CAR_Public/140904.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 176

                             Headlines


ACTION PROFESSIONALS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
AMERICAN HONDA: Dealership Not Entitled to Attorney Fees
APEX CLEAN: Seven Landowners File Class Action Over Wind Turbines
ASSOCIATION CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
AURORA HUTS: Faces "Mielo" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ADA

AUSTRALIA: Class Action Good Mechanism for Asylum Seekers
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Face Arkansas Customer Class Suit
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Law Firm Filed Class Action in Tennessee
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Law Firm Loses Bid to Collet Attorney Fees
BENTON CAPITAL: Accused by Cilantro Patron of Violating ADA

BOEING CO: Robbins Geller Sanctioned for Use of False Witness
CASA RIO: Faces Class Action Over Patient Neglect
COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action
CRANE CO: Court Approves $6.5 Million Settlement

CYTRX CORP: DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR Dismissed From Suit
CYTRX CORP: Faces "Perri" Class Action in C.D. Calif.
CYTRX CORP: Faces "Kim" Class Action in C.D. Calif.
CYTRX CORP: Faces "Rajasekaran" Class Action in Los Angeles Court
EXEL GLOBAL: Discriminates Against African-Americans, Suit Says

EXPEDIA INC: Court Tosses Class Action Over Deceptive Tax Charges
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Concussion Class Action
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: October 3 Final Settlement Hearing
FIRST STUDENT: Removed "Vasquez" Class Suit to C.D. California
FULL MELT: Faces Class Action Over Marijuana-Laced Chocolate

GDF SUEZ: Morwell Residents Mull Class Action Over Coalmine Fire
GENERAL MOTORS: Offers Loaner-Car Program for Recalled Cars
GOOGLE INC: Privacy Organizations to Challenge $8.5MM Settlement
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Must Face Class Action Over Seat Buckle Defect
GROUPON INC: Sept. 11 Hearing on Bid to Exclude Plaintiff Expert

GROUPON INC: Still Facing In re Groupon Derivative Litigation
GROUPON INC: Appeal in Mktg & Sales Practices Litigation Pending
HAIN CELESTIAL: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
HOME RETENTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit in California Over Stalling Defect

INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Interns File Bid for Class Certification
INTERNATIONAL GAME: No Decision Yet on Motion for Certification
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Shareholder Actions Over GTECH Merger
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Action in Discovery Stage
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Tennessee Action in Preliminary Stage

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: U.S. Cases in Discovery Phase
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases in Preliminary Stage
J&R BAKER: Sued by EEOC Over Discrimination vs. African Americans
KELLOGG BROWN: Removed "Totten" Suit to California District Court
LANNETT COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for November 17
MBZ COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed
MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Colorado Class Action Pending
MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss NY Class Action Due to Be Filed

MONTREAL: Judge Certifies Eight Kettling Class Actions
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
OASIS PETROLEUM: Defending Against Train Derailment Class Action
PALISADES COLLECTION: Sued in Arkansas Alleging FDCPA Violations
PELLA CORP: "Dineen" Suit Consolidated in Designer Windows MDL

PELLA CORP: "Naparala" Suit Moved From Wisconsin to S. Carolina
PFIZER INC: Class Action Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 22
PHOENIX COMPANIES: "Strougo" Litigation Dismised in June
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Court Denied Fleisher Summary Judgment Motion
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Stayed TCPA Litigation

PRIMERICA LIFE: Removed "Hawk" Insurance Suit to C.D. California
REXNORD CORP: Insurer Paid Lump Sum in Exchange for Release
ROUGE VALLEY: May Face Class Action Over Patient Info Breach
SC ACADEMY: Sued by Insurer Over Medical Certification Cases
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Motions to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Final Approval of Settlement in "Conlee" Case
SILVER STATE: Six Insurance Brokers File New Class Action
SLOAN VALVE: Judge Approves $18-Mil. Class Action Settlement
SOUTH FLORIDA DIALYSIS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Rate, Suit Claims
SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action Over July Mass Layoff

SUNTRUST BANKS: Provides Updates on Lehman Brothers Litigation
SUNTRUST BANKS: Provides Updates on Colonial BancGroup Litigation
SUNTRUST BANKS: Denial of Class Cert in "Bickerstaff" on Appeal
SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of Stock Class Action Under Appeal
SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid for Reconsideration Pending in 11th Circuit

SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Brown" Action in District of Columbia
SUNTRUST BANKS: October 17 Final Approval Hearing
SUNTRUST BANKS: Limited Discovery Allowed in "Thurmond" Case
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Oct. 7 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Preliminary Hearing on Class Cert. Held

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Griner" Settlement Approved by Court
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces Suits Over Wrongful Death & Personal Injury
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Facing 199 Putative Class-Action Complaints
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Stayed Plaintiff's Appeal
U.S. BANCORP: Has $19MM Liability Related to VISA Case at June 30

UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Immigration Practices Settled
VOICESHOT LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Text Message TCPA Class Action
WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
WASHINGTON: Trial Court to Decide on Class Action Damages
WATTS WATER: Final Approval of "Trabakoolas" Class Settlement

WELLS FARGO: Court of Appeals Affirmed Judgment in July
WELLS FARGO: Final Approval Hearing of Accord Held in August
WINDAMIR DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Lawson" Class Suit in N.D. Georgia
WORLD WRESTLING: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
WPX ENERGY: Conducts Accounting in Royalty Litigation

WPX ENERGY: Facing 2 Class Actions by Interest Owners
ZOCDOC INC: "Geismann" Suit Transferred From Missouri to New York


                            *********


ACTION PROFESSIONALS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Dial, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Action Professionals, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06761
(C.D. Cal., August 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN HONDA: Dealership Not Entitled to Attorney Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that a
Honda dealership will not be entitled to attorney fees in its
dispute with the American Honda Motor Company Inc. over warranty
repairs.

Autofair Honda, an authorized Honda dealer in Manchester, N.H.,
has an agreement with the automaker to perform repairs covered
under warranty and to be reimbursed for those repairs, Justice
Robert J. Lynn wrote for the court.

Honda, however, may charge back warranty repairs in which Autofair
did not follow Honda's policies and procedures.  In 2010, Honda
audited Autofair's warranty repairs and determined that around
$100,000 of repairs deviated from Honda's standards.  Later, the
carmaker reduced the proposed chargebacks to close to $44,000 and
then further to close to $30,000.

The New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Industry Board ruled that Autofair
had to pay $1,032.13 to Honda, but Honda was not entitled to
charge back $28,697.79.

Autofair moved for attorney fees and costs on the grounds that it
was the prevailing party in the dispute under the New Hampshire's
law regulating the business practices of motor vehicle
manufacturers, dealers and distributors.  But the petition was
rejected.

Autofair would only be entitled to attorney fees if it had to
actually pay the chargebacks, not just face the threat from Honda
of having repairs charged back to it, the court said.

A legislative change to the definition of chargeback also did not
change whether Autofair is entitled to attorney fees.  The amended
law bars carmakers from "announcing an intention to withdraw funds
from a dealer for claims that the dealer can reasonably
substantiate," Justice Lynn said.

The change in the law can't be applied retroactively in order to
qualify Autofair for attorney fees, Justice Lynn said


APEX CLEAN: Seven Landowners File Class Action Over Wind Turbines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Wertz, writing for StateImpact, reports that seven landowners
filed a class-action lawsuit to prevent wind turbines from being
built near their homes in Canadian and Kingfisher counties.

In the complaint, the landowners claim that planned wind farm
projects controlled by Virginia-based Apex Clean Energy would
create a nuisance, devalue their property and adversely affect
their health.

An organization that opposes wind projects in the two counties,
the Oklahoma Wind Action Association, brought the lawsuit on
behalf of the landowners.  The suit was filed Aug. 27 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

The landowners who brought the lawsuit all live within three miles
of the planned wind farm, and, in many cases, own property within
the "no-build" zone of the planned locations of the 500-foot-tall
turbines.

The complaint said:

"Industrial Wind Turbine manufacturers recommend a minimum setback
or safety zone of three (3) times turbine height -- in this case
fifteen hundred (1500) feet -- between any home and an Industrial
Wind Turbine for safety purposes in case of catastrophic failure
of one or more components, not to protect against adverse effects
resulting from noise."

"As a result, Industrial Wind Turbines, by their own safety
standards, create a de facto "no-build" zone in a fifteen hundred
(1500) radius surrounding the Turbine. In many instances, this
"no-build" zone overlaps with the property of landowners who have
no agreement with Defendants.

"This invasion of Plaintiffs' right to use and enjoy their
property requires Defendants to obtain an easement from the
landowner that restricts their ability to construct upon any
property within the fifteen hundred (1500) feet of the Industrial
Wind Turbine.

"Otherwise, Defendants' Industrial Wind Turbines will interfere
with Plaintiffs' ability to use their property as they wish
safely.

"Defendants have undertaken no effort to obtain such easements and
Plaintiffs will be left with a cloud upon their titles."

The wind energy industry is booming in Oklahoma, which was the
country's fourth-largest wind-power producer in 2013.  But there
has been considerable resistance to some wind farm projects,
including the Apex projects planned for Canadian and Kingfisher
counties.

In December 2013, officials in the nearby city of Piedmont
approved an agreement with Apex to settle a heated, year-long
fight to block wind farm construction near the city.  Officials in
Kingfisher, too, are negotiating with Apex on a similar setback
agreement, according to the lawsuit.

On Sept. 11, the Oklahoma Corporation will hold its first public
meeting to discuss potential statewide rules for the wind energy
industry, an action requested by Sen. President Pro Tempore Brian
Bingman, R-Sapulpa, which was spurred by vocal opposition to
proposed wind farm projects in Osage and Craig counties.

Kent Dougherty, Director of Development at Apex, declined to
comment specifically on the lawsuit, but said the company has a
"proven track record" in addressing community concerns.

"Numerous third-party studies on the impact of wind turbines on
both health and property values repeatedly demonstrate that there
are no measurable impacts," he tells StateImpact in a written
statement.


ASSOCIATION CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Association Capital Resources, Case No. 1:14-cv-23172-
MGC (S.D. Fla., August 27, 2014) is a consumer class action
lawsuit based upon the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Vavreck, Esq.
          MARTINEAU, GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC
          Designers Guild Builing
          401 North Third Street, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 659-9500
          Facsimile: (612) 659-9220
          E-mail: mvavreck@mgvlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com

               - and -

          Andy Raul Hernandez, Esq.
          HERNANDEZ LAW
          2828 Coral Way, Suite 206
          Miami, FL 33145
          Telephone: (305) 444-4407
          Facsimile: (305) 444-4408
          E-mail: andy@arhlegal.com


AURORA HUTS: Faces "Mielo" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aurora Huts, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01162-CRE
(W.D. Pa., August 28, 2014) is brought under The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Good Mechanism for Asylum Seekers
---------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Mezrani, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that the head
of Maurice Blackburn's social justice practice has claimed the
firm's recently-filed class action is the most effective means of
seeking redress for any injured asylum seekers on Christmas
Island.

Full-time pro bono lawyer and practice leader Elizabeth O'Shea
told Lawyers Weekly that while Maurice Blackburn has a long
history of advocating for asylum seekers on an individual basis,
it's class action that could better serve the dozens of alleged
victims of abuse or neglect while in detention.

"A class action is a really good mechanism to make sure the
government is held accountable for any breaches of care and are
hopefully more respectful of that duty in the future," she said.

Ms. O'Shea added that the media attention class actions attract
could result in an exposition of the "chaotic and opaque" system
of immigration detention that exists at both local and offshore
facilities.

Maurice Blackburn filed class action proceedings in the Supreme
Court of Victoria on Tuesday, August 26.  The claim alleges that
the Federal Government and the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection Scott Morrison have failed in their duty of care to
protect the health and wellbeing of asylum seekers held in
detention on Christmas Island.

The open class action has been brought on behalf of all asylum
seekers who have been detained on Christmas Island in the past
three years and have suffered an injury or exacerbation of injury.

Maurice Blackburn is seeking compensation and, where appropriate,
court orders compelling the government to provide asylum seekers
with the care they require.

"If they have been treated poorly by the government . . . they are
entitled to compensation," said Ms. O'Shea.

She added that the value of the compensation has yet to be
determined and will depend on individual circumstances.

One of many

The lead plaintiff in the class action is a six-year-old girl
known as 'A.S.'.  Her identity has been protected by a Supreme
Court of Victoria pseudonym order.

A.S. has been in detention for more than a year and has been
assessed by a child psychiatrist as having Post Traumatic Stress
disorder.

In addition to separation anxiety and bed wetting, A.S. has
developed a stammer and is refusing food.  She has also had an
ongoing dental infection and allergies that have not received
adequate treatment, according to the claim.

