation, mental focus, stamina, sleep,
digestion and sexual function, in addition to the outstanding
healing properties imbued in 17 other fruity ingredients.

One testimonial allegedly says less than a full bottle the Acai
Active Blend totally relieved pain in a customer suffering with
degenerative arthritis for 20 years.

And after undergoing "major surgery to repair a completely crushed
pelvis," another customer "stopped all my medications and replaced
them with Acai Active Blend . . . before three weeks had gone by
all of my pain had vanished," MonaVie allegedly advertised.

MonaVie also posted a YouTube video in which a purported MD said
the product can ease cancer pain and even reverse the disease in
some cases, according to the complaint, which goes on to allege
that the company Web site says the juice can manage diabetes and
headaches, and prevent morning sickness.

But MonaVie's chief science officer and the purported creator of
the juice, Ralph Carson, cautioned that the drink was "expensive
flavored water," and that "any claims made are purely
hypothetical, unsubstantiated and, quite frankly, bogus,"
according to the complaint.

MonaVie CEO and cofounder Dallin Larsen meanwhile admitted that
the products do not cure any diseases, the consumers claim.
Carson and Larsen are not defendants in the case.

The complaint claims that MonaVie tries to avoid liability for the
outlandish claims by paying "independent" distributors who lack
training in science or nutrition to sell the juices.

Larson used the same multilevel marketing scheme for another
"superfood" health drink called Royal Tongan Limu, according to
the complaint.  Consumers claim that the FDA ordered his company,
Dynamic Essentials, to cease manufacturing that drink after
finding no proof for the product's therapeutic benefits.

Pontrelli seeks to represent all those who purchased MonaVie juice
products from 2007 to present, typically in 25-ounce bottles
individually priced at $40 or more.  She seeks an injunction and
punitive damages for fraud, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment.

U.S. District Judge William Martini has refused to dismiss the
first amended complaint, saying the claims have been plausibly
alleged.

The case is Lisa Pontrelli v. Monavie, Inc., Monavie, LLC, and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-04649-WJM-MF, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: C&J Energy Stockholders File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 30, 2014, the
Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Nabors Red Lion Limited
("Red Lion"), along with C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("CJES"), and
the members of the board of directors of CJES, including its
management directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class
action by the stockholders of CJES.  The case is styled City of
Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, et al. v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.; C.A. No. 9980;
In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The complaint alleges that the CJES directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction between CJES,
Nabors and Red Lion, and that Nabors and Red Lion aided and
abetted these alleged violations.  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, including an injunction against the consummation of the
transactions, together with attorney's fees and costs.

"We believe that the case is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend it," the Company said.

In June 2014, the Company signed a definitive agreement to merge
its completion and production services businesses with C&J Energy
Services, Inc. (NYSE: CJES), an independent oilfield services and
manufacturing company.  Following the completion of this
transaction, the Company will own approximately 53 percent of the
combined company.

Nabors has grown from a land drilling business centered in the
United States and Canada to a global business aimed at optimizing
the entire well life cycle, with operations on land and offshore
in most of the major oil and gas markets in the world.


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Defending Class Action Over REMOXY Drug
----------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that, "We are involved in a
class action filed against us and our officers that is expensive
and time consuming, and, in the event of an adverse outcome, could
harm our business, financial condition or results of operations."

"On December 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed against
us and our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas. This complaint alleges, among other
things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly untrue or misleading
statements of material facts made by us regarding REMOXY's
development and regulatory status during the purported class
period, February 3, 2011 through June 23, 2011. The complaint
states that monetary damages are being sought, but no amounts are
specified. On June 3, 2013, the Court certified a class consisting
of all purchasers of our common stock and a class period of
December 27, 2010 through June 26, 2011," the Company said.

Pain Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company that develops
novel drugs.  Its lead drug candidate, REMOXY(R) (oxycodone)
Extended-Release Capsules CII, is an extended-release oral
formulation of oxycodone for the management of moderate-to-severe
pain when a continuous, around-the-clock opioid analgesic is
needed for an extended period of time.  REMOXY is being developed
pursuant to the collaboration agreement and license agreement, or
the Pfizer Agreements, between the Company and King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc., or Pfizer.


PFIZER INC: Sued Over Manipulation of Celecoxib Patent Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Stanley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and Pfizer Asia Pacific
Pte. Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-00442 (E.D. Va., August 27, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants implemented a scheme to unlawfully
prolong patent protection for celecoxib to avoid the consequences
of the Federal Circuit ruling.

The Defendants are engaged in the worldwide marketing, production,
and distribution of pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wyatt B. Durrette Jr., Esq.
      DURRETTECRUMP PLC
      1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 775-6900
      Facsimile: (804) 775-6911
      E-mail: wdurrette@durrettecrump.com

         - and -

      Barrett Erskine Pope, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER G. HILL, PC
      4870 Sadler Road, Suite 300
      Glen Allen, VA 23060
      Telephone: (804) 775-6900
      Facsimile: (804) 775-6911


PURDUE PHARMA: Seeks to Disqualify Attorney in OxyContin Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Purdue Pharma L.P. and two affiliated companies are
seeking to disqualify a former District of Columbia attorney
general from representing the city of Chicago in its lawsuit
against several drugmakers for allegedly seeking to misinform the
public about the risks and benefits of opium-like pain
medications.

According to Purdue, attorney Linda Singer and her law firm law
firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll should be disqualified because
Singer served as attorney general between Jan. 2, 2007, and
Jan. 5, 2008.  The District and 26 other jurisdictions reached a
$19.5 million settlement with Purdue over the marketing of
OxyContin on May 8, 2007, the drugmakers said.

"Those responding to government inquiries should not be left to
'wonder whether the agency attorney investigating his case will
one day turn out to represent the plaintiff' in a lawsuit
concerning the same issues," the defendants said, citing the D.C.
Court of Appeals' 1982 decision in Kessenich v. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission.

Now Ms. Singer and her law firm have been retained on a contingent
basis to represent the city against the Purdue defendants
regarding the marketing of OxyContin during the same time period
as was covered by the 2007 case, the drugmakers said.

According to Purdue, Ms. Singer's representation of Chicago
violates Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, which bars a
former government attorney from representing a "client in
connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated
personally and substantially as a public officer or employee."

Singer personally and substantially participated in the older
lawsuit by approving the consent judgment, the defendants argued.
She was briefed on the settlement more than a month before any
court filings were made; edited the proposed press release about
the consent judgment; and lobbied to increase the statutory caps
on D.C.'s consumer protection fund to accommodate the $950,000 the
District recovered in the lawsuit, the pharmaceutical companies
said.

Singer also has entered a contingent-fee agreement with Santa
Clara and Orange counties in California to pursue a similar
lawsuit.  Patrick Fitzgerald and R. Ryan Stoll --
ryan.stoll@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom
in Chicago filed Purdue's motion.


QBE INSURANCE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Insider reports that Australian insurance giant QBE
Insurance Group Limited is facing a shareholder class action
investigation over allegations that it misled the market ahead of
a profit warning issued on December 9. 2013, the company confirmed
on Aug. 19.

In its half-year results presentation, the carrier confirmed that
a law firm is investigating a possible class action suit in
relation to the disclosure of its 2013 annual results.