Maurice Blackburn lawyers met A.S. on a visit to Christmas Island
to investigate allegations that asylum seekers had been denied
proper medical care.

Ms. O'Shea revealed that the visit was the catalyst for the class
action.

"What they saw there gave them great cause for concern, so they
wanted to look for ways in which we could do something for people
. . . and also get the best possible outcome for as many people as
we could who had similar stories," she said.

Investing in social justice

Maurice Blackburn established its social justice practice in 2010
with O'Shea at the helm.

She was the firm's first full-time pro bono lawyer.  In November
2013, lawyer Katie Robertson joined the practice as an associate.

Over the past four years, Ms. O'Shea has represented hundreds of
pro bono clients, including the traditional Aboriginal owners of
land in the Northern Territory that had been earmarked as a
potential nuclear waste dump.  She is also taking action against
Melbourne City Council on behalf of the Fertility Control Clinic
to remedy the nuisance caused by individuals harassing women and
staff entering the medical practice, which administers abortions.

However, matters involving asylum seekers remain a major focus of
the practice.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Face Arkansas Customer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth 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 18, 2010,
BancorpSouth Bank was named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit
challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer
protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in
an unspecified amount and equitable relief.

The case was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
wherein an order was entered certifying a class in this case.  The
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation
court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further
proceedings.

The Company said there are significant uncertainties involved in
any purported class action litigation.  Although it is not
possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability
with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the
opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial
position or results of operations. However, there can be no
assurance that an adverse outcome or settlement would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of
operations for a given fiscal period.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Law Firm Filed Class Action in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth 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 July 31, 2014, a law
firm announced that it had filed a purported class-action lawsuit
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of
the Company's common stock.  As of the filing date of this Form
10-Q, the Company has not been served with process as to the
lawsuit.  The filing alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
procedures, systems and process related to certain of its
compliance programs.

With no service of process and the July 31, 2014 filing date, the
Company lacks sufficient information as to the subject suit,
therefore cannot determine the probability of any unfavorable
outcome, if any, to the Company at this time.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Law Firm Loses Bid to Collet Attorney Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a law firm has lost its effort to collect $13.3
million out of the fees gathered to pay for the legal work on
behalf of American rice farmers, millers and dealers who sued
Bayer CropScience LP for tainting the American rice supply with
its genetically modified rice.

The federal multidistrict litigation was consolidated in Missouri
federal court.

Law firm The Phipps Group also lost its effort to overturn U.S.
District Judge Catherine D. Perry's order requiring that all
settling plaintiffs pay eight percent of their recoveries toward
attorney fees and three percent for litigation costs and expenses
undertaken for the common benefit of all plaintiffs.

Judge Steven M. Colloton, writing for the U.S Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, said that Phipps waived the challenge to the
creation of a fund to pay for legal work benefiting all the
plaintiffs by agreeing to settle cases under those terms.

Phipps argued that success in two of his firm's cases "enhanced
lead counsel's leverage in settlement negotiations."

However, Judge Colloton said Phipps was not entitled to fees out
of the common benefit fund when he did not have a lead role in the
discovery and litigation against Bayer.

"While it is possible that lawyers may create bargaining leverage
over a defendant by refusing to join an MDL and litigating in
multiple flora, the district court was not automatically required
to accept that Phipps did so here," the court said.  "To accept
Phipps's position would reduce incentives to collaborate with
leadership counsel and could frustrate the purposes of the MDL
statute to promote efficiency and coordination."

Bayer agreed to pay $750 million to rice farmers, and lead
plaintiffs counsel Don Downing, Adam Levitt and other attorneys
got approval to receive $51.6 million in fees and $5.5 million in
expenses.  The court also authorized the law firms to receive up
to a total of $72 million in fees from any remaining amount in the
common-benefit fund.

The disbursement of up to $72 million in fees and expenses was
approximately 8.4 percent of the plaintiffs' total recovery from
the settlements with Bayer and was "within the range of awards
made in similar cases," Judge Colloton said.

Judge Colloton agreed that the district court lacked jurisdiction
to order holdbacks from state-court settlements and verdicts in
which plaintiffs' counsel refused to pay into the MDL common-
benefit fund.

In a separate decision, Judge Diane E. Murphy, writing for the
Eighth Circuit, did find that the Eighth Circuit has personal
jurisdiction over a class action Messrs. Downing and Levitt have
brought for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against Martin J.
Phipps, Mikal C. Watts, Charles A. Banks, Goldman Phipps, PLLC,
Keller Stolarczyk PLLC, Steven B. Murray, and the Murray Law Firm.

Messrs. Downing and Levitt allege that the other plaintiffs
lawyers "had access to common benefit services and materials which
they used to obtain recoveries in their state law cases" but they
refused to pay into common benefit fund.

There is personal jurisdiction in Missouri federal court over
Downing's and Levitt's lawsuit because the defendants traveled to
Missouri to negotiate settlement of their state-court cases with
Bayer, Judge Murphy said, and "obtained a substantial recovery for
their state court clients and fees for themselves personally.

Defendants' voluntary actions taken in Missouri led directly to
their own financial gain, that gain being the subject matter of
Mr. Downing's complaint alleging unjust enrichment and quantum
meruit."


BENTON CAPITAL: Accused by Cilantro Patron of Violating ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Scott Bebry v. Benton Capital LLC, a Domestic Limited
Liability Company and Living Bread LLC a Domestic Limited
Liability Company d/b/a Cilantro, Case No. 1:14-cv-06971-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff personally
visited the Defendants' property, but was denied full and equal
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at the
Property due to certain violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mr. Bebry is paralyzed as a result of an accident and uses a
wheelchair for mobility.  He visited the Cilantro restaurant
located in New York City within one year prior to instituting the
action.

Benton Capital LLC is the owner, lessor or operator of the real
property where the Restaurant is located.  Living Bread LLC is the
lessee or operator of the real property where the Restaurant is
located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Robles, Esq.
          471 54th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11220
          Telephone: (718) 492-3600
          Facsimile: (718) 492-3008
          E-mail: detect2112@yahoo.com


BOEING CO: Robbins Geller Sanctioned for Use of False Witness
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that over the
years, the securities law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and
its attorneys have reaped staggering multi-billion dollar awards
from companies and in turn doled out hundreds of thousands of
dollars to political candidates.

Now, U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo in Chicago has found a new
use for the San Diego firm's hard-earned cash -- paying sanctions
to Boeing for bringing a frivolous lawsuit based on the testimony
of a false witness.

The original lawsuit, filed in 2009, alleged Boeing withheld
information concerning delays in producing the 787 Dreamliner,
causing the company's stock to dip, court records show.

The case relied on the testimony of a project chief engineer, who
in actuality turned out to be a contracted employee hired to
perform low-level engineering work on a different airplane months
after the events at issue in this case, states Judge Castillo's
Aug. 21 order.

In his order, Judge Castillo says Robbins Geller failed to conduct
a proper investigation before filing suit, "blindly" relying on
their investigators and making repeated misrepresentations to the
court as to the strength and truth of the confidential source's
allegations.

"This court is always reluctant to sanction a member of the bar,"
Judge Castillo wrote.  "It gives the court no pleasure to issue
sanctions; nevertheless, the court cannot ignore plaintiffs'
counsel's repeated misconduct throughout this litigation."

The firm was ordered to pay Boeing's attorneys fees and other
costs.

As pointed out in Judge Castillo's order, this isn't the first
time the firm has been singled out for misconduct.

In May 2012, Legal Newsline reported U.S. District Judge Justin
Quackenbush, of Washington's federal eastern district, warned
Robbins Geller he would be sanctioning the firm, along with
attorneys Joy Bull and John Grant.

The two attorneys had led a class action against the student-
travel company Ambassadors Group.

Finding that the law firm had purposely padded its hours and
expense sheets in the case, Judge Quackenbush asked Ms. Bull and
Mr. Grant to show why class members should pay for expenses that
included a $402 dinner, which included two $72 bottles of wine and
a $60 tip for the waiter, expensive hotel rooms and two round-trip
plane ticket that cost almost $4,000.

Robbins Geller has earned a reputation for securing massive awards
from companies on behalf of shareholders.

For example, in the Enron Corp. securities litigation, Robbins
Geller attorneys and lead plaintiff the Regents of the University
of California aggressively pursued numerous defendants, including
many of Wall Street's biggest banks, and successfully obtained
settlements in excess of $7.3 billion for the benefit of
investors, according to the firm's website.

And the firm and its attorneys have a history of re-directing
portions of those awards to liberal candidates.

Over the past 10 years, the Robbins Geller attorneys have spent
nearly $1 million in state elections alone, according to
followthemoney.org.

On the federal level, Robbins Geller attorneys have pumped tens of
thousands of dollars into the coffers of candidates so far in this
year's election cycle.

One of the primary beneficiaries of those donations is U.S. Rep.
Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, with $15,600 in contributions from firm
attorneys.

Mr. Braley, the former head of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association,
is a candidate running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by
the retiring Tom Harkin.

Earlier this year, the congressman made national media headline
for his remarks at a January fundraiser in Corpus Christi, Texas,
where he asked a group of trial lawyers to help keep a "farmer"
(GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley) from becoming the next chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee.

Eclipsing Mr. Braley as top recipient of Robbins Geller donations
is U.S. Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., netting $26,700 from its
attorneys in his 2014 re-election bid.

Since 2011, Robbins Geller has been Peters' top contributor,
supplying the former San Diego city councilman with more than
$60,000 in donations, according to opensecrets.org.

Other candidates significantly benefiting financially from Robbins
Geller attorneys include Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, ($14,100);
comedian and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., ($10,950); and Rep. Ted
Deutch, D-Fla., ($5,200).


CASA RIO: Faces Class Action Over Patient Neglect
-------------------------------------------------
Barry Davis, writing for KENS 5, reports that Maloney's law firm
filed a class-action suit on Aug. 28 against Casa Rio Healthcare &
Rehabilitation, accusing the facility of contributing to the
deaths of seven more patients.  Marynell and Michelle Maloney
already represent two families in the deaths of their loved ones.

Two of the families cases sound particularly gruesome.  In one the
suit alleges a 46-year-old woman was neglected so long, a huge
maggot infestation set up in her ear.

The woman's mother reportedly had to call ems to take the daughter
to the hospital because she says Casa Rio refused to call an
ambulance.

The law firm already represents two other families with similar
claims against the facility, they will not join the seven others
in that class action suit.  The Maloneys says the allegations go
as far back as October 2011, shortly after Casa Rio began
operations.


COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta Business Chronicle reports that a new lawsuit contends
that The Coca-Cola Co. has deceived consumers into thinking that
Coca-Cola is a natural and healthy drink as consumer preferences
have moved away from carbonated soft drinks.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 22 in federal court in Massachusetts,
contends that sales of Coca-Cola "are fueled by false and
deceptive representations that Coca-Cola is not only a healthy
product, but one free of artificial flavoring and chemical
preservatives."

"Faced with clear evidence that it was losing market share because
consumers increasingly preferred beverages without artificial
flavoring and chemical preservatives, The Coca-Cola Company, owner
of the brand, responded, not by providing consumers with what they
wanted -- a natural and healthy drink -- but by deceiving them
into thinking that Coca-Cola was natural and healthy when, in
fact, it contained artificial flavoring and chemical
preservatives," the lawsuit contends.

The nine lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case are
asking the court to grant the lawsuit class-action status.  If
granted by the court, it would represent all consumers in
Massachusetts who bought Coca-Cola since Aug. 1, 2010, a number
potentially in the millions.

The lawsuit opens a new legal front against Coca-Cola's
advertising and marketing.  Another lawsuit now being litigated in
the U.S. Supreme Court is challenging Coca-Cola's advertising for
pomegranate-flavored juice.  Another major legal battle is
challenging the company's advertising for its Simply Orange orange
juice.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, 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 2010,
an alleged class action was filed against the Company alleging the
Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties
paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as
categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of
claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the alleged class.

The Company has responded to the petition, denied the allegations
and raised a number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing
and information and documents continue to be exchanged.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.

The class has not been certified. Plaintiffs have indicated that
if the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of $165
million which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of
which would be comprised of interest.

The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case
meets the requirements for a class action and is vigorously
defending the case.


CRANE CO: Court Approves $6.5 Million Settlement
------------------------------------------------
In 2009, at the request of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Crane Co. performed certain tests of the
indoor air quality of approximately 40 homes in a residential area
surrounding a former manufacturing facility in Roseland, New
Jersey (the "Site"), where the Company had performed soil and
groundwater remediation activities after the manufacturing
facility was closed in the mid-1980s, to determine if any
contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from groundwater)
from the Site were present in those homes. The test results showed
that three homes had volatile organic compound vapors above NJ
DEP's recommended concentration levels, and the Company installed
vapor mitigation equipment in those homes.

On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one
of those homes, filed separate suits against the Company seeking
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for their lost
property value and nuisance. In addition, a homeowner in the
testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of
contaminants, filed a class action suit against the Company on
behalf of himself and 138 other homeowners in the surrounding
area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their
homes due to their proximity to the Site.

The plaintiffs in these cases amended their complaints to assert
claims under New Jersey's Environmental Rights Act for the
Company's alleged failure to properly report its waste discharge
practices in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and for natural
resource damages.

In late December 2013, the plaintiffs moved to have a class of 139
homeowners certified, and the motion was granted in early February
2014. At the same time the Court also entered partial summary
judgment on liability for the three homes where the Company had
installed vapor mitigation equipment.

The Company reached an agreement to settle all current claims with
the class and individual plaintiffs for a one-time payment of $6.5
million, Crane Co. 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.  This agreement was approved
by the Court on July 23, 2014 and its settlement amount was
expected to be paid on or about August 8, 2014.


CYTRX CORP: DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR Dismissed From Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CytRx 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 14, 2014, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and an officer, as well as DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR,
two external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with
the Company, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned Chen vs. CytRx Corporation, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-14-01956-GHK-(RTWx).

The Company said, "The complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of all shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock
between November 22, 2013 and March 13, 2014.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws in
connection with various public statements purportedly issued by us
or on our behalf."

On May 29, 2014, the court dismissed DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR
without prejudice from the action for plaintiff's failure to serve
those parties. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs.

CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development
company specializing in oncology.


CYTRX CORP: Faces "Perri" Class Action in C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
CytRx 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 18, 2014, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and an officer, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, captioned Perri v. CytRx
Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02052-DDP-(JCGx). The complaint,
which purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between November 20, 2013 and
March 13, 2014, asserts claims substantially identical to those
asserted in Chen v. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-14-
01956-GHK-(RTWx). The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs.

CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development
company specializing in oncology.


CYTRX CORP: Faces "Kim" Class Action in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
CytRx 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 April 9, 2014, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and an officer, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, captioned Kim v. CytRx
Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02689-DMG-(AJWx). The complaint,
which purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between November 22, 2013 and
March 13, 2014, asserts claims substantially identical to those
asserted in Chen v. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-14-
01956-GHK-(RTWx), and Perri v. CytRx Corporation, et al., No.
2:14-cv-02052-DDP-(JCGx).  The complaint seeks compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs.

On June 13, 2014, the court consolidated the Perri and Kim actions
with the Chen action, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
in the Chen action, and dismissed the Perri and Kim actions.

CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development
company specializing in oncology.


CYTRX CORP: Faces "Rajasekaran" Class Action in Los Angeles Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CytRx 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 April 3, 2014, a
purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and
certain officers and each director, as well as certain
underwriters, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation, et al.,
BC541426. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's secondary
common stock offering, which closed on February 5, 2014. The
complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements in
filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs.

On May 2, 2014, CytRx and the named officers and directors, joined
by the underwriter defendants, removed this action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court on June
11, 2014. CytRx and the named officers and directors, as well as
the underwriter defendants, opposed that motion on July 14, 2014.

CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development
company specializing in oncology.


EXEL GLOBAL: Discriminates Against African-Americans, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Exel Global Logistics Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-00129-WLS (M.D. Ga., August 27, 2014) alleges that the Company
systematically discriminates against and excludes African-
Americans, including the Plaintiff, from employment opportunities.

Headquartered in Westerville, Ohio, Exel Global Logistics Inc.
provides freight management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nikki G Bonner, Esq.
          N. GIOVANNI BONNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          3455 Peachtree Rd., Suite 500
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 995-6643
          E-mail: nikki@ngiovannilaw.com


EXPEDIA INC: Court Tosses Class Action Over Deceptive Tax Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington
federal court on Aug. 26 dismissed a class action suit alleging
online travel planning service Travelscape LLC and its parent
company Expedia Inc. imposed unfair and deceptive tax recovery
charges on hotel room consumers and conspired with hotels on
pricing.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez said that lead plaintiff
Eileen Gillespie had not established that she suffered a concrete
injury or that there's a likelihood that she will be wronged again
in the manner that she had alleged.

"Because plaintiff does not have an ongoing relationship with
defendants and there is no realistic threat of future harm in the
absence of injunctive relief, plaintiff lacks standing to pursue
prospective relief," the opinion said.

Since the court found Ms. Gillespie had no cognizable claim of
relief, it also found she could not represent the proposed class
of defendants, according to the opinion.

Ms. Gillespie had alleged that Travelscape failed to disclose that
it kept part of a "tax recovery charge and service fee" as profit.
She also claimed that she was overcharged on her room as a result
of anticompetitive conspiracies between hotel chains and travel
agents like Expedia and Travelscape.

"Gillespie brings this action against defendant Travelscape to
remedy its unfair practices of overcharging consumers for travel
recovery charges and service fees and against Travelscape and co-
defendants for overcharging plaintiff and other consumers on room
rate due to anticompetitive price-fixing conspiracy between travel
retailers and hotels," her complaint said.

But the defendants argued that Ms. Gillespie was not able to show
injury.  They pointed to evidence showing that Ms. Gillespie had
been reimbursed by her employers for her stays at the hotels prior
to filing the lawsuit in January 2013.

Ms. Gillespie did not dispute that she was reimbursed but argued
she could still show injury because she temporarily lost the use
of some credit while waiting for reimbursement.

"However, plaintiff provides no evidence that during the ten days
she was without use of that credit, she was damaged in any way,"
the Aug. 26 opinion said.  "Moreover, she alleges no continuing
harm from the single transaction in which she engaged with
Travelscape LLC."

"As a result, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to
satisfy her burden of establishing the existence of an actual
injury at the time this action was brought," the opinion added.

Attorneys for the parties involved did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Aug. 27.

Expedia is currently fighting a larger battle in the California
courts over whether transient occupancy taxes should be applied to
online travel websites' commissions.

The California Supreme Court agreed recently to hear an appeal of
a March decision that Expedia and other online travel companies
only have to pay the city of San Diego occupancy taxes on money
they actually send to hotels and that the city's tax law does not
cover the travel companies' commissions.

Ms. Gillespie is represented by Christopher V. Langone of the
Langone Law Firm, Mark T. Lavery of Hyslip & Taylor LLC LPA.

Travelscape is represented by Bradley S. Keller and Keith D.
Petrak of Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP.

The case is Gillespie v. Travelscape LLC, et al., case number 13-
cv-0622, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Faces Concussion Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that current and
former soccer players on Aug. 27 accused FIFA, the sport's
international governing body, of failing to protect players from
concussion risks, filing a class action complaint in California
federal court seeking policy changes to limit injuries.

The 132-page complaint alleges FIFA knew players, especially women
and children, are at risk for concussions when they head the ball,
but doesn't require proper medical evaluations for concussions
during games and can allow concussed players back on the field.

"There is an epidemic of concussion injuries in soccer at all
levels around the world," the complaint said.  "FIFA presides over
this epidemic and is one of its primary causes."

The suit also names the U.S. Soccer Federation Inc., the American
group in charge of soccer organizations, along with several youth
soccer groups.

The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages, instead asking
for rule changes that would include limits on heading and allow
for more medical substitutions during games.  They are also
requesting medical monitoring for current and former players since
2002.

FIFA participated in conferences discussing concussion safety
since 2002 but failed to adopt the recommendations, one of which
included barring players with concussion symptoms from returning
to a game, according to the complaint.  The lawsuit referenced
German player Christoph Kramer's performance during the 2014 World
Cup, who returned to the field dazed after he was knocked
unconscious and staggered around the field before being removed
again.

"The negligence is remarkable, given that FIFA actively promotes
its activities to children," plaintiffs' attorney Steve W. Berman
of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP said in a statement.  "Yet no
rule limits headers in children's soccer, and children are often
taught to head the ball from the age of three.  We estimate that a
dedicated youth player might sustain 1,000 headers per year and a
high school player more than 1,800 headers."

Representatives for the defendants did not immediately respond
Aug. 27 to requests for comment.

Similar suits have targeted the NFL, NCAA and NHL for their
handling of concussions, but the plaintiffs on Aug. 27 said theirs
was the first class action against FIFA over concussions.
Mr. Berman represents plaintiffs who have reached a $75 million
settlement with the NCAA.

Even though FIFA is headquartered in Switzerland, the plaintiffs
claim the California court has jurisdiction because its "Laws of
the Game" bind all other soccer organizations, including FIFA's
limits on substitutions that can incentivize coaches to leave in
concussed players. FIFA also does substantial business in
California, including millions in advertising for the World Cup.

"FIFA and U.S. Soccer knew that through the power of the laws of
the game, they had the power to direct and influence how the rest
of the defendants treat concussion management issues," the
complaint said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jon T. King, Steve W. Berman,
Elizabeth A. Fegan and Thomas E. Ahlering of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP and Jack W. Lee -- JLee@MinamiTamaki.com -- Derek G.
Howard -- dhoward@minamitamaki.com -- and Sean Tamura-Sato of
Minami Tamaki LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The case is Rachel Mehr et al. v. Federation Internationale de
Football Association et al., case number 3:14-cv-03879, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: October 3 Final Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life 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 18, 2011, a
putative class action Complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned
Eddie L. Cressy v. OM Financial Life Insurance Company, et. al.,
Case No. 2:2011-cv-05871. The Plaintiff asked the Court to certify
the action as a class action on behalf of both a nationwide and a
California class defined as certain persons who were sold OM
Financial Life Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance
policies.

The Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members
of the putative class relied on defendants' advice to purchase
unsuitable insurance policies. After extensive motion practice,
the federal court dismissed the federal causes of action, with
prejudice, and, on May 9, 2013, declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissed the state law
claims, without prejudice, and granted the Plaintiff leave to re-
file the state law claims in California state court.

On July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), at No. BC-514340. The state
court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and
members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in
purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. The
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class defined as "all persons who
reside or are located in the state of California who were sold OM
Financial/FGL Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance
policies as an investment."

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 to settle the claims
of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all
persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed
universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007
through March 31, 2014, inclusive.  As part of the settlement, FGL
Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for
settlement purposes only. An amended Settlement Agreement was
filed with the Court on April 23, 2014 as part of the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and
Conditional Class Certification.

On June 19, 2014, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and
Conditional Class Certification and entered its Order Granting
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
("Order"). Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
the Court's Order, FGL Insurance has the right to unilaterally
terminate the settlement if either: (i) 100 policyholders or (ii)
policyholders representing more than one percent (1%) of the total
premiums paid opt out of or object to the settlement. Final
settlement is also subject to other conditions and the entry of a
final order that can no longer be appealed.

On October 3, 2014, the Court is expected to hold a hearing to
determine whether it should finally approve the settlement.

At June 30, 2014, the Company estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class
action would be $9.9 and established a liability for the unpaid
portion of the estimate of $7.3. Based on the information
currently available the Company does not expect the actual cost
for settlement, legal fees and other related cost to differ
materially from the amount accrued. The Company is seeking
indemnification from OM Group (UK) Limited ("OMGUK") under the
First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated
February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock Purchase Agreement") between HFG
and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in
defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state
courts. The Company has established an amount recoverable from
OMGUK for the amount of $4.5, the collection of which the Company
believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could
be greater or less than the Company's estimate, but the Company
anticipates that the amount recovered will not be materially
different than its current estimate. The settlement, legal fees
and other costs related to this class action and the amount
recoverable from OMGUK is presented net in the income statement in
the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves."

Fidelity & Guaranty Life (formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC ("HFG"))
("FGL" and, collectively with its subsidiaries, the "Company") is
a subsidiary of Harbinger Group Inc. ("HGI"). HGI is a diversified
holding company focused on obtaining controlling equity stakes in
companies that operate across a diversified set of industries.

FGL's primary business is the sale of individual life insurance
products and annuities through independent agents, managing
general agents, and specialty brokerage firms and in selected
institutional markets.


FIRST STUDENT: Removed "Vasquez" Class Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Vasquez v. First Student, Inc.,
et al., Case No. BC502475, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-06760 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related disputes.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison C. Williams, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: ACWilliams@littler.com


FULL MELT: Faces Class Action Over Marijuana-Laced Chocolate
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Full Melt Chocolate and
LivWell after a Denver County Fair patron claimed he was given
marijuana-laced chocolate at the fair's "Pot Pavilion."