QEP RESOURCES: Defendants Asked for Review in "Gatti" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gatti et al v. State of Louisiana et al, 589,350, 19th JDC, Parish
of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana is a putative class action arising
out of the unitization practices and orders of the Louisiana
Commissioner of Conservation (Commissioner).  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all Haynesville Shale mineral owners (alleged
to be over 50,000 in number) against the Commissioner and all
Haynesville Shale unit operators.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 8, 2010, and claim that
the Commissioner exceeded his statutory authority in creating and
perpetuating units larger than the area that can be efficiently
and economically drained by a single well. They seek declaratory
relief that would nullify all such improper orders, along with an
unspecified amount of monetary damages from the unit operators
sufficient to compensate the putative class members for the
alleged dilution of their true interest in unit production as a
result of "oversized" units and the "cloud on title" caused by
having excessive and improperly sized units purport to hold their
mineral leases via unit operations.

All defendants filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' petition on the
primary ground that plaintiffs had failed to comply with the
exclusive statutory judicial review procedure (Louisiana Revised
Statutes 30:12), which the trial court granted, dismissing the
action in its entirety. On January 15, 2014, the Louisiana First
Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated plaintiffs'
claims.

Defendants have asked for review of the Louisiana Supreme Court,
which review is discretionary, QEP Resources said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

QEP Resources, Inc. is a holding company with three major lines of
business: oil and gas exploration and production; midstream field
services; and energy marketing.


QEP RESOURCES: Cert. Hearings in Train Derailment Case Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yannick Gagne and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources,
Inc., No. 480-06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec,
Canada, seeks to represent a class of all persons who sustained
damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and
property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a
class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous
defendants.

The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants,
sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota,
who resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train.
Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among
other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately
processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added
volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the
crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site
testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil,
failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil,
failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly
labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train
derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt,
implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe
shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific
monetary damages are not asserted.

Class certification hearings are ongoing, QEP Resources said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

QEP Resources, Inc. is a holding company with three major lines of
business: oil and gas exploration and production; midstream field
services; and energy marketing.


RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Bused Patients to New Cities, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Often drugged and disoriented, patients at a Las Vegas psychiatric
hospital found themselves involuntarily discharged, bused to a new
city and left with no means to continue treatment or even live,
according to a class action lawsuit, reports Mike Heuer, writing
for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff James Flavy Coy Brown claims officials at the
state-run Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas booted out
patients and sent them to out-of-state destinations, where
hospital officials knew the patients "would be unable to obtain
proper treatment, care and housing."

Brown claims that says he and other patients "were medicated
before their discharge and required to leave the facility under
the influence of powerful anti-psychotic/tranquilizing
medication."

He claims that he and others "were in a drugged and sometime
psychotic state and incompetent to give informed consent" when
hospital staff "physically escorted them from the facility to
waiting taxis bound for the Greyhound bus station in Las Vegas.
They were then directed and required to travel on pre-paid tickets
which had been previously ordered and paid for by Southern Nevada
Adult Mental Health Services."

Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, lead defendant in
the lawsuit in Clark County Court, runs the Rawson-Neal hospital,
which opened in August 2006 and has about 190 beds for patients.

Brown says he was admitted to the hospital on Feb. 9, 2013, and
was involuntarily discharged and sent on a Greyhound bus to
Sacramento two days later.

Before sending him to Sacramento, Brown says, the defendants gave
him "three days of powerful anti-psychotic medications and bottles
of Ensure for the 15-hour bus ride."

Upon arrival, Brown says, he was "homeless, confused and anxious"
and was taken by local police to a homeless service center that
could not provide housing, treatment or transportation.  Staff at
the University of California at Davis Medical Center eventually
got him into the Heritage Oaks psychiatric hospital, which placed
him in a group home.

Brown's lawsuit, filed on August 25, 2014, claims that the
Sacramento Bee investigated his dumping in Sacramento and reported
that the hospital had dumped some 1,500 patients in locations
across the nation since 2008, "all with minimum provisions to
sustain them during the protracted bus rides."

The complaint claims that a random survey of 30 cases conducted by
the Nevada Bureau of Health Care Quality and Compliance showed
many violations of state and federal laws, and indicated that no
steps were taken to ensure that discharged patients could continue
obtaining help or treatment when they arrived at various
destinations.

Brown filed a similar class action in Federal Court in June 2013.
U.S. District Judge James Mahan dismissed that complaint in
February this year, ruling that mentally ill patients are capable
of giving informed consent to being sent out of town, and that
Nevada was merely allocating resources by giving them the rides.

But a state investigation resulted in two hospital employees being
fired while several others faced lesser punishments for their
roles in discharging patients in recent years, the Las Vegas
Review-Journal reported.

Brown seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, an
injunction and punitive damages for professional negligence, gross
negligence, negligence per se, negligent hiring, supervision and
training, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Also named as defendants are hospital administrator Chelsea
Szklany, Nevada Health and Human Services Director Mike Willden
and Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health Administrator
Richard Whitley, hospital Associate Medical Director Leon Ravin,
Dr. Anurag Gupta, Nevada Bureau of Health Care Quality and
Compliance Chief Kyle Devine and Nevada Psychiatric Medical
Director Linda J. White.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen Lichtenstein, Esq.
          GENERAL COUNSEL, ACLU OF NEVADA
          601 S Rancho Dr. #11
          Las Vegas, NV 89106
          Telephone: (702) 366-1226


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Class Actions Subject to Indemnification Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in
December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates were named in
class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf
of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan
Select Funds (the "Funds") and stockholders of Regions. These
cases have been consolidated into class-actions and stockholder
derivative actions for the open-end and closed-end Funds. The
Funds were formerly managed by Regions Investment Management, Inc.
("Regions Investment Management"). Regions Investment Management
no longer manages these Funds, which were transferred to Hyperion
Brookfield Asset Management ("Hyperion") in 2008.  Certain of the
Funds have since been terminated by Hyperion.

The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that
the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs
have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.
Settlement discussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee has granted
final approval of a settlement in the closed-end Funds class-
action and shareholder derivative case as well as preliminary
approval of a settlement in a consolidated class action under the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act.

Certain of the shareholders in these Funds and other interested
parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual
civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class actions. These
lawsuits and proceedings are subject to the indemnification
agreement with Raymond James Financial Inc.

Regions Financial provides a full range of banking and bank-
related services to individual and corporate customers through its
subsidiaries and branch offices located primarily in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: 11th Cir. Reviewing Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in October 2010, a
purported class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions' stockholders
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
against Regions and certain former officers of Regions (the "2010
Claim"). The 2010 Claim alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, including allegations that materially false and
misleading statements were included in filings made with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The plaintiffs have
requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.

In June 2011, the trial court denied Regions' motion to dismiss
the 2010 Claim. In June 2012, the trial court granted class
certification.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing the trial
court's grant of class-action certification. The case is now
stayed pending that review.

Regions Financial provides a full range of banking and bank-
related services to individual and corporate customers through its
subsidiaries and branch offices located primarily in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: September 2014 Trial in E.D. Missouri Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the SEC and states
of Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged securities law
violations by Morgan Keegan in the underwriting and sale of
certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action brought by the
Missouri Secretary of State in April 2013, seeking monetary
penalties and other relief, was dismissed and refiled in November
2013.

A civil action was brought by institutional investors of the bonds
in March 2012, seeking a return of their investment and
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Trial of this case
is currently set for January 2015 in the Circuit Court for Cole
County, Missouri.

A class action was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of the
bonds in September 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. Certification of the class action is currently
before the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
with a trial date set for September 2014.

Other individual investors and investor groups have also filed
arbitration claims or separate civil claims, which are pending in
various stages. These matters are subject to the indemnification
agreement with Raymond James.