The Denver County Fair was held Aug. 1-3 at the National Western
Complex in Denver and, among other attractions, there was a Pot
Pavilion which had a stage with hourly events, according to a
complaint filed Aug. 7 in the Second Judicial Circuit of Denver
County Court.
Jordan Coombs claims the Denver County Fair's webpage advertising
the Pot Pavilion expressly provided that no marijuana would be
onsite.

On Aug. 3, the defendants maintained a display booth within the
pavilion and were giving out free samples of chocolate, according
to the suit.  Mr. Coombs claims he and his family went to the fair
and entered to Pot Pavilion and Coombs was offered free chocolate
samples.

"When defendant offered the plaintiff the free chocolate samples,
its representatives expressly assured the plaintiff that the
chocolate did not contain any THC," the complaint states.  "In
reliance upon the defendant's representation that the chocolate
did not contain THC, the plaintiff accepted several pieces of
chocolate and ate them."

Soon after eating the chocolate, Mr. Coombs began to feel strange
and physically ill and was forced to leave the fair due to his
deteriorating health, according to the suit.

Mr. Coombs claims his spouse drove him to the hospital, where he
was diagnosed with overdosing on THC.

The hospital ordered blood tests, which confirmed the presence of
THC in his blood, he says.  He incurred damages to his car by
projectile vomiting in it and incurred medical expenses from his
reasonable and necessary visit to the emergency room, according to
the suit.

Mr. Coombs claims the class is defined by all persons who were
served with THC-containing chocolate by the defendants at the
Denver County Fair.

"This civil action is for personal injuries arising from the
defendants' negligent distribution of marijuana-infused chocolate
bars under the guise that they contained no Tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the principal psychoactive constituent (or cannabinoid) of
the cannabis plant," the complaint states.

The defendant manufactured and distributed the chocolate product
that caused Coombs and others similarly situated to unknowingly
ingest THC and suffer injuries as a result, according to the suit.

Mr. Coombs claims the defendants are strictly liable to him for
all damages proximately caused by its defective product.

The defendants are liable to the plaintiff for breaching express
and implied warranties that it made regarding the adulterated
product that Coombs consumed, according to the suit.

Mr. Coombs claims the defendants were also negligent and failed to
label the product correctly.  Mr. Coombs is seeking compensatory
damages.  He is being represented by:

     Corey T. Zurbuch, Esq.
     FRASCONA, JOINER, GOODMAN AND GREENSTEIN PC
     4750 Table Mesa Dr
     Boulder, CO 80305
     Tel: (303) 494-3000


GDF SUEZ: Morwell Residents Mull Class Action Over Coalmine Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Guardian's Gay Alcorn, the report of an inquiry
into the Hazelwood coalmine fire was expected to be released on
Sept. 2 as residents of the nearby town of Morwell consider a
class action lawsuit.

The 400-page report is expected to be critical of the Victorian
health department and the mine's operator, GDF Suez.  During
hearings, the inquiry heard that the chief health officer,
Dr. Rosemary Lester, had waited too long before recommending that
vulnerable groups relocate and that communication to residents was
confusing.  Dr. Lester defended her actions, saying they were
based on the best evidence available at the time.

The inquiry also heard that GDF Suez was not fully prepared for a
mine fire and had not adequately rehabilitated the disused area
which caught alight.

The blaze at the open-cut coalmine began on February 9 and burned
for 45 days.  There is no buffer zone between the brown coalmine
and Morwell, and its 14,000 residents were blanketed with smoke,
ash and at times carbon monoxide for six weeks.

The inquiry, led by the former supreme court judge Bernard Teague,
heard that the fire was "one of the worst public health and
environmental disasters in the state's history".

The legal firm Maurice Blackburn has called for residents and
businesses to register if they are interested in a class action,
which is normally run on a no-win, no-fee basis.  The firm wanted
to "gauge the extent to which people have been adversely affected
by the fire and the amount of damage that has been suffered".  A
lawsuit would depend on the inquiry's findings and the community's
interest.

Five months after the fire was extinguished, many residents of
Morwell continue to be angry at the way authorities handled the
disaster in a town already disadvantaged by high unemployment and
poor health.  They remain concerned about ongoing health problems
and fear a recurrence of a fire unless the inquiry's
recommendations are implemented in full.

Residents have also been largely left to bear the cost, with some
still fighting insurance companies to clean roof cavities that
remain covered in black dust.

The blaze led to the setting up of the lobby group Voices of the
Valley to fight for improved mine safety and for more diverse
industry for the Latrobe valley, a major coalmining and power-
generation center.  The group's president, Wendy Farmer, said the
community was looking for the mine to be rehabilitated properly
"so we don't have to fear that this could happen again".

"We want the community's health to be looked at," she said.  "What
we were breathing was pretty bad, and we were ignored and told
that it was OK . . . when it wasn't OK."

A new group, Latrobe Valley First, has held "kitchen table"
meetings over the past two months to discuss the region's future
with the aim of standing an independent candidate in November's
state election.  Tracie Lund, the coordinator of Morwell
Neighbourhood House, has been nominated as a candidate for the
group, which is holding interviews this week.

During the fire, Lund organized a petition for a long-term study
into the fire's health impact, which gathered more than 25,000
signatures.


GENERAL MOTORS: Offers Loaner-Car Program for Recalled Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Picchi, writing for CBSNews, reports that when Beth Foster
received recall notices from General Motors (GM) on her 2004 Chevy
Malibu, she said she had little option other than to keep using
it.

"I had gotten two cards from GM saying my car had been recalled,
but the parts weren't available," Ms. Foster said.  "I didn't have
a choice but to drive it" because she didn't have the money to buy
or rent another car, and she depends on the vehicle to make the
60-mile round-trip commute to her Chattanooga, Tenn.-based
employer, a social justice ministry.

But when the steering wheel "went nutso" -- one of the recalls was
linked to that model's power steering -- she said a friend
contacted the dealer on her behalf.

In mid-August, "he called the dealership to see if they could get
it fixed," Ms. Foster recalled.  "He really pushed."  Finally, her
friend asked if the dealership could provide a loaner car, which
paid off: Foster is now driving a rented 2014 Hyundai Sonata while
her Malibu waits to get fixed.

The problem, Ms. Foster notes, is that her recall notices lacked
information about the loaner-car program GM offers, so she had no
idea the program existed.  As GM continues to work on repairs for
millions of vehicles, only a small fraction of consumers with
recalled cars have taken the company up on the plan.

GM says the loaner program is noted on its recall website,
although the information isn't easily found. Also, its customer
assistance hotline has details.

"When you bring your car for repairs, you should be told a loaner
is available, and there should be prominent display," said
Steve Berman, managing partner at law firm Hagens Berman and the
co-lead counsel in the class action against GM.  "People don't
think, 'I should get on a website and do a Q&A search.'"

About 85,000 customers have received loaners since the program
started, said GM spokesman Jim Cain.  But with 2.6 million GM cars
recalled for faulty ignition switches -- which have been linked to
at least 13 fatalities -- that means only 3.3 percent of car
owners have been given a temporary replacement.  Whether that's a
low or high number isn't clear because Cain said the program may
be the first of its kind.

"It's the kind of thing we wanted to dealers to have at their
disposal to address customer concerns," Mr. Cain said.  "It was
something they could proactively offer if customers had concerns,
or if they asked."

But with the repairs dragging on, hundreds of thousands of cars
with the ignition-switch recall remain on the road.  As of
Aug. 21, only one-third have been fixed, according to The Wall
Street Journal.  GM's Mr. Cain said the company is on track to fix
the ignition-switch defect in October.

So, why hasn't GM made the loaner plan more obvious to car owners?
One theory: to keep costs down, Mr. Berman said, who added that
allegations of GM taking short cuts to save money with its
ignition switches "will be the theme of our case."

GM, which took a $700 million charge earlier this year for its
recalls, hasn't broken out the costs of the loaner program,
although Cain said it "was certainly not an inexpensive program."

That's clear from Ms. Foster's experience.  She said her rental
car charge for the first month alone is $1,000, a bill that GM is
covering.

Ms. Foster said she would probably still buy another GM car, even
after the experience.  Her late grandfather, who worked on the GM
factory floor for 40 years, "ground into our brains that this is
the car to get."  She added: "He would probably be a little
disappointed that GM was not more responsive.  He was also very
loyal, so he would want us to stick with GM and give them to
chance to fix it."


GOOGLE INC: Privacy Organizations to Challenge $8.5MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that five privacy
organizations are asking a judge to scuttle Google's $8.5 million
settlement of a class-action privacy lawsuit.

"The proposed settlement is bad for consumers and does nothing to
change Google's business practices," the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer
Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
said on Aug. 27 in a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Edward
Davila in San Jose, Calif.

The tentative deal, which was revealed in court papers last year,
stems from a lawsuit alleging that Google leaked search users'
names to publishers and advertisers through referrer headers --
the information that's automatically transmitted by Google to
publishers and advertisers. Some queries, like people's vanity
searches on their own names, can offer clues to users' identities.

The agreement calls for Google to pay around $6 million to six
nonprofits -- the World Privacy Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon
University, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Harvard's Berkman Center,
Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, and the AARP.

The proposed settlement also requires Google to revise its privacy
policy, but allows the company to continue transmitting referrer
headers. As a practical matter, Google no longer sends search
queries when people click on organic links.  But Google
theoretically could go back to its former practice any time it
wants. The company also still transmits queries to AdWords
advertisers when users click on paid search ads.

The privacy groups that oppose the deal point out that it allows
Google to "continue to engage in the privacy-invading practice"
that sparked the lawsuit.

The organizations previously asked the Federal Trade Commission
and California Attorney General to oppose the settlement.  Neither
has weighed in, according to court records.

But another organization, the Center for Class Action Fairness,
officially filed an objection to the deal.  That group -- which
has also opposed other settlements -- says the $8.5 million fund
should be distributed to Google's users instead of nonprofits.

Judge Davila was set to hold a final hearing on the deal on
Friday, Aug. 29.  So far, he hasn't indicated that he's troubled
by any of the terms.  On the contrary, he granted the deal
preliminary approval in March.  At the time, he said that "class
action settlements do not need to embody the best result for
preliminary approval."


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Must Face Class Action Over Seat Buckle Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, Cara Salvatore and Kat Greene, writing for Law360,
report that car-seat maker Graco Children's Products Inc. should
not escape a proposed class action over a seat buckle defect that
spurred a massive recall this year because its recall program that
supplies replacement buckles does not compensate consumers who no
longer use the seats, a consumer argued on Aug. 27.

In a filing in California federal court, plaintiff Seth Long, who
had purchased a now-recalled Graco child car seat, asked the court
to reject Graco's motion to dismiss his suit, arguing that Graco
cannot "hide behind a recall" if that recall does not offer
remedies to all its consumers.  The defective buckles may become
stuck in the latched position, making it harder to pull the child
out of the car, according to the suit.

Mr. Long had brought his suit in March 2013.  Graco issued its
recall in February this year, pulling back at the time 3.7 million
forward-facing toddler seats over the buckles, which could become
so gunked up with food, juice, formula or vomit that they won't
open.  The seat maker added 1.9 million car seats to the recall in
July.

Graco has sought to dismiss his suit, arguing that its recall
program provides consumers a "full refund" of their purchase cost
when they return the product, but Long disputes this, arguing that
its remedy is only to offer replacement buckles and not refunds,
according to his opposition filing.

"Graco's recall does not provide consumers with the option of
returning their seats for a refund because no refund program has
been publicly disseminated," Mr. Long says in his motion.

"Not a single publicly available document exists on Graco's
website or the National Highway Safety Administration website or
has been produced by Graco that states that, under the recall,
consumers can obtain refunds," he added.  "While consumers can
obtain 'reimbursement of costs' (whatever that means), the recall
does not provide for a refund for the purchase price of the car
seat."

At the time of the February recall, the NHTSA published a series
of reports on the car seats, saying it had been investigating the
belt buckles since 2012.  Among the problems it encountered were
that the buckles would get so impenetrable that parents would end
up having to pick up the child and the seat -- which could
together weigh more than 70 pounds -- to lift it out of the car in
the event of an emergency, the agency said.

Graco received at least 6,100 complaints about the buckles, the
NHTSA said in its report.

The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L. Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert K Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zohdy and Cody R.
Padgett of Capstone Law APC.

Graco is represented by Rocky N. Unruh, Yakov P. Wiegmann, Joseph
Krasovec and Heidi Dalenberg of Schiff Hardin LLP.

The case is Seth Long v. Graco Children's Products Inc., case
number 3:13-cv-01257, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


GROUPON INC: Sept. 11 Hearing on Bid to Exclude Plaintiff Expert
----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, 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 it is currently a
defendant in a proceeding pursuant to which, on October 29, 2012,
a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against
the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and the
underwriters that participated in the initial public offering of
the Company's Class A common stock.  Originally filed in April
2012, the case is currently pending before the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: In re
Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint asserts claims
pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Allegations in the consolidated amended complaint include that the
Company and its officers and directors made untrue statements or
omissions of material fact by issuing inaccurate financial
statements for the fiscal quarter and the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2011 and by failing to disclose information about the
Company's financial controls in the registration statement and
prospectus for the Company's initial public offering of Class A
common stock and in the Company's subsequently-issued earnings
release dated February 8, 2012.

The putative class action lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of
monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in
connection with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and
various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief.  The
plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification on
December 4, 2013.

On March 18, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order setting
deadlines for fact discovery by March 13, 2015, expert discovery
by August 31, 2015, and dispositive motions by October 30, 2015.

On May 2, 2014, defendants filed a motion requesting exclusion of
the opinions of plaintiff's proposed market efficiency expert in
resolving the motion for class certification. The hearing on the
motion to exclude plaintiff's expert is scheduled for September
11, 2014.

Groupon, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company"), which commenced
operations in October 2008, operates online local commerce
marketplaces throughout the world that connect merchants to
consumers by offering goods and services at a discount. The
Company also offers deals on products for which it acts as the
merchant of record.


GROUPON INC: Still Facing In re Groupon Derivative Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, 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 federal and state
purported stockholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers.  The federal purported stockholder derivative lawsuit
was originally filed in April 2012 and a consolidated stockholder
derivative complaint, filed on July 30, 2012, is currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois: In re Groupon Derivative Litigation.  Plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control.

The state derivative cases are currently pending before the
Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois:
Orrego v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on April 5, 2012; and Kim
v. Lefkofsky, et al., was filed on May 25, 2012. The state
derivative complaints generally allege that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly mismanaging the
Company's business by, among other things, failing to utilize
proper accounting controls and, in the case of one of the state
derivative lawsuits, by engaging in alleged insider trading of the
Company's Class A common stock and misappropriating information.
In addition, one state derivative case asserts a claim for unjust
enrichment.

The derivative lawsuits purport to seek to recoup for the Company
an unspecified amount of monetary damages allegedly sustained by
the Company, restitution from defendants, reimbursement for fees
and costs incurred in connection with the actions, including
attorneys' fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-
monetary relief.

On June 20, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion requesting that the court stay the consolidated federal
derivative action pending resolution of the consolidated federal
class actions.  On July 31, 2012, the court granted defendants'
motion in part, and stayed the consolidated federal derivative
action pending a separate resolution of upcoming motions to
dismiss in the consolidated federal class actions.

On June 15, 2012, the state plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate the state derivative actions, which was granted on
July 2, 2012, and on July 5, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel, which
was granted on July 27, 2012.  No consolidated complaint has been
filed in the state derivative action.

On September 14, 2012, the court granted a motion filed by the
parties requesting that the court stay the state derivative
actions pending the federal court's resolution of anticipated
motions to dismiss in the consolidated federal class action.

On April 18, 2013, the state court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved its selection of lead counsel and local counsel for the
purported class.

Following entry of the court's order denying defendants' motions
to dismiss in In re Groupon Securities Litigation, the courts in
both the state and federal derivative actions granted motions
requesting that the respective courts extend the litigation stays
currently in place pending further developments in In re Groupon,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company intends to defend all of the securities and
stockholder derivative lawsuits vigorously.

Groupon, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company"), which commenced
operations in October 2008, operates online local commerce
marketplaces throughout the world that connect merchants to
consumers by offering goods and services at a discount. The
Company also offers deals on products for which it acts as the
merchant of record.


GROUPON INC: Appeal in Mktg & Sales Practices Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, 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 2010, the Company
was named as a defendant in a series of class actions that came to
be consolidated into a single case in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.  The consolidated case is
referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the parties agreed
to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before any determination
had been made on the merits or with respect to class
certification.

Because the case had been filed as a class action, the parties
were required to provide proper notice and obtain court approval
for the settlement. During that process, certain individuals
asserted various objections to the settlement.  The parties to the
case opposed the objections and on December 14, 2012, the district
court approved the settlement over the various objections.
Subsequent to the entry of the order approving settlement, certain
of the objectors filed a notice of appeal, contesting the
settlement and appealing the matter to the Ninth Circuit of the
U.S. Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending.

The Company believes that the settlement is valid and intends to
oppose the appeal.  Plaintiffs also maintain that the settlement
is valid and will be opposing the appeal.  The settlement,
however, is not effective during the pendency of the appeal.

The Company does not know when the appeal will be resolved.
Depending on the outcome of the appeal, it is possible that the
settlement will be rejected, or that there will be further
proceedings in the appellate court or district court, or that the
settlement will be enforced at that time without further
objections or proceedings.

Groupon, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company"), which commenced
operations in October 2008, operates online local commerce
marketplaces throughout the world that connect merchants to
consumers by offering goods and services at a discount. The
Company also offers deals on products for which it acts as the
merchant of record.


HAIN CELESTIAL: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barbara Anderson v. The Hain
Celestial Group Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-01747, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the California
Northern District (San Francisco).  The Central California
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03895-NC to the
proceeding.

Ms. Anderson alleges that Hain misrepresented its retail food
products by including "All Natural" labels, even though the
products contained artificial ingredients and extensively
processed ingredients, such as "evaporated cane juice."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

The Defendant is represented by:

          Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq.
          Kathleen Brenna Roney, Esq.
          Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Esq.
          Maya Ingram, Esq.
          William L. Stern, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-6626
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: cvetesi@mofo.com
                  KRoney@mofo.com
                  lwongchenko@mofo.com
                  mingram@mofo.com
                  wstern@mofo.com


HOME RETENTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Gregory, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Home Retention Services, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05366-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., August 27, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit in California Over Stalling Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai after owners of the
2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe claim Hyundai knew about a stalling
defect on the vehicles, but waited years to issue a recall.

Julia Reniger and Greg Bataglia claim the stalling defect can
suddenly cut power to the brakes and steering, which increases the
risk of a crash, according to a complaint filed Aug. 8 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Hyundai initiated a "Service Campaign" to address the problem
earlier in August, but it did not actually fix the problem,
according to the suit.

"The stalling defect has been documented to occur under a
multitude of driving conditions," the complaint states.  "Some
owners have reported the class vehicles shutting off completely
without warning when driving at low speeds, turning or coming to a
stop."

The plaintiffs claim some owners have also reported their vehicles
shutting down while driving at full speed on city streets and
highways.  Stalls have been reported to occur on both uphill and
downhill grades, when accelerating and/or decelerating, when at a
stop and even when going in reverse, according to the suit.

"Accounts posted on the Internet by Class Vehicle owners over a
period of several years vividly illustrate the extreme danger
posed by the Stalling Defect," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim Hyundai says it believes the vehicles can
stall when the driver is braking at low speed, which can
momentarily reduce the engine RPM.  In combination with an
additional, simultaneous load on the engine, the reduced RPM can
cause the engine to stall, the complaint says.

"Consumers who have complained to [the] defendants concerning the
stalling defect have either been told that nothing was wrong with
their vehicles, that the problem could not be replicated and
therefore could not be addressed or provided with ineffective
'fixes' that failed to solve the problem," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim the defendant intentionally concealed this
information from consumers to protect their own financial
interests.

Hyundai also provided owners with "false or misleading"
reassurances that the vehicles were safe to drive, according to
the suit.

Subsequent to purchase, Ms. Reniger's vehicle stalled on multiple
occasions under a multitude of driving conditions, she says.  The
first stall occurred within a few months of purchase, she says.

Each time Ms. Reniger's vehicle stalled it experienced an
accompanying loss of power to the steering and brakes, she says.

Ms. Reniger brought her vehicle to Mission Hills Hyundai three
times during March to have the stalling defect repaired and
multiple "fixes" were attempted including, among other things,
cleaning the throttle body and changing the battery, she says.

Each time, however, shortly after she picked up her vehicle, it
stalled again, according to the suit.

"Because the Hyundai dealer was unable to remedy the stalling
defect after repeated attempts, and the defect was a serious
safety issue which impacted plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her
vehicle, plaintiff subsequently traded in her vehicle," the
complaint states.

Had Ms. Reniger known of the stalling defect, she would never have
purchased the subject vehicle.

The plaintiffs claim Hyundai violated California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Business code and breached its implied
warranties.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, an order requiring
the defendant to perform a safety recall and compensatory damages.
They are represented by Lionel Z. Glancy and Mark S. Greenstone of
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Laurel Beeler.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 3:14-cv-03612


INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Interns File Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that two
former interns of International Creative Management have submitted
a motion for class certification in a lawsuit that has the
potential of developing into a significant one on the internship
front.

In papers lodged at a New York federal court on Aug. 26, Kimberly
Behzadi and Jason Rindenau say they weren't paid to perform work
normally assigned to agents or their assistants.  Among the
assigned duties was "script coverage," the process of reading
scripts and summarizing them, and "coverage reports," or
condensing information in scripts for use in casting and client
meetings.  The two former interns also say they did administrative
work ranging from doing agents' expenses to maintaining a calendar
of comedy events for agents.

They are now looking to provide notice to other former ICM interns
who might join the proposed class action.  Ms. Behzadi says she
observed more than 30 unpaid interns during her time at ICM in
early 2012.  Mr. Rindenau witnessed approximately 45 interns the
previous summer.  The law firm of Outten & Golden, representing
the two, wants ICM to provide information about other interns.

Unlike many of the other internship lawsuits, the ICM case kicked
off with the talent agency's effort to curtail the claims by
citing an agreement to arbitrate.

In late August, ICM submitted a motion to dismiss, which argued
that Ms. Behzadi had disregarded her obligations under the
arbitration agreement by filing a complaint in federal court.  The
agency argued that her claims were within the scope of
arbitration.

However, Ms. Behzadi's lawyer is opposing the motion on the basis
that her agreement came after she was an intern, when she accepted
a paid position at ICM as a "floater assistant." (According to her
declaration, she was then promoted to Assistant in February 2013,
reporting to two agents, before she was laid off last December.)
As such, her arbitration agreement is said to have covered
"prospective -- not retroactive" employment claims.

The arbitration agreement is also slammed by plaintiffs' lawyers
as "substantively and procedurally unconscionable under California
law because it imposes a cost-sharing regime that is contrary to
Behzadi's right to fee-shifting under the [Fair Labor Standards
Act] and New York Labor Law."

In its own papers, ICM argues that "simply because some of
Behzadi's allegations pre-date the execution of the Arbitration
Agreement is of no consequence," citing one 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals ruling (Arrigo) as precedent.

The motion to dismiss was lodged, though, before the lawsuit was
amended to add Mr. Rindenau as a proposed class representative.
The addition of a second former ICM intern could provide some
cover for the lawsuit to proceed regardless of what the judge has
to say about Ms. Behzadi's situation.

The proposed class action figures to be impacted by Fox's pending
appeal of a decision giving victory to two former interns who
worked on the film Black Swan, but the looming appellate showdown
didn't stop the advance of another internship class action against
Viacom.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: No Decision Yet on Motion for Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives of a purported class of persons allegedly harmed
by video lottery terminal (VLT) gaming filed on April 26, 2012, an
action in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador.
Atlantic Lottery Corporation has impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada,
Inc., International Game Technology and other third party
defendants seeking indemnification for any judgment recovered
against Atlantic Lottery Corporation in the main action.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification on
September 17, 2012.

International Game Technology 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 Court has
decided to address the motion for certification in two phases.
Under Phase 1, the Court will determine whether the Plaintiffs
have pleaded a cause of action. Hearings on Phase 1 were held on
June 6 and 7, 2013. The Court has not yet issued a decision.

Should the Court conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of
action, then, under Phase 2, the Court would determine the
appropriateness of certification of the putative class.

International Game Technology is a global gaming company
specializing in the design, development, manufacture, and
marketing of casino-style gaming equipment, systems technology,
and game content across multiple platforms -- land-based, online
real-money and online social.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Shareholder Actions Over GTECH Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology 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 since the
announcement of the Company's entry into a merger agreement with
GTECH S.p.A. ("GTECH"), various putative shareholder class action
complaints have been filed by purported shareholders of the
Company.