Regions Financial provides a full range of banking and bank-
related services to individual and corporate customers through its
subsidiaries and branch offices located primarily in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Judge Dismisses West Lake Landfill Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Millitzer, writing for KTVI, reports that a judge dismisses a
class action lawsuit, filed by Bridgeton residents, against
Republic Services.

The federal suit claimed radiation from the West Lake Landfill had
contaminated nearby homes and businesses. Subsequent testing did
not show contamination levels high enough to a reach federal
standards for damages.

A spokesperson for the landfill operator says it is a shame that
ball games were cancelled, local businesses lost revenue, and a
community was scared for four months.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a move to get cheaper tax
rates in Ireland, directors are merging Salix Pharmaceuticals with
Cosmo Technologies, in an inadequate deal for Salix shareholders,
a class action claims in Delaware Chancery Court.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Defective Washing Machines Suit Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for Law.com, reports that separate
putative class actions against Samsung over allegedly defective
washing machines and refrigerators were pared down to varying
degrees but were ultimately allowed to proceed in a pair of
rulings posted by a federal judge in Newark on Aug. 26.

U.S. District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey
granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the two
actions, Durso v. Samsung Electronics America and Weske v. Samsung
Electronics America.

The cases were filed in Newark because defendant Samsung
Electronics America, a subsidiary of South Korea's Samsung
Electronics Co., is headquartered in Ridgefield Park, N.J.

In Durso, three plaintiffs, one from New Jersey and two from
Texas, claim that their front-loading Samsung washing machines,
despite being marketed as "super capacity," are unable to handle
large items such as king-sized comforters and leave laundry
unclean and smelling of mildew.

In addition, the washers shake violently and don't drain properly;
rubber components disintegrate prematurely, resulting in leaks;
scraps of metal collect in the drain hose; and the machines suffer
from premature pump failure, the complaint said.

Frequent service calls are required but often fail to correct the
problems, according to the plaintiffs, who seek to represent a
nationwide class -- with New Jersey and Texas subclasses -- of
individuals who own or have owned Samsung washing machines with
similar defects.  They estimate in court documents that class
members number in the thousands, if not the tens of thousands.

Durso was filed in 2012 and Judge Martini's Aug. 26 ruling decided
a motion to dismiss directed to the third version of the
complaint, which has six counts alleging violations of New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and common-law claims for fraudulent
concealment/nondisclosure, breach of express and implied
warranties and negligent misrepresentation.

Last November, U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh of the
District of New Jersey, who had the case until he retired at the
end of January, dismissed without prejudice all but the negligent
misrepresentation count of the second amended complaint, leading
plaintiffs to amend it a third time last December.

Every count survived Judge Martini's ruling, though not every
plaintiff's claims were allowed to proceed.

Judge Martini also differed with Judge Cavanaugh on several
issues.

Judge Cavanaugh held that Robert Durso's New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act claim did not properly plead the element of ascertainable loss
because, although he alleged he paid almost $550 for his washer,
he failed to allege how much comparable washers by Samsung
competitors cost at the time.

Mr. Durso, of Colts Neck, N.J., had tried to remedy this by
pleading that a Frigidaire High Efficiency model cost $799 and
that he paid to have his comforters laundered when the Samsung
machine failed to work as advertised.

Judge Martini said Judge Cavanaugh "applied a standard that too
rigorously required Mr. Durso to actually quantify his loss."

Mr. Durso only had to allege that the loss is quantifiable and it
sufficed to say he paid about $550 for a washer that did not wash
as promised, and he thus received "less than what was promised,"
Judge Martini said.

Money Mr. Durso spent to launder the comforter also demonstrates
an ascertainable loss, Judge Martini added.

Plaintiff Cathie Cole's claim under the Texas statute had likewise
been dismissed because Judge Cavanaugh found she had not pleaded
"actual damages."  She then fortified her claim with allegations
about her added costs for electricity and water required by the
need to continually use the heavy duty cycle on a replacement
washer Samsung provided.

Further, Judge Cavanaugh had thrown out the consumer fraud claims
in part because the plaintiffs did not adequately plead Samsung's
knowledge of the claimed defects based on 19 Internet postings
because all of the postings occurred after two of the plaintiffs
obtained their washers and 15 of them after the third plaintiff
bought his.

Judge Martini held that the plaintiffs fixed that by adding an
allegation that Samsung had knowledge through its Global Service
Partnership Network, which they claimed uses online software to
track warranty claims.

Judge Martini also allowed Mr. Durso's claims for breach of
express warranty and implied warranty for a particular purpose to
proceed but not his claim on the warranty of merchantability.

Ms. Cole's warranty claims were once again knocked out because she
did not allege she contacted Samsung about the replacement washer.

Judge Martini also dismissed with prejudice all the claims by
plaintiff Douglas Walker, who did not buy his Samsung washer
directly but acquired it when he purchased his home in Whitney,
Texas, where it was already installed.

Mr. Walker, who asserted only common-law claims, could not prove
fraud or misrepresentation because he did not rely on any Samsung
statement, nor could he show breach of warranty because although
he alleged he complained to the company, he did not say when,
making it impossible to know if he did so in a reasonable time,
Martini held.

The seven Weske plaintiffs, who hail from California, Illinois,
Minnesota, Ohio and Washington state, filed their action in 2010.
They claim their Samsung refrigerators stopped cooling due to a
circuit board defect, costing each of them hundreds of dollars for
parts, labor and spoiled food.

According to their complaint, the alleged defect caused ice to
form on the condenser, which caused the refrigerators to stop
working.  They had to unplug the machines to reset the circuit
board and wait for the ice to melt before plugging them in again,
the plaintiffs claim.

Their complaint had three counts, including breach of their home
states' consumer fraud laws, fraudulent concealment under New
Jersey law and breach of implied warranty on behalf of the Ohio
and Minnesota plaintiffs.

Judge Martini dismissed with prejudice both the fraudulent
concealment claims, because no one adequately pleaded reliance,
and the warranty claims because of when the refrigerators failed.
He also jettisoned consumer fraud claims by four plaintiffs,
leaving only claims by the three plaintiffs from Ohio, Minnesota
and Washington.

Randee Matloff -- rmatloff@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel Rice in
Roseland, N.J., whose firm was appointed by Cavanaugh as interim
class counsel in Durso, said two years into the litigation, having
fought off repeated motions to dismiss, she was looking forward to
being able to engage in discovery and eventually move for class
certification.

Co-counsel Michael Kasanoff, a Red Bank, N.J.-based solo,
commented that Judge Martini's ruling on ascertainable loss "sets
a strong precedent for the future."

James Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello
in Roseland, N.J., who represents the Weske plaintiffs, did not
return a call seeking comment, nor did John Maloney of Morristown,
N.J.'s Graham Curtin, who is defending Samsung in both matters.

A Samsung spokeswoman said the company does not comment on pending
litigation.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Steck, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-06942-JFK (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2014) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Santander securities pursuant or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with its initial public offering on
January 23, 2014.

Santander is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Dallas, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.  Santander is the holding
company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois corporation,
and subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance company focused
on vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products.  The
Company's primary business is the indirect origination of retail
installment contracts principally through manufacturer-franchised
dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to
retail consumers.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc.; Santander Investment Securities Inc.; Barclays
Capital Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; RBC
Capital Markets, LLC; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC; UBS Securities LLC; Wells Fargo Securities,
LLC; KKR Capital Markets LLC; Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P.;
Stephens Inc.; and LOYAL3 Securities, Inc. served as underwriters,
global coordinators or joint book-running managers of the
Company's IPO.

The Defendants are Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., Thomas G.
Dundon, Jason Kulas, Juan Carlos Alvarez, Roman Blanco, Gonzalo De
Las Heras, Stephen A. Ferriss, Matthew Kabaker, Tagar Olson,
Alberto Sanchez, Javier San Felix, Juan Andres Yanes, Daniel
Zilberman, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Santander Investment Securities Inc.,
Barclays Capital Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, KKR Capital Markets LLC, Sandler O'Neill &
Partners, L.P., Stephens Inc., and Loyal3 Securities, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Linkh, Esq.
          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 E42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
                  bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Glancy Biskow Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Santander
Consumer USA Holdings Inc., on Aug. 26 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Santander pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering (the "IPO")
on January 23, 2014.

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

Santander is a specialized consumer finance company focused on
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products.  The
Company's primary business is the indirect origination of retail
installment contracts principally through manufacturer-franchised
dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to
retail consumers.  In connection with the Company's IPO,
Santander's selling stockholders sold approximately 85 million
shares of Class A common stock to the public at a price of $24.00
per share.

On August 7, 2014, after the close of trading, Santander revealed
in a quarterly filing that the Company had received a civil
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice under the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act
("FIRREA") requesting the production of documents and
communications related to the Company's underwriting and
securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2007.  Following this
news, shares of Santander declined over 1% to close on August 8,
2014, at $17.95 per share, representing a 25% decline in
Santander's stock price from the IPO price of $24.00.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve
as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, or Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by
e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

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


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Exorbitant Prison Phone Call Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
signaling the resumption of litigation over the cost of prison
phone calls nationwide, a putative class action has been brought
in Arkansas against a giant telecommunications company that
plaintiffs claim has gouged inmates with exorbitant rates.

Lead plaintiff and Arkansas resident Susan Mojica alleges Securus
Technologies Inc. for more than a decade systematically
overcharged by as much as 100 percent the cost of telephone calls
from inmates in 2,200 prisons and jails in 45 states, according to
Mojica v. Securus, filed Aug. 14 in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas.

Similar allegations were raised in separate putative class actions
in 2000 and 2003 but were effectively put on hold pending the
completion of a U.S. Federal Communications Commission
investigation of the charges and rates imposed by prison telephone
service providers, of which Securus is one of the largest.

On Aug. 9, 2013, the FCC issued a rule capping the charges imposed
by prison phone providers at 25 cents per minute, with a 15-minute
long-distance call to cost no more than $3.75.  The rule also
prohibited the providers from charging extra fees to connect a
call or to use a calling card.

In contrast, according to the complaint, Dallas-based Securus has
charged as much as 89-cents a minute, plus high per-call
connection fees.  The company buys calls from connection carriers
for less than 1 penny a minute, the plaintiffs allege.

The FCC said Securus and other prison payphone providers
essentially have functioned as a monopoly in each correctional
institution in which they operate.  "For years, they have
exploited that economic position by charging rates for interstate
calls greatly exceeding the cost of providing service," in
violation of the Federal Communications Act, which requires rates
be just, reasonable and fair, the agency wrote, in defending its
rule in December 2013.

Securus fought the regulation in court, but lost its battle for a
stay of the rate caps in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia on January 23.  Shortly thereafter, the
company said, it implemented the rate cut ordered by the FCC,
which Securus said would cost it between $10 million and $15
million each year.  Last month, the company announced it would end
mandatory billing charges.

The proposed class action seeks damages and restitution or
disgorgement of Securus' "ill-gotten" gains from its high rates
since Jan. 1, 2000.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Amy Martin of Everett Wales & Comstock.


SPIRIT REALTY: Stipulation of Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2013, Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., merged with and
into Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc. ("Cole II"), a Maryland
Corporation, pursuant to the Merger Agreement.  In connection with
the Merger, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit was
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland against
and purportedly on behalf of the Company captioned Kendrick, et
al. v. Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al.

The complaint names as defendants Spirit, the members of the board
of directors of Spirit, the Operating Partnership, Cole II and the
Cole Operating Partnership, and alleges that the directors of
Spirit breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair
process leading to the Merger Agreement, failing to disclose
sufficient material information for pre-merger Spirit stockholders
to make an informed decision regarding whether or not to approve
the Merger, agreeing to a Merger Agreement at an opportunistic and
unfair price, allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement, and engaging in self-interested
and otherwise conflicted actions.

The complaint alleges that the Operating Partnership, Cole II and
the Cole Operating Partnership aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted such
breaches and that the Merger Agreement is unenforceable, an order
enjoining a vote on the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, rescission of the transactions in the event they are
consummated, imposition of a constructive trust, an award of fees
and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and
other relief.

On June 4, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the named defendants in the
merger litigation signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU")
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein.
The MOU provides, among other things, that the parties will seek
to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the
release and dismissal of all asserted claims (the "Stipulation of
Settlement").

The Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the court on January
22, 2014 for approval, and the court granted the parties' request
for preliminary approval at a hearing on May 21, 2014, Spirit
Realty Capital said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

"However, the asserted claims will not be released and dismissed
until such stipulation of settlement is finally approved by the
court in a hearing following the expiration of the period for
shareholder objection to the settlement terms," Spirit said.
"There can be no assurance that the court will finally approve the
Stipulation of Settlement. The Company does not expect that the
terms of the settlement, if approved by the court, would have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations. The Company does not expect that the terms of the
settlement, if approved by the court, would have a material
adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations."

Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., is a Maryland corporation and
operates as a self-administered and self-managed REIT that seeks
to generate and deliver sustainable and attractive returns for
stockholders by investing primarily in and managing a portfolio of
single-tenant, operationally essential real estate throughout the
United States that is generally leased on a long-term, triple-net
basis primarily to tenants engaged in retail, service and
distribution industries.


SQUARE FOOT MANAGEMENT: "Buntin" Suit Seeks To Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Buntin v. Square Foot Management Company LLC, Case No.
6:14-cv-01394 (M.D. Fla., August 27, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Square Foot Management Company LLC is engaged in residential and
commercial construction management and general contracting
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
      TODD W. SHULBY, PA
      2800 Weston Rd, Ste 101
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 530-2236
      Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
      E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: UK Arbitration to Be Reconvened in September
---------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that several
actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in various
jurisdictions against GlobeOp alleging claims and damages with
respect to a valuation agent services agreement performed by the
Company's subsidiary, GlobeOp Financial Services S.A. ("GlobeOp"),
for the Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund, L.P. and
Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund Ltd. (the "Millennium
Funds").

These actions include (i) a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "U.S.
Class Action") on behalf of a putative class of investors in the
Millennium Funds filed in May 2012 asserting claims of $844
million (the alleged aggregate value of assets under management by
the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak valuation); (ii) an
arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom (the "UK
Arbitration") on behalf of Millennium Global Investments Ltd. and
Millennium Asset Management Ltd., the Millennium Funds' investment
manager and administrative manager, respectively (together, the
"Millennium Managers"), which commenced with a request for
arbitration in July 2011, seeking an indemnity of $26.5 million
for sums paid by way of settlement to the Millennium Funds in a
separate arbitration to which GlobeOp was not a party, as well as
an indemnity for any losses that may be incurred by the Millennium
Managers in the U.S. Class Action; and (iii) a claim in the same
arbitration proceeding by the liquidators on behalf of the
Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd. (the "Master
Fund") against GlobeOp for damages alleged to be in excess of $160
million.

These actions allege that GlobeOp breached its contractual
obligations and/or negligently breached a duty of care in the
performance of services for the Millennium Fund and that, inter
alia, GlobeOp should have discovered and reported a fraudulent
scheme perpetrated by the portfolio manager employed by the
investment manager.