As of August 1, 2014, the Company has received the following
complaints, each filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada for Clark County:  Klein v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704058-B, filed July 18, 2014;
Zak v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704095-C, filed July 21, 2014; Steinberg v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704098-C, filed July 21, 2014;
Kanter v. Satre, et al., Case No. A-14-704101-C, filed July 21,
2014; Tong v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-
14-704140-B, filed July 21, 2014; MacDougall v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704147-C, filed July 22, 2014;
Longo v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704277-B, filed July 23, 2014; Kitchen v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704286, filed July 23, 2014;
Lerman v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704287-C, filed July 23, 2014; Gonzalez, et al. v. International
Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704288-C, filed July 23,
2014; Krol v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-
14-704330-C, filed July 24, 2014; Irving Firemen's Relief &
Retirement Fund v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No.
A-14-704334-B, filed July 24, 2014; Neumann v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704393-B, filed July 25, 2014;
Taber v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-
704403-B, filed July 25, 2014; Iron Workers District Council of
Tennessee Valley & Vicinity Welfare, Pension & Annuity Plans v.
International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704409-C,
filed July 25, 2014; Aberman v. International Game Technology, et
al., Case No. A-14-704454-B, filed July 27, 2014; Epstein, et al.
v. International Game Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704509-B,
filed July 28, 2014; and Lowinger v. International Game
Technology, et al., Case No. A-14-704759-B, filed July 30, 2014.

The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all similarly
situated shareholders of the Company and generally allege that the
members of the IGT board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to IGT shareholders by approving the proposed merger
transaction for inadequate consideration, entering into a merger
agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices and
failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to IGT
shareholders.  The complaints also allege claims against IGT and
GTECH, and, in some cases, certain of GTECH's subsidiaries, for
aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against
the completion of the transaction, or, alternatively, damages in
favor of the plaintiffs and the class in the event that the
transaction is completed.  Certain of the complaints also seek, in
the event that the transaction is completed, rescission of the
transaction or rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and
the class.  IGT intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in these lawsuits.

International Game Technology is a global gaming company
specializing in the design, development, manufacture, and
marketing of casino-style gaming equipment, systems technology,
and game content across multiple platforms -- land-based, online
real-money and online social.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Action in Discovery Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper 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 in September 2010,
eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and
Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class
action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v.
Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February
2004 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and
thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged
class is all persons who purchased containerboard products
directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United
States during the period February 2004 to November 2010. The
complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual
damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.
Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in
the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously
defending the action.

However, because the federal action is in the discovery stage, the
Company said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Tennessee Action in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper 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 in January 2011,
International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International
Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and
fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present.
Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class
of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products,
damages and costs, including attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously
defending the action.

However, because the Tennessee action is in a preliminary stage,
the Company said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: U.S. Cases in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------
International Paper 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 beginning in late
December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum board filed a number
of purported class action complaints alleging civil violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-Inland and a number of
other gypsum manufacturers.

The complaints were similar and alleged that the gypsum
manufacturers conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1)
raise prices of gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the
present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of
issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and
limiting order fulfillment. The alleged classes are all persons
who purchased gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products
directly or indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek
to recover unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys' fees
on behalf of the purported classes.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013.  The
amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement
beginning in or before September 2011.

The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to
vigorously defend the consolidated actions.

Because the U.S. cases are in the discovery phase, the Company
said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate its maximum
reasonably possible loss.

"However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable,"
the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases in Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
International Paper 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 in September 2013,
purported class actions were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada and
Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of the
Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and injunctive
relief.

The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and to
vigorously defend the litigation.

Because the Canadian cases are in a preliminary stage, the Company
said it is unable to predict an outcome or estimate its maximum
reasonably possible loss.

"However, we do not believe that any material loss is probable,"
the Company said.


J&R BAKER: Sued by EEOC Over Discrimination vs. African Americans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J&R Baker Farms, LLC,
and J&R Farms Partnership, Case No. 7:14-cv-00136-HL (M.D. Ga.,
August 28, 2014) is an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964
to correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of
national origin or race and to provide appropriate relief to
Jeffrey Adams, Kathern Bentley, Jimmy Boatwright, Maleah Caldwell,
Jonathan A. Daniels, Fiona Dawson, Rachel Flemming, Mary Jo
Fuller, Johnny Gary, Denise Hopkins, Danny King, Eric B. Martin,
Marcus D. Moore, Tyree Sinclair, Dana Spradley, Kashonda Walker
(Sinclair), Andrea N. Ware, Victor B. Williams, Stephanie Jackson,
Ashley Banks, Derrick Green, Kira Huntley, Tekoy Hutto, Domarnique
Moore, Jamar Moore, and other similarly situated aggrieved
individuals ("class members").

The class members worked for the Defendants in and around Colquitt
County, Georgia, from September 2010 to the present and who were
adversely affected by those practices.

The EEOC alleges, among other things, that the Defendants violated
the Civil Rights Act when they engaged in a pattern or practice of
unlawful discrimination by subjecting American or African American
workers to different terms and conditions of employment based upon
their national origin or race.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency of the
United States of America charged with the administration,
interpretation and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act.

The Defendants have continuously been a privately held partnership
doing business in the state of Georgia and maintain their
principal place of business in Norman Park, Georgia.  The
Defendants have continuously been an employer engaged in the
packing and production of produce in around Colquitt County,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Dawkins, Esq.
          Ottrell Ferrell Edwards, Esq.
          U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
          Atlanta District Office
          100 Alabama Street, SW, Suite 4R30
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 562-6818
          Facsimile: (404) 562-6905
          E-mail: robert.dawkins@eeoc.gov
                  ottrell.edwards@eeoc.gov


KELLOGG BROWN: Removed "Totten" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1408596, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01766 to the
proceeding.

In his complaint, Plaintiff David L. Totten alleges seven causes
of action, including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at
the minimum wage rate and failure to pay overtime wages for daily
overtime and all time worked.

Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC, is incorporated in Delaware with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Houston,
Texas.  Molycorp Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Greenwood
Village, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee R. Feldman, Esq.
          Alicia Olivares, Esq.
          Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq.
          FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2490
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-7812
          Facsimile: (310) 552-7814
          E-mail: lee@leefeldmanlaw.com
                  alicia@leefeldmanlaw.com
                  leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Karen Pazzani, Esq.
          MILLER LAW GROUP
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1375
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 943-8500
          Facsimile: (310) 943-8501
          E-mail: kjp@millerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Samuel Zurik III, Esq.
          Rachel E. Linzy, Esq.
          THE KULLMAN FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1600
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 524-4162
          Facsimile: (504) 596-4189
          E-mail: SZ@kullmanlaw.com
                  REL@kullmanlaw.com


LANNETT COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Lannett Company, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 14-cv-
05008, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Lannett securities between September 10,
2013 and July 16, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lanett securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 27, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Lannett develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes
generic versions of branded pharmaceutical products in the United
States.  The Company sells its pharmaceutical products to generic
pharmaceutical distributors, drug wholesalers, chain drug
retailers, private label distributors, mail-order pharmacies,
other pharmaceutical manufacturers, managed care organizations,
hospital buying groups, governmental entities, and health
maintenance organizations.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was fixing,
maintaining, and controlling prices of digoxin in violation of
Connecticut antitrust laws; (2) the Company was allocating and
dividing customers and territories with competitors relating to
the sale of digoxin in violation of Connecticut antitrust laws;
(3) the Company's anticompetitive practices subjected Lannett to
heightened regulatory scrutiny, including possible investigation
by the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General ("CTAG"); and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Lannett's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 16, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed a
Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing that the Company received
interrogatories and a subpoena from the State of Connecticut
Office of the Attorney General concerning its investigation into
the Company's pricing and customer division of digoxin.

On this news, shares of Lannett fell $8.05 or over 17%, on
unusually heavy volume, to close at $39.04 on June 16, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for November 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Aug. 27 issued a statement
regarding the In re Longtop Financial Technologies Limited
Securities Litigation (NYSE:LFT):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE LONGTOP FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 11 Civ. 3658 (SAS)
ECF Case

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To:       All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Longtop Financial Technologies Limited American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") during the period from February 21,
2008 through May 17, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby
(the "Class").

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 Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS
ACTION.  A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
("Notice") is currently being mailed to nominees and known Class
members.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice,
you may obtain a copy by contacting the Notice Administrator at:
Longtop Financial Technologies Limited Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street,
Suite 3, Media, PA  19063, (866) 274-4004,
info@strategicclaims.net

You may also obtain a copy of the Notice from the website
www.strategicclaims.net

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel:  Gregory M. Castaldo and Kimberly A. Justice of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
Radnor, PA  19087, (610) 667-7706, info@ktmc.com

If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in
Longtop ADSs.  You will automatically be included in the Class.
If you are a Class member and do not exclude yourself from the
Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action,
including all past, present and future orders and judgments of the
Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of the Court in this Action, and you will
not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than October 3, 2014 in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.  Pursuant to
Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
within the Court's discretion as to whether a second opportunity
to request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a
settlement or judgment in the Action.

The trial of this Action has been scheduled by the Court to begin
on November 17, 2014.  To conform the case to the best evidence
obtained in discovery, at trial Lead Plaintiffs will pursue claims
based on Defendant Derek Palaschuk's alleged misrepresentations
during the period February 10, 2010 through May 17, 2011.  Only
shareholders who purchased Longtop ADSs during this time period
will be entitled to share in any recovery Lead Plaintiffs achieve
against Defendant Palaschuk at trial.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator.

Dated: July 29, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court
For the Southern District of New York


MBZ COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Goncalves, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MBZ Collections, LLC, Marisela Zecca and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 2:14-cv-05422-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., August 28, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: 3 Class Action Lawsuits Filed
------------------------------------------------------
Measurement Specialties, 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 July 2014, three
separate class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of
shareholders of the Company against the Company, certain present
and former directors of the Company and TE Connectivity Ltd.
alleging violations of fiduciary duties in connection with TE's
proposed acquisition of the Company.

It is not possible at this time to predict the precise timing or
probable outcome of any lawsuits related to the proposed
acquisition of the Company by TE and the Company cannot make a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of losses at
this time, the Company said.

Measurement Specialties is a global leader in the design,
development and manufacture of sensors and sensor-based systems
for original equipment manufacturers ("OEM") and end users, based
on a broad portfolio of proprietary technology and typically
characterized by the MEAS brand name.


MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Colorado Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp 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 February 2012, a
purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal
District Court against Molycorp and certain of its current and
former executive officers alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on
July 31, 2012 also names most of Molycorp's Board members and some
of its stockholders as defendants, along with other persons and
entities.

The Company said, "That Complaint alleges 18 claims for relief
arising out of alleged: (1) securities fraud in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, during the
proposed class period from February 11, 2011 through November 10,
2011; and (2) materially untrue or misleading statements in
registration statements and prospectuses for our public offering
of preferred stock in February 2011 and of common stock in June
2011, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933."

"Our motion to dismiss that Complaint was filed in October 2012
and is pending. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and
we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims,"
the Company said.

Molycorp is a rare earths producer that operates a vertically
integrated, global supply chain that combines a world-class rare
earths resource with manufacturing facilities on three continents
that can produce a wide variety of custom engineered, advanced
rare earth materials from all of the lanthanide elements, plus
yttrium.


MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss NY Class Action Due to Be Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp 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 August 2013, two
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

"A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on May 19,
2014, also names us and certain of our current and former
executive officers. The Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint alleges claims for relief arising out of alleged
securities fraud in violation of the Exchange Act, during a
purported class period from February 21, 2012 through October 15,
2013," the Company said.

"Our Motion to Dismiss the consolidated lawsuit is due to be filed
on August 13, 2014. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit,
and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these
claims."

Molycorp is a rare earths producer that operates a vertically
integrated, global supply chain that combines a world-class rare
earths resource with manufacturing facilities on three continents
that can produce a wide variety of custom engineered, advanced
rare earth materials from all of the lanthanide elements, plus
yttrium.


MONTREAL: Judge Certifies Eight Kettling Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that a Superior Court judge has certified
eight class action lawsuits leveled against the City of Montreal
by a wide variety of protesters.

The lawsuits concern eight different instances of kettling by
Montreal police between 2012 and 2014.  The suit says the
demonstrations were peaceful, yet police rounded up protesters and
allegedly detained them in an abusive fashion, despite there being
no criminal activity.  Protesters allege they were then detained
abusively; hands tie-wrapped, unable to move, sometimes in the
cold, and prevented from using the bathroom.

"It's alleged they were arrested for a duration of between an hour
to six hours. In one of the cases actually the protesters didn't
even get tickets after, they were just held and then let go," said
attorney Sibel Ataogul.

An estimated 1,600 people are included in the eight class action
lawsuits.  Together, the suits are asking the city for C$21
million in damages.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Aug. 28 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
consumers who purchased or leased certain model year 2013-2014
Nissan and Infiniti vehicles.  The complaint arises out of a
dangerous defect in the affected vehicles' occupant classification
system ("OCS") which causes the front passenger airbag in these
vehicles to deactivate despite the fact that a passenger is
sitting in the seat.  This puts the front seat passenger at
greater risk of injury in the event of a crash.  The complaint
asserts claims for, among other things, breach of warranty, as
well as violations of the New York consumer protection statutes
and the Magnusson Moss Act.

The litigation is captioned Zaccagnino v. Nissan North America,
Inc., 1:14 cv 3690.

If you now own or lease one of the following Nissan or Infiniti
models and you wish to discuss this action or have any questions,
please contact Greg Stone at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, or via e-mail at
gstone@whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "Nissan Defect
Litigation."

2013-2014 Nissan Altima

2013-2014 Nissan Leaf

2013-2014 Nissan Pathfinder

2013-2014 Nissan Sentra

2013 Nissan NV200 cargo van (also known as the Nissan taxi)

2013-2014 Nissan Maxima

2013 Nissan Rogue

2013 Nissan Versa

2013 Infiniti JX35

2014 Infiniti Q50

2014 Infiniti QX60 cars

2013 Infiniti FX35

2012-2013 Infiniti G37

2013 Infiniti JX

2014 Infiniti QX50

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
consumer and class action litigation in state and federal courts
across the country.  The firm has over 70 attorneys and offices in
New York, Chicago and San Diego.


OASIS PETROLEUM: Defending Against Train Derailment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2013, a freight train operated by Montreal, Maine and
Atlantic Railway ("MMA") carrying crude oil (the "Train") derailed
in Lac-M‚gantic, Quebec. In March 2014, Oasis Petroleum Inc. and
OP LLC were added to a group of over fifty named defendants,
including other crude oil producers as well as the Canadian
Pacific Railway, MMA and certain of its affiliates, owners and
transloaders of the crude oil carried by the Train, several
lessors of tank cars, and the Attorney General of Canada, in a
motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize a class-action
lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, a
well as costs for claims arising out of the derailment of the
Train (Yannick Gagne, etc., et al. v. Rail World, Inc., etc., et
al., Case No. 48006000001132). The motion generally alleges
wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the
proper and safe transportation of crude oil.

The Company believes that all claims against Oasis Petroleum Inc.
and OP LLC in connection with the derailment of the Train in Lac-
M‚gantic, Quebec are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them, Oasis Petroleum 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.

Oasis Petroleum is an independent exploration and production
company focused on the acquisition and development of
unconventional oil and natural gas resources in the Williston
Basin.


PALISADES COLLECTION: Sued in Arkansas Alleging FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry L. Reed, for himself and all Arkansas Residents similarly
situated v. Palisades Collection LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00209-DPM
(E.D. Ark., August 27, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq.
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          The Rozelle-Murphy House
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com
                  scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Daniel Odell Turner, Esq.
          Todd Martin Turner, Esq.
          ARNOLD, BATSON, TURNER & TURNER, P.A.
          Post Office Box 480
          Arkadelphia, AR 71923
          Telephone: (870) 246-9844
          E-mail: dan@arnoldbatsonturner.com
                  todd@abtt.us

               - and -

          Joel G. Hargis, Esq.
          CRAWLEY & DELOACHE, PLLC
          533 West Washington
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 972-1127
          Facsimile: (501) 915-0410
          E-mail: joel@crawleydeloache.com

               - and -

          Kathy A. Cruz, Esq.
          CRUZ LAW FIRM, PLC
          1325 Central Avenue
          Hot Springs, AR 71901
          Telephone: (501) 624-3600
          E-mail: kathycruzlaw@gmail.com


PELLA CORP: "Dineen" Suit Consolidated in Designer Windows MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Dineen, et al. v. Pella
Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-01306, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston).
The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
03479-DCN to the proceeding.

The case is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: Pella
Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2514.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Pella's Architect Series and Designer
Series aluminum clad windows are defective in that they permit
water to enter behind the windows, resulting in premature wood rot
and deterioration and causing damage to both the windows and other
property, including drywall, window frames, and floor coverings.
More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the windows all
suffer from a defect in the design of the sill extrusion and sill
nailing fin attachment as well as a defect in the design of
allowing a gap between the jamb gasket and the sill gasket.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John P. Mandler, Esq.
          FAEGRE, BAKER LAW FIRM
          90 South Seventh Street
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: john.mandler@faegrebd.com


PELLA CORP: "Naparala" Suit Moved From Wisconsin to S. Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ted Naparala, Sr. v. Pella
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00581, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston).
The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
03465-DCN to the proceeding.

The case is brought on behalf of consumers, who own structures
containing Pella Architect and Designer series windows.  The
lawsuit concerns Pella's alleged failure to disclose to purchasers
of its Windows, the builders of the purchaser's structures, and
owners of the Windows, that the windows were defective in material
and workmanship as a result of the design and manufacturing
practices of Pella.  As a result of the alleged defect there is a
high probability those Windows will fail, and likely already have
developed wood rot in the Window sashes, according to the
complaint.

Pella Corporation is an Iowa Corporation.  The Company designs and
manufactures the Windows.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Ave., Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: jeff@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1320B
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market St., Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John P. Mandler, Esq.
          FAEGRE, BAKER LAW FIRM
          90 South Seventh Street
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: john.mandler@faegrebd.com


PFIZER INC: Class Action Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased, Paid for, Administered and/or Reimbursed for
Branded or Generic Gabapentin Sold by Pfizer and Its Subsidiaries
A Class Action Settlement Could Affect You

A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against Pfizer Inc. and Warner-Lambert Company LLC (collectively
"Defendants") regarding the marketing of the prescription drug
Neurontin.  The lawsuit claims that Defendants' marketing of the
drug Neurontin violated federal law.  Defendants deny they have
done anything wrong.  Both sides have agreed to the Settlement to
resolve the controversy and to avoid the cost and expense of
further litigation.  The lawsuit is not about the safety of
Neurontin.

Who is included? Third-Party Payors ("TPPs") in the United States
and its territories who purchased, paid for, administered, and/or
reimbursed for Neurontin sold by Defendants or gabapentin sold by
Greenstone LLC at any time from their first sale in the United
States through the Effective Date of the Settlement for any
purpose other than resale.

What does the Settlement Provide?  Defendants will pay $325
million into a Settlement Fund to settle TPP claims.  Class
Counsel will ask for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed
one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus interest, litigation
expenses and compensation awards to the Class Representatives.
After these deductions, the remainder of the Settlement Fund will
be distributed proportionally to Class Members based on the amount
of purchases claimed.

What can I get from the Settlement?  The amount of money you are
eligible to receive will depend on how much you paid and/or
reimbursed for Neurontin (or gabapentin sold by Greenstone LLC)
and on how much other Class Members paid and/or reimbursed.  Some
members of the Class who belong to a subclass of TPPs will be paid
at a 1.80 multiplier of actual purchases in recognition of the
fact that members of this subclass timely filed claims against
Defendants that were not asserted in the class lawsuit.

How do I get a payment? You must submit a Claim Form
electronically on this website by October 15, 2014 to get a
payment.  Class Members submitting claims for purchases over
$300,000 must provide documentation with their Claim Form.

What are my other rights? If you do not want to be legally bound
by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement.
The exclusion deadline is September 30, 2014.  If you stay in the
Settlement you will not be able to sue the Defendants for any
claims relating to the Settlement.  You will be bound by all the
Court's orders.  However, if you stay in the Settlement, you may
object to all or part of it by September 30, 2014 and you may
appear at the hearing described below in support of your
objection.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 22, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for
attorneys' fees.  The Court has appointed attorneys to represent
the Class.  You may also hire your own attorney, at your own
expense.

For more information or a Claim Form: 1-855-793-1372
www.NeurontinSettlement.com


PHOENIX COMPANIES: "Strougo" Litigation Dismised in June
--------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended Decemer 31, 2013, that Robert Strougo, et
al. filed on April 17, 2013, a complaint against the Company,
James D. Wehr and Peter A. Hofmann in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut (Case No. 13-CV-547-RNC)
(the "Strougo Litigation"). On November 1, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint joining Michael E. Hanrahan as an
additional individual defendant.

The plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of themselves and a class
defined as all persons (other than the defendants) who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 5, 2009
and August 14, 2013 for claims arising out of the Company's
announced intent to restate previously filed financial statements.
The plaintiffs allege that, throughout the class period, the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. The
plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees and other litigation
costs.

On June 2, 2014, prior to moving to certify a class, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to
the named plaintiffs.

The Phoenix Companies, Inc., is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware.  Its operating subsidiaries provide life insurance and
annuity products through independent agents and financial
advisors.  Its principal insurance company subsidiaries are
Phoenix Life Insurance Company ("Phoenix Life"), domiciled in New
York, and PHL Variable Insurance Company ("PHL Variable"),
domiciled in Connecticut.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Court Denied Fleisher Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended Decemer 31, 2013, that by order dated July
12, 2013, two separate classes were certified in an action pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (C.A. No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.))
brought by Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the "Fleisher
Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, against Phoenix Life.

By subsequent order dated August 26, 2013, the court decertified
one of the classes.

The complaint in the Fleisher Litigation, filed on November 18,
2011, challenges Cost of Insurance rate adjustments implemented by
Phoenix Life, which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy
language permitting such adjustments. The complaint seeks damages
for breach of contract.

The class certified in the court's July 12, 2013 order, as limited
by the court's August 26, 2013 order, is limited to holders of
Phoenix Life policies issued in New York and subject to New York
law.

By order dated April 29, 2014, the court denied Martin Fleisher's
motion for summary judgment in the Fleisher Litigation its
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part Phoenix
Life's motion for summary judgment.

The Phoenix Companies, Inc., is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware.  Its operating subsidiaries provide life insurance and
annuity products through independent agents and financial
advisors.  Its principal insurance company subsidiaries are
Phoenix Life Insurance Company ("Phoenix Life"), domiciled in New
York, and PHL Variable Insurance Company ("PHL Variable"),
domiciled in Connecticut.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Stayed TCPA Litigation
------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, 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
Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class
action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent.  On
December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters
into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court").  On
November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").  On May
20, 2014, the Court stayed this litigation until such time as the
FCC has ruled on various petitions concerning the TCPA.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is a financial and
business service company operating principally in the United
States and the United Kingdom.  The Company's primary business is
the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of defaulted
consumer receivables. The Company also services receivables on
behalf of clients and provides class action claims settlement
recovery services and related payment processing to corporate
clients.


PRIMERICA LIFE: Removed "Hawk" Insurance Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Larry Hawk v. Primerica Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 30-2014-00734284, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-
01374-CJC-SH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lyle W. Cook, Esq.
          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          William A. Kershaw, Esq.
          KERSHAW CUTTER AND RATINOFF LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
          E-mail: lcook@kcrlegal.com
                  stalley@kcrlegal.com
                  wkershaw@kcrlegal.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          David Allen Taylor, Esq.
          Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
          Sean Eskovitz, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9223
          Facsimile: (213) 683-4023
          E-mail: david.taylor@mto.com
                  glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
                  sean.eskovitz@mto.com


REXNORD CORP: Insurer Paid Lump Sum in Exchange for Release
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord 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 Company's
subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC ("Zurn
Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of individual
and class action lawsuits in various United States courts. The
plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX
plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation.  The settlement
is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently.

The settlement received final court approval in February 2013, and
utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is capped at $20 million,
and is funded in installments over the seven year period based on
claim activity and minimum funding criteria.  The settlement also
covers class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses
totaling $8.5 million, which were paid in the first quarter of
fiscal 2014.

Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the
Company's defense in the above referenced proceedings. The
Company, however, reached a settlement agreement with its insurer,
whereby the insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a
release of future exposure related to this liability.

Rexnord is a growth-oriented, multi-platform industrial company
with what it believes are leading market shares and highly trusted
brands that serve a diverse array of global end-markets.


ROUGE VALLEY: May Face Class Action Over Patient Info Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the privacy breach that compromised the
information of thousands of new mothers at the Rouge Valley
Hospital in Scarborough continues to grow.

Personal data of 8,300 new moms sold to financial firm in hospital
security breach

Thousands more are learning that their privacy was breached at
another hospital in the Rouge Valley health network.  The news has
one mother worried about how her personal information may have
been used.

First-time mother Gayle Smith has been taking in the joys of
motherhood with her daughter Layla.  But on Aug. 27 she received a
letter.  It said her personal information may have been used by
two staff members at the hospital where she had her baby.

"It's definitely unsettling to know that our information is out
there," she told CBC News.  "I definitely would be looking at the
hospital to take steps so that it doesn't happen again," she said.

More than 6,000 mothers who gave birth at the Rouge Valley Ajax
and Pickering site between July 2009 and April 2014 were notified
of the privacy breach.

Their information may have been used to sell registered education
savings plans (RESPs) to new parents.

"Thinking back I did receive a call, probably about a month after
my daughter was born, and they were trying to sell me RESPs," said
Smith.

Earlier this summer 8,000 other mothers at Rouge Valley's
Scarborough location received the same troubling news.

A class-action lawsuit is already in the works.