The U.S. Class Action also asserts claims against SS&C identical
to the claims against GlobeOp in that action.

In the arbitration, GlobeOp has asserted counterclaims against
both the Millennium Managers and the Master Fund for indemnity,
including in respect of the U.S. Class Action.

A hearing on the merits of the claims asserted in the UK
Arbitration was conducted in London in July and August 2013 and is
scheduled to be reconvened in September 2014.

GlobeOp has secured insurance coverage that provides reimbursement
of various litigation costs up to pre-determined limits. Since
2012, GlobeOp has been reimbursed for litigation costs under the
applicable insurance policy.

In January 2014, GlobeOp, SS&C, the Millennium Managers and the
plaintiff in the U.S. Class Action entered into a settlement
agreement resolving all disputes and claims between and among the
parties (including a separate mutual release between and among
GlobeOp and SS&C, on the one hand, and the Millennium Managers on
the other that covers claims asserted in the UK Arbitration). The
settlement agreement was approved by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on July 7, 2014.

Assuming no appeals are filed, the District Court order approving
the settlement was to become final on or about August 6, 2014 and
the settlement would be consummated within ten business days
thereafter. The settlement does not affect the claims,
counterclaims and/or defenses as between GlobeOp and the Master
Fund.

GlobeOp's insurers have agreed to fund the entirety of the
settlement amount contemplated to be contributed by GlobeOp.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. The
Company believes that it has strong defenses and is vigorously
contesting the UK Arbitration (as described above, the U.S. Class
Action is the subject of a settlement agreement). The amount of
any potential loss, if any at all, cannot be reasonably estimated
at this time.


ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: BLFJ Postpones Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Dean, writing for KSDK, reports that the organization Black
Lawyers for Justice said it will file a $200 million class action
lawsuit on behalf of the protesters in Ferguson.

BLFJ has postponed filling the lawsuit.  It was supposed to be
filed at the Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse at 1:00
p.m. on Tuesday Aug. 26, but it has been delayed until 12:00 p.m.
on Thursday, Aug. 28.

The release said the lawsuit is against St. Louis County, Ferguson
Police and the mayor of Ferguson.

"We are representing the injured and arrested demonstrators
involved in the Michael Brown Case," BLFJ said.

No reason was given for the postponement.


STATE STREET: October 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS

HILL v. STATE STREET CORPORATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO THE SECURITIES ACTION

DOCKET NO. 09-cv-12146-GAO

Master Docket No.1:09-cv-12146-GAO

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:

All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded common stock of State Street Corporation
during the period from October 17, 2006 through October 21, 2009,
inclusive, including all persons and entities who or which
purchased or otherwise acquired State Street common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to a registered public offering conducted on or
about June 3, 2008, and who were damaged thereby:

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, that the above-captioned
litigation has been certified, for settlement purposes only, as a
class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $60,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on October 27, 2014 at 3:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Judith G. Dein at the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Courtroom 15, 5th Floor, John
Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA
02210, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated July 8, 2014 (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co-
Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved.  Please note, the
hearing may be adjourned by the Court without further written
notice to the Settlement Class.  If you intend to attend the
hearing, you should confirm the date and time with Co-Lead
Counsel.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and a Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
at Hill v. State Street Corporation, c/o Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O.
Box 2876, Portland, OR 97208-2876; 1-888-287-8136.  Copies of the
Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.statestreetclassactionsettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than
December 16, 2014.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible
to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than October 6, 2014,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in
the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds
of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Representative Co-Lead Counsel and Representative
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
October 6, 2014, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, State Street,
any of the other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this
notice.  All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement,
or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be
directed to Co-Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form, should be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
John C. Browne, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

Motley Rice LLC
William H. Narwold, Esq.
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
(843) 216-9000
STTsettlement@motleyrice.com

Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form should be made to:

Hill v. State Street Corporationc/o Epiq Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 2876
Portland, OR 97208-2876
888-287-8136
www.statestreetclassactionsettlement.com

By Order of the Court


TARGET CORP: Plaintiffs Attorney Files Amended Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that litigation
against Target Corp. over its massive data breach took another
step forward on Aug. 25 as attorneys filed an amended class action
complaint against the retailer that combines into a single
document the strongest legal claims customers have asserted
against the company in dozens of individual lawsuits.

The revised lawsuit, which includes more than 100 named plaintiffs
from all but a handful of states, seeks to represent a nationwide
class and state specific classes of Target patrons.  As many as
110 million Target customers are believed to have had their
personal or financial information compromised in the attack,
making it one of the largest data breaches in U.S. history.

Vincent Esades, a plaintiffs attorney from Heins Mills & Olson
PLC, said lawyers combed the nearly 60 lawsuits that had filed on
behalf of customers to locate the strongest claims and best
plaintiffs to proceed with the litigation.  Mr. Esades said they
constructed the amended lawsuit "from the ground up" and that it
includes a more complete factual history of the Target breach.

"In the simplest terms, we attempted to take what were the best
claims and best plaintiffs and consolidate them into a single
report for the ease of the court and all the parities involved,"
Mr. Esades told Law360 on Aug. 26.

The amended complaint includes a detailed analysis of the Target
breach and a timeline with information about what company
employees did in the weeks leading up to the breach and after it
began.  The plaintiffs contend that the breach was avoidable and
occurred because Target did not take proper precautions in
protecting its computer systems.

Hackers in Eastern Europe, including one named Rescator, began
probing the computer networks of major U.S. retailers beginning in
June 2013, the lawsuit said.  They were able to obtained
credentials to access Target's computer system through a third
party refrigeration and HVAC vendor, Fazio Mechanical Services.

With this information in hand, hackers logged onto Target's
network using Fazio's credentials -- gaining access "to the
billing, contract submission, and project management portions of
Target's computer network only, and presumably nothing else," the
lawsuit said.  But Target's system was not properly segmented,
which allowed hackers to upload malware targeting customer payment
information and personal data, according to the complaint.

From there, hackers were able to upload malware that stole
customer payment card information onto Target cash registers.  The
malware was uploaded "into a majority of Target's in-store cash
registers" by November 20, giving them access to customer card
information.

"The way the malware worked was simple: when a customer went to
any in-store Target cash register to pay for an item, and swiped
his or her card, the malware stepped in and captured the shopper's
card number and other sensitive personal information," the lawsuit
said.

Target's security software detected the malware on its system
around November 30 but company officials apparently took no
action, the lawsuit said.  Target received the same alert on
December 2 but did not respond to the warning, according to the
complaint.

Hackers began the work of actually harvesting the payment card
information in December, the lawsuit said.  The U.S. Department of
Justice notified Target of the breach on Dec. 12 but did not
notify the public of the breach until several days later after the
company attempted to verify the report.  Target began cleaning its
system of the hackers' malware on Dec. 15.  News of the breach did
not break until Dec. 19.

"Target had multiple opportunities to identify and prevent the
attack on its data systems, but key personnel at Target remained
unaware or unconcerned about what had occurred until days after
investigations by the Department of Justice and computer security
experts identified the massive breach," the lawsuit said.

Several government regulators, including the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and some state
attorneys general, are investigating the cause of the breach and
Target's response to it.

Target is one of the largest retailers in the U.S., with nearly
2,000 locations in the U.S. and Canada.

The consumer plaintiffs are represented by Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP, Milberg LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, Nichols Kaster PLLP and Heins
Mills & Olson PLC.

Target is represented by Wendy J. Wildung --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- and Michael A. Ponto --
michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP and
Harold J. McElhinny -- hmcelhinny@mofo.com -- Jack W. Londen --
jlonden@mofo.com -- Michael J. Agoglia -- magoglia@mofo.com --
Rebekah Kaufman and David F. McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- of
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The case is In re: Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, case number 0:14-md-02522, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.


UNIT CORPORATON: Faces Panola ISD Class Action in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
Unit 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 the case, Panola
Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County,
Oklahoma, "The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that our
exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting
post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought
to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who
receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production."

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the the Company's exploration segment
distributes royalty.

According to Unit Corp, "We asserted several defenses including
that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due
to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if
any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009,
the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11,
2012, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's order
certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the Oklahoma
Supreme Court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the
Plaintiff's petition was denied. The Plaintiffs recently filed a
second request to certify a class of royalty owners that is
slightly smaller than their first attempt. We will continue to
resist certification using the defenses described above, as well
as new defenses based on the Court of Civil Appeals'
decertification of the Plaintiffs' original class action. The
merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class
certification issues are pending."

The Company operates, manages, and analyzes results of operations
through three principal business segments: Oil and Natural Gas;
Contract Drilling; and Mid-Stream.


UNITED PARCEL: February 2015 Trial in Franchisees' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that UPS and its
subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a lawsuit in
California Superior Court about the rebranding of The UPS Store
franchises.

In the Morgate case, the plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual
franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store; and (2) a
certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand.

With respect to the 125 individual franchisees described in (1)
above, the trial court entered judgment against a bellwether
individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012.

"In March 2013, we reached a settlement with the remaining
individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand; this settlement did not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity," the Company said.

"The trial court granted our motion for summary judgment against
the certified class described in (2) above, which was reversed in
January 2012.

"We have not reached a settlement with this class of franchisees,
and the claims of the class remain pending. The trial is scheduled
for February 2015.


UNITED PARCEL: Defending One Outstanding Case in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in Canada, four
purported class-action cases were filed against UPS in British
Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The
cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence
and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable
provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of
interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada.

The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for
certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was
upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010,
which ended the case in our favor.

The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial
summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the
Ontario motions court.

The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is
being taken from that decision.

The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and the
Company is appealing that decision.

The Company, "The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation
as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October
2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The
2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all
liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in
Ontario."


UNITED PARCEL: Entered Into Agreement in Principle in June
----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in January 2008, a
class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing
activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding
services. UPS was not named in this case.

In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and
UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in
the amended complaint.

UPS said, "The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in
October 2010, which we moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court
granted our motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the
Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs
filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. We filed another
motion to dismiss."

In January 2014, the Court dismissed UPS from one of the claims in
the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, but denied UPS's
motion to dismiss with respect to the other claims asserted
against UPS.

In June 2014, UPS entered into an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for
an immaterial amount. This agreement in principle is subject to
the negotiation of final settlement documents and court approval
of the settlement.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Announced Deal on New Departure Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government agreed to new procedures so foreign nationals
without immigration papers know the legal consequences of
voluntarily returning to their countries from Southern California,
the ACLU announced, according to Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News
Service.

The ACLU and the law firm Cooley LLP reached a settlement
agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on
August 18 to ease border patrol and the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement voluntary return procedures in Southern
California.

The government entered into the settlement without admitting any
wrongdoing.

In a June 2013 class action lawsuit, the ACLU claimed immigration
officials used threats and intimidation to force people to accept
voluntary departure.

Lead plaintiff Lopez-Venegas said she was forced to accept
voluntary departure in 2011, returning to Mexico with her 11-year-
old son, a U.S. citizen with Asperger's syndrome.

"The United States derives its core strength from embracing the
notions of fairness and due process under our Constitution,"
Cooley's Darcie Tilly said in a statement.  "We are heartened that
this lawsuit should lead to the cessation of these forced
'voluntary departures,' the improvement of our critical border
patrol policies and practices, and if approved by the court, a
procedure for the reunification of aggrieved individuals with
their families."

If a person agrees to voluntarily return to their country,
immigration officials may skip the lengthy deportation process,
which may involve detention and hearings before an immigration
judge.

But Lopez-Venegas said in her lawsuit that the process was
sometimes far from voluntary.  Immigration officials in Southern
California had told people that they could spend months in jail if
they did not agree to voluntarily return to their countries, she
alleged.  In addition, immigration officers had made people
believe they could adjust immigration documents for a quick return
to the U.S, the plaintiff claimed.  In reality, the process of
returning to the U.S. may take more than ten years, if it happens
at all, the ACLU has said.

"These abusive and illegal practices rob victims of their right to
seek relief from removal.  As administered and practiced in
Southern California, the 'voluntary departure' program has become
a regime of unlawful coerced expulsion -- one which tears numerous
families apart every year," the court filing states.

In December 2013, U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt refused to
dismiss Lopez-Venegas' complaint but denied her request for a
preliminary injunction against the government.

Earlier this year, the court entered a protective order for
witnesses in the case.  Settlement discussions began in April.
The settlement was submitted to the court on Aug. 18, the ACLU
said.

Under the agreement, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to
inform people verbally and in writing about the consequences of
voluntary departure.

Immigration officials must provide a working phone if a person
asks for it.  People have two hours to seek advice from their
consulate or seek help from a legal representative before an
official can issue a voluntary departure.  Officials may not pre-
check boxes for voluntary departure on immigration forms, the ACLU
said in summary of the settlement.

The government also agreed to set up a telephone hotline so people
can listen to a pre-recorded messages that explain the
consequences of agreeing to voluntarily leave the country.

If the federal court approves the class portions of the
settlement, class members may travel to the San Ysidro Port of
Entry between San Diego and Tijuana, where border agents may
parole them into the U.S., and detain them for a hearing before a
immigration judge, the ACLU said.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol
issued a joint statement on August 27, 2014, defending voluntary
departure as "an option for individuals who may request to be
returned home in lieu of removal proceedings," U-T San Diego
reported.

"In an effort to address the issues raised in this litigation,
both agencies have agreed to supplement their existing procedures
to ensure that foreign nationals fully comprehend the potential
consequences of returning voluntarily to Mexico," the agencies
stated.

The case is Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Napolitano, et al., Case No.
13-cv-3972-JAK-PLAx, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Settles Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Caroline Wenzke Hudson, Esq., of Winston & Strawn LLP reports that
the University of Miami recently agreed to a proposed settlement
of class action allegations that it failed to adequately safeguard
and secure medical records of former patients, thus leading to a
2013 breach of its storage systems.  Last year, billing vouchers
for over 13,000 patients stored by an off-site storage vendor went
missing, exposing the name, date of birth, Social Security number,
physician name, facility, insurance company name, medical record
number, and procedure diagnostic codes of each affected
individual.  The plaintiff, one of the former patients, alleged
that an unauthorized person accessed, misused, and disclosed the
personally identifiable information in these records, and that she
had suffered financial harm due to the breach because money was
withdrawn from her bank account.  Plaintiff further claimed that
the university failed to notify affected former patients within 60
days of its discovery of the breach as promised in its "Notice of
Privacy Practices," instead waiting six months to send
notification letters.  Under the settlement agreement, Miami will
conduct various risk assessments, perform remediation of any
identified problems, and ensure vendors have adequate security
controls in place.  The university has agreed to pay $100,000 in
individual claims, $90,000 in attorneys' fees, and $1,500 to the
named plaintiff.  The parties have asked the federal district
court to approve the recently-filed proposed settlement agreement.


VINTAGE PHARMA: Coordination of Birth Control Pill Suits Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judicial panel has refused to coordinate lawsuits
filed over the 2011 recall of birth control pills that were
packaged incorrectly, putting women at risk of unwanted
pregnancies.

Vintage Pharmaceuticals LLC, a subsidiary of Malvern, Pa.'s Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is part of Endo International PLC,
recalled eight brands of oral contraceptives, including Cyclafem
and Tri-Previfem, because some of the blisters on the card had
been rotated 180 degrees, reversing the weekly orientation of the
pills.

Plaintiffs attorney Keith Bodoh -- Bodoh@RBNlaw.com -- of
Robertson, Bodoh & Nasrallah in Marietta, Ga., who filed a class
action in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on behalf of two women, one of whom became pregnant, had moved to
coordinate the litigation.  He claimed that he had 115 clients who
hadn't yet filed suit and cited three other cases, two of which
settled before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
heard oral arguments on July 31 in Kansas City, Kan.  The
remaining case, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, was filed by a woman in Kansas City, Mo., who gave birth
in 2012. Another case is pending in Los Angeles County, Calif.,
Superior Court.

On Aug. 12, the MDL panel denied coordination because the cases
were based too much on individual circumstances, such as whether
the women actually got pregnant.

Mr. Bodoh declined to comment.

Pamela Yates -- pamela.yates@kayescholer.com -- a partner in the
Los Angeles office of New York's Kaye Scholer who represents
Vintage Pharmaceuticals, which does business as Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals, argued in court papers that more than 99 percent
of the packages weren't defective.

"What the company did was when a consumer reported to a
pharmacist, and the pharmacist reported to my client, that there
was some rotation on the pills, we recalled all products over a
certain time span that followed the same manufacturing procedure,
looking for other errors," she told The National Law Journal.  "We
found a very, very low error rate, far less than 1 percent.  Of
the people who have sued, not a single one has proven or shown
they received one that had a rotated row of recalled
contraceptives."

Pill manufacturer Patheon Inc., which is based Canada, has moved
to dismiss the Georgia case for lack of jurisdiction.


VISTEON CORPORATION: 750+ Employees File Actions in Germany
-----------------------------------------------------------
Visteon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that several current and
former employees of Visteon Deutschland GmbH ("Visteon Germany")
filed civil actions against Visteon Germany in various German
courts beginning in August 2007, seeking damages for the alleged
violation of German pension laws that prohibit the use of pension
benefit formulas that differ for salaried and hourly employees
without adequate justification. Several of these actions have been
joined as pilot cases. In a written decision issued in April 2010,
the Federal Labor Court issued a declaratory judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs in the pilot cases.

To date, more than 750 current and former employees have filed
similar actions or have inquired as to or been granted additional
benefits, and an additional 600 current and former employees are
similarly situated. The Company's remaining reserve for unsettled
cases is approximately $8 million and is based on the Company's
best estimate as to the number and value of the claims that will
be made in connection with the pension plan. However, the
Company's estimate is subject to many uncertainties which could
result in Visteon Germany incurring amounts in excess of the
reserved amount of up to approximately $9 million.


VITACOST.COM INC: Faces Class Actions Over Merger With Kroger
-------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 2014, Vitacost.com, Inc., The Kroger Co., an Ohio
corporation ("Kroger"), and Vigor Acquisition Corp, a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Kroger ("Purchaser")
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Purchaser agreed to
commence a cash tender offer to acquire all of the shares of the
Company's common stock for a purchase price of $8.00 per share,
net to the holder thereof in cash (the "Offer Price"), without
interest thereon and subject to any required tax withholding, upon
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Offer to
Purchase and in the related Letter of Transmittal (which, together
with any amendments or supplements, collectively constitute the
"Offer") contained in the Schedule TO filed by Purchaser and
Kroger with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 18,
2014, as amended on August 1, 2014. The Offer was to expire at
5:00 PM, New York City time, on August 15, 2014, unless the Offer
is extended.

Vitacost.com said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that three purported class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the Company's
stockholders against various defendants including the Company, the
Company Board, Kroger and Purchaser, in connection with the
proposed Merger. Those cases are captioned Ernst v. Vitacost.com,
et. al., Case No. 2014 CA 008318 AJ (Fla. Cir. Ct., Palm Beach
Cnty., July 7, 2014); Heim v. Vitacost.com, et. al., Case No.
9883-VCP (Del. Ch. Ct. July 15, 2014); and Takis P. Dionisos v.
Vitacost.com. et. al., Case No. 9945-VCP, (Del. Ch. Ct. July 24,
2014). The complaints allege, generally, that the Company Board
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, and
that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by
seeking to sell the Company through an allegedly defective
process, for an unfair price, and on unfair terms. The Dionisos
complaint also alleges that the Company Board failed to disclose
material information regarding the proposed Merger. The lawsuits
seek, among other things, equitable relief enjoining the
consummation of the proposed Merger, rescission of the proposed
Merger (to the extent the proposed Merger has already been
consummated), damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 24, 2014, the Dionisos plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary injunction. On July 31, 2014, the Heim lawsuit and
Dionisos lawsuit were consolidated into a single action in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction was set for
August 11, 2014 in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Company has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has
been incurred and is unable to estimate the possible loss or range
of loss that could result from an unfavorable decision. It is
possible that the Company's financial statements could be
materially adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome.

Vitacost.com, Inc.  is an online retailer of healthy living
products, including dietary supplements such as vitamins,
minerals, herbs and other botanicals, as well as cosmetics,
natural personal care products, pet products, sports nutrition and
health foods. Vitacost was incorporated in 1994 and began its
online retail activity in 1999. Vitacost sells a proprietary line
of healthy living products as well as a wide selection of other
manufacturers' brand-name goods.  The Company ships products from
two distribution centers located in Lexington, North Carolina and
Las Vegas, Nevada.


VOLVO GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Boat Engine Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Christopher Drummond and Paulann Perry, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volvo Group North
America, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03460 (D.S.C., August 27, 2014),
arises from the Defendant's failure to disclose that the Volvo
Penta 5.7 L or 8.1 L model boat engines equipped with XDP
outdrives are defective and the Defendant's inability or refusal
to properly repair the Engines.

Volvo Group North America, LLC is a foreign company that
manufacturers trucks, buses, construction equipment, drive systems
for marine and industrial applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Austin Howell Crosby, Esq.
      Ronnie L. Crosby, Esq.
      PETERS MURDAUGH PARKER ELTZROTH AND DETRICK
      PO Box 457
      Hampton, SC 29924
      Telephone: (803) 943-2111
      Facsimile: (803) 914-2015
      E-mail: acrosby@pmped.com
              rcrosby@pmped.com

         - and -

      John C. Johnston, Esq.
      E. Merritt Farmer Jr., Esq.
      JOHNSTON & FARMER, LLC
      361 N. Shelmore Blvd.
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 306-4240
      E-mail: jjohnston@johnstonfarmer.com
              mfarmer@johnstonfarmer.com


VULCAN MATERIALS: Faces Class Action Over Sinkhole
--------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that during the operation of
its former Chemicals Division, Vulcan was the lessee under a salt
lease from 1976 - 2005 in an underground salt dome formation in
Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The Texas Brine Company operated
this salt mine for the account of Vulcan. Vulcan sold its
Chemicals Division in 2005 and assigned the lease to the
purchaser, and Vulcan has had no association with the leased
premises or Texas Brine Company since that time.

In August 2012, a sinkhole developed near the salt dome and
numerous lawsuits were filed in state court in Assumption Parish,
Louisiana. Other lawsuits, including class action litigation, were
also filed in August 2012 in federal court in the Eastern District
of Louisiana in New Orleans.

The plaintiffs in the Federal court class action and Texas Brine
have recently announced a proposed settlement for $48.1 million.
This proposed settlement is still subject to certain court
procedures, including notice to the class, before it can be
approved and finalized.

"We understand that Vulcan will be named as a released party in
the settlement agreement, although Texas Brine and its insurers
are not themselves releasing Vulcan from their claims for
contribution and indemnity against Vulcan," the Company said.

There are numerous defendants to the litigation in state and
federal court. Vulcan was first brought into the litigation as a
third-party defendant in August 2013 by the Texas Brine Company.
Vulcan has since been added as a direct and third-party defendant
by other parties, including a direct claim by the State of
Louisiana. The damages alleged in the litigation range from
individual plaintiffs' claims for property damage, to the State of
Louisiana's claim for response costs, to claims for alleged
physical damages to oil pipelines, to various alleged business
interruption claims, and to claims for indemnity and contribution
from Texas Brine.

It is alleged that the sinkhole was caused, in whole or in part,
by Vulcan's negligent actions or failure to act. It is also
alleged that Vulcan breached the salt lease, as well as an
operating agreement with Texas Brine.

"Vulcan denies any liability in this matter and will vigorously
defend the litigation. We cannot reasonably estimate any liability
related to this matter," the Company said.

Vulcan is the nation's largest producer of construction
aggregates, primarily crushed stone, sand and gravel and a major
producer of asphalt mix and ready-mixed concrete.


WHOLE FOODS: Greek Yogurt Label Is Deceptive, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Whole Foods
Market claims its 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt has 2
grams of sugar, though it has nearly six times that amount,
customers claim in a California federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Chas Jackson claims that consumer watchdogs tested
the yogurt and discovered it contains 11.4 grams of sugar per 170
gram serving, almost six times the amount that appears on the
label.  The claim follows a similar legal action against Whole
Foods Market in Philadelphia, where the supermarket has pulled the
yogurt from its shelves.

"By comparison, according to the USDA [U.S. Department of
Agriculture] the sugar content of an ice cream sandwich is 13
grams; only slightly more than the 11.4 gram sugar content of
'Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt,'" the
California lawsuit states.

The supermarket allegedly "brags" on its Web site that a
professional dietician reviews each food label for accuracy.

"Unless this statement on defendant's website is false, then Whole
Foods Market was fully aware of the contents of its store brand
plain Greek yogurt and of the fact that the yogurt's actual sugar
content was dramatically higher than what is stated on the label,"
the complaint states.

According to the lawsuit, even yogurts that contain no added
sweeteners naturally exceed more than 2 grams of sugar per
serving.

Jackson claims that Whole Foods mislabeled the product to gain a
competitive edge and to "induce" customers to buy it.

"Despite the test results published by Consumer Reports, Whole
Foods Market has not pulled the mislabeled yogurt off its shelves
and continues to sell the mislabeled product to consumers in its
California stores every day, bearing the same inaccurate label,"
the complaint states.

Jackson seeks class certification and damages for breach of
warrant, false advertising, fraudulent business practices, and
violations of the California Business and Professions Code.

Whole Foods told Philly.com on August 27, 2014, that the store is
investigating the claims.

"While we continue to investigate Consumer Reports claims, we have
removed our 365 Everyday Value Nonfat Plain Greek Yogurt from
store shelves," Whole Foods spokeswoman Katie Malloy said.
"However, we offer a variety of other nonfat plain Greek yogurt
options for our shoppers to choose from."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Epstein" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a shareholder filed
on April 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan
Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case
number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25,
2013 and March 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in
violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company's
disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received
above-referenced CID from the CFPB. The complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself in the matter. On June 25, 2014, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and has stipulated
to an extension of time for a response from Operating Engineers
Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund which has
been appointed lead plaintiff in the case.


WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Botched TV Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Swanson, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon, and George A. Barrios, Case No. 3:14-cv-01228-JCH (D.
Conn., August 25, 2014) arises out of false and misleading
statements about the WWE's much publicized ability to transform
its earnings profile through, among other things, the negotiation
of a lucrative new long-term television license deal, the
supposedly "primary driver" of the transformation.

Mr. Swanson contends that WWE was not able to negotiate the
lucrative television rights deal that Defendants led investors to
expect.  He adds that when the WWE revealed the truth about the
value of its new distribution deal, the stock price of WWE fell to
$11.27 per share on May 16, 2014, a decline of 43% from the
previous closing price of $19.93 per share.

WWE is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices
located in Stamford, Connecticut.  WWE is an integrated media and
entertainment company that was founded in Stamford in 1980 and
focuses on the wrestling entertainment business worldwide.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Sebastian Tonatore, Esq.
          Stephanie Bartone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com
                  stornatore@zlk.com
                  sbartone@zlk.com


ZAGG INC: Appeal in Shareholders' Suit Pending Before 10th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 6 and 10, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed by purported ZAGG Inc. shareholders against the
Company, Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, and Cheryl Larabee, as
well as Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former Chairman and
CEO, and Edward Ekstrom and Shuichiro Ueyama, former members of
the Company's Board of Directors.  The cases are James H. Apple,
et al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah,
2:12-cv-00852; Ryan Draayer, et al. v. Zagg Inc, et al., U.S.
District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00859.

These lawsuits were subsequently amended by a complaint filed on
May 6, 2013.  The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between October 15, 2010 and
August 17, 2012.

The plaintiffs claim that as a result of Mr. Pedersen's alleged
December 2011 margin account sales, the defendants initiated a
succession plan to replace Mr. Pedersen as the Company's CEO with
Mr. Hales, but failed to disclose either the succession plan or
Mr. Pedersen's margin account sales, in violation of Sections
10(b), 14(a), and 20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On March 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
(the "Court") consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions and
assigned the caption In re: Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation, and
on May 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On July
5, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On
February 25, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief
appealing the Courts decision with respect to some of their
claims. The appeal is now pending in the Tenth Circuit, ZAGG said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

ZAGG Inc is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has an
international office located in Shannon, Ireland. The Company
designs, produces, and distributes professional and premium
creative product solutions such as InvisibleShield(r) screen
protection, keyboards for tablet computers and mobile devices,
keyboard cases, earbuds, mobile power solutions, cables, cases,
Bluetooth speakers, and cleaning accessories for mobile devices
under the family of ZAGG and InvisibleShield brands. In addition,
the Company designs, produces, and distributes earbuds,
headphones, Bluetooth speakers, Near-Field Audio amplifying
speakers, cases, and cables for mobile devices under the family of
iFrogz brands in the fashion and youth oriented lifestyle sector.


ZILLOW INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit in W.D. Wash. Fully Briefed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in November 2012, a
securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle against
the Company and certain of its executive officers seeking
unspecified damages. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
June 2013.

The Company said, "The complaint purports to state claims for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of
those who purchased our common stock between February 15, 2012 and
November 6, 2012. The complaint generally alleges, among other
things, that during the period between February 15, 2012 and
November 6, 2012, we issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding our business practices and financial
results."

"In August 2013, we moved to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion to
dismiss has been fully briefed and is pending before the Court.

"We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing, and we will
continue to vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of
June 30, 2014 or December 31, 2013, as we do not believe a
material loss is probable. It is a reasonable possibility that a
loss may be incurred; however, the possible loss or range of loss
is not estimable."

Zillow operates real estate and home-related information
marketplaces on mobile and the Web, with a complementary portfolio
of brands and products to help people find vital information about
homes, and connect with local professionals.


                              *********

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  * * *