Officials at Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner's
office say they are working with the hospitals and will release
findings on their investigation this fall.


SC ACADEMY: Sued by Insurer Over Medical Certification Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SC Academy Holdings,
Inc., SC Academy, Inc., Culinary Academy of Long Island, Inc. and
Culinary Academy of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07025
(S.D.N.Y., August 28, 2014) is an action for declaratory judgment
concerning the Defendants' claims for insurance coverage under 12
insurance policies issued by Philadelphia relating to seven
lawsuits (the "Medical Certification Suits") initiated by students
with respect to certain medical industry-related technology
programs, including the alleged failure to provide certain
certifications as promised.

The Defendants have demanded that Philadelphia defend and
potentially indemnify them with respect to the Medical
Certification Suits under certain policies of insurance issued by
Philadelphia, according to the complaint.  Philadelphia, thus,
files the lawsuit in order to obtain a declaration as to its
obligation to defend or indemnify its insureds with respect to the
Medical Certification Suits, which include a class action lawsuit.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business located in Bala
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

SC Academy Holdings, Inc. and SC Academy, Inc. are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Wellesley, Massachusetts.  Culinary
Academy of Long Island, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive office located in New York City.  Culinary
Academy of New York, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive office located in Syosset, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher T. Bradley, Esq.
          MARSHALL CONWAY & BRADLEY, P.C.
          45 Broadway, Suite 740
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 619-4444
          Facsimile: (212) 962-2647
          E-mail: mcw@mcwpc.com

               - and -

          Katelin B. O'Rourke Gorman, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          225 Liberty Street, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 422-0202
          Facsimile: (212) 422-0925
          E-mail: katelin.gorman@sedgwicklaw.com

               - and -

          Martin J. O'Leary, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          333 Bush Street, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 627-1463
          E-mail: martin.oleary@sedgwicklaw.com


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Motions to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games 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 complaints
challenging the merger with WMS Industries Inc. were filed in
early 2013 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois. The actions are putative
class actions filed on behalf of WMS stockholders.

The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and
approval of the merger and in connection with their public
disclosures concerning the merger. The complaints allege that
other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and
certain affiliates of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and
abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs sought equitable
relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the
acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other
costs.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs
in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware
Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with
the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the
consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions have been transferred to Cook
County. All of the Illinois actions have been consolidated in Cook
County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH
3540).

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion
for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on
the merger. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in the
Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions
in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for
preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote in return for WMS's agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the merger. WMS made those
supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on April 29, 2013.

The plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed a claim for interim
attorney fees of $0.85 million. In November 2013, the court
granted the Company's motion to stay the plaintiffs' claim for an
interim award of attorney fees.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an
amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged
aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which
is pending.

The Company believes the claims in the Illinois and Delaware
actions are without merit.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Final Approval of Settlement in "Conlee" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games 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 May 2011, a
putative class action was filed against WMS Industries Inc. and
certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee. In October
2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit
seeking unspecified damages.

As amended, the lawsuit alleged that, during the period from
September 21, 2010 to August 4, 2011 (the date WMS announced its
2011 fiscal year financial results), WMS made material
misstatements and omitted material information related to its 2011
fiscal year guidance in violation of federal securities laws.

WMS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in December
2011 and, in July 2012, the Court granted the motion without
prejudice.

In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed a further amended
complaint, which WMS moved to dismiss in October 2012. In April
2013, the District Court granted WMS's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.

In May 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  In October 2013, the
parties advised the court that they had reached a proposed
settlement on a class basis and sought the District Court's
approval of the proposed settlement.

In January 2014, the District Court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement. In May 2014, final approval of the settlement
was received and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

"The settlement did not have a material impact on our results of
operations," the Company said.


SILVER STATE: Six Insurance Brokers File New Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Roerink, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reports that a group of
six insurance brokers are headlining a new class action lawsuit
filed against the Silver State Exchange and the tech contractor
Xerox.  The class represents at least 1,200 insurance brokers who
say the exchange and Xerox owe them money for enrolling Nevada
residents into health plans offered on the exchange, said Matthew
Callister, legal counsel for the insurance brokers.

Agents or brokers who enrolled consumers into health plans were
entitled to a commission.  But due to glitch-ridden payment and
billing software for the exchange, they never received
compensation.

Xerox "repeatedly failed" to forward information from "thousands
of Nevada brokers and agents to the selected insurance carriers,"
according to the lawsuit, ". . . thereby denying brokers and
agents commissions to which they were entitled."

"The vast majority of brokers have not been compensated,"
Mr. Callister said.

The exchange board fired Xerox but will be working with the
company until April.  The relationship began in 2012 when the
exchange awarded Xerox what ultimately became a $75 million
contract.  Xerox was hired to build software to enroll Nevada
consumers and create a payment processing system for distributing
compensation to insurance companies, which were then supposed to
pay brokers.

Nevada was the only state to build its own payment and billing
infrastructure rather than having insurance companies handle it.

Having the state collect payments from consumers has been a
principal complaint of brokers since the exchange launched in
October.  Insurance companies traditionally collected money from
consumers and then paid brokers.  But Xerox's system changed that.

"It's another example of an inept system that fails," said Las
Vegas insurance broker Pat Casale.

No broker has been more vocal about the failures of the exchange
than Mr. Casale.  He's spent countless unpaid hours working with
state and Xerox officials to enroll Nevadans who paid for coverage
but didn't receive it.

Mr. Casale recently received his first check for the Nevada Health
Co-Op after spending months enrolling consumers into their plans
without getting paid.  He said other brokers haven't been as
lucky.  One broker, he said, has enrolled 40 Nevadans and not
received any compensation.

"You're working and putting in hours and you still have to chase
your money," he said.

The lawsuit from the brokers is the latest legal action taken
against the exchange and Xerox.  Mr. Callister is legal counsel in
another class action lawsuit representing Nevadans who claim they
paid but didn't receive coverage.  The Las Vegas Sun asked Xerox
in June how many consumers paid but didn't receive coverage.  The
company's response: "We're not at liberty" to disclose.

Nevada was one of 17 states to build its own exchange as a way to
comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Gov. Brian Sandoval was the only Republican governor whose state
opted to build its own exchange.  He and other state leaders were
leery of using the federal system, healthcare.gov.

Mr. Sandoval's office was warned of serious flaws in the software
that runs the exchange in the weeks before its Oct. 1 launch,
according to an internal report from an outside auditor.  But the
exchange still opened for business.

For the exchange's upcoming enrollment period, Nevadans will have
to enroll on healthcare.gov -- the very system that Mr. Sandoval
and other state officials wanted to avoid.

The 38,000 Nevadans who successfully enrolled, along with those
who didn't, will be forced to sign up using the federal system
this November.


SLOAN VALVE: Judge Approves $18-Mil. Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
has approved an $18 million class action settlement involving
defects that caused hundreds of toilets to explode.

In 2012, more than 2.3 million Flushmate flushing systems were
recalled following more than 300 reports of toilet tanks
exploding.  The flushing systems use air pressure to conserve
water.

On Aug. 25, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero of the Central
District of California approved a settlement that would reimburse
owners of toilets with a Flushmate system for repairs and
replacements.

Sloan Valve Co., the Franklin Park, Ill., parent company of
Flushmate, and the other defendants -- AS America Inc., which does
business as American Standard Brands; Kohler Co.; Gerber Plumbing
Fixtures LLC, part of Globe Union Industrial Corp.; Mansfield
Plumbing Products LLC; and The Home Depot USA Inc. -- did not
admit liability as part of the settlement.

Judge Otero also approved $4.5 million in attorney fees, plus
$134,000 in costs and expenses, to eight law firms: Birka-White
Law Offices in Danville, Calif.; San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein; New York's Parker Waichman; Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia; Audet & Partners of San
Francisco; Chicago's Wexler Wallace; Holland Groves in St. Louis;
and Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles.  He also gave $1,000 to each
of the class representatives.


SOUTH FLORIDA DIALYSIS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Rate, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Diaz Lopez v. South Florida Dialysis Center, Corp., and
Yizel Amador, Case No. 1:14-cv-23150-JLK (S.D. Fla., August 27,
2014) alleges that the Defendants failed and refused to pay the
Plaintiff overtime wages calculated at time and one-half of her
regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a given
workweek.

Ms. Diaz Lopez worked for the Defendants as a nurse, who utilized
medications, medical supplies, machinery, materials, and supplies
that were provided to her by the Defendants.

South Florida Dialysis Center, Corp., is a sui juris Florida for-
profit business with its principal place of business and
registered agent in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Yizel Amador is
the owner and operator of the Company.  The Defendants provide
medical care and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Class Action Over July Mass Layoff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham, Jessica Corso, Vin Gurrieri and Kurt Orzeck,
writing for Law360, report that Space Exploration Technologies
Corp. was hit with another proposed class action in California
state court on Aug. 27 over the aerospace company's alleged
failure to give workers notice of a mass layoff in July, marking
at least the second suit over the firings.

Former SpaceX employee Laura Barragan claims the Elon Musk-founded
company neglected to give her and other workers a written warning
of the July 21 mass layoffs at its Hawthorne, California,
facility, in violation of the California Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act's 60-day written notice requirement.

The suit comes roughly three weeks after two other ex-SpaceX
workers -- both former structural technicians -- hit the
spacecraft company with a proposed class action over its alleged
failure to warn workers about the firings, which were estimated to
have affected between 200 and 400 people.

Like the plaintiffs in the earlier suit, Ms. Barragan was also
employed at SpaceX's Hawthorne headquarters, where she worked for
about a year and a half as a "tube bending expeditor," according
to her LinkedIn profile.

In addition to not giving workers sufficient written notice of the
layoffs, Ms. Barragan claims SpaceX failed to pay workers all of
their owed wages at the time of the firings, didn't provide them
with their final earned wages in a timely manner and engaged in
unfair business practices.

The suit currently seeks to certify four putative classes,
consisting of the Cal WARN class, two classes related to SpaceX's
alleged wage payment violations and a final class of workers
employed by the rocket company during a time period when it
purportedly engaged in unfair or fraudulent business acts.

As for damages, Ms. Barragan's suit is seeking back-pay and 60-
days pay for class members, as well as civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.

The damages are similar to those sought by the two other ex-SpaceX
workers in their Aug. 4 suit, who pointed out that the Cal WARN
Act requires employers to provide 60 days' written notice to
affected employees of layoffs involving 50 or more employees in a
30-day period.

Employers who fail to do so must pay the affected employees up to
60 days of average regular rate of compensation or final rate of
compensation, whichever is higher, the suit said.

Although representatives for SpaceX did not respond to a request
for comment on Aug. 27, the company's president, Gwynne Shotwell,
said in July that the firings were related to an annual
performance review, according to the website SpaceNews. An
attorney for Barragan also did not return a request for comment.

Founded by billionaire Musk in 2002, SpaceX was created with the
goal of "enabling people to live on other planets," according to
the company. The spacecraft manufacturer states on its website
that it employs more than 3,000 workers in Texas, Washington D.C.,
Florida and California.

SpaceX is also currently fighting another suit accusing the rocket
producer of failing to provide rest breaks or pay full wages, as
well as another action alleging the company fostered a racist
working environment in which certain workers were subjected to
slurs and passed over for promotions.

Ms. Barragan is represented by Kevin T. Barnes and Gregg Lander of
the Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, as well as Bruce Kokozian of
Kokozian Law Firm APC.

Attorney information for SpaceX was not immediately available.

The suit is Laura Barragan et al v. Space Exploration Technologies
Corp., case number BC555840, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Provides Updates on Lehman Brothers Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., along
with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants
in several individual and putative class action complaints filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas, and
Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state law for allegedly false
and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and
preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages.

All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-district
litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the
class action.  On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in
part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the claims against
STRH and the other underwriter defendants in the class action.

A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court
and the class settlement approval process was completed. A number
of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained
following the class settlement.

SunTrust Banks 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 STRH settled two such
individual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed.
The appeal period for two of the individual actions will not
expire until the plaintiffs' claims against a third party have
been resolved.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Provides Updates on Colonial BancGroup Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., certain
other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial
BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of Colonial
BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain
debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks
unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and
misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and
prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,
mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality.

On August 28, 2009, the Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy.
The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the
Court subsequently ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.

This amended complaint was filed and the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss. In October 2013, the Court granted in part and denied
in part this motion, SunTrust Banks 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.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Denial of Class Cert in "Bickerstaff" on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank was filed in the Fulton County State
Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on
August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged
to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions
are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury
laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of
civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and
received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all
Georgia citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the
last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest
rate being charged in excess of the usury rate.

SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16,
2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out
for the putative class members.

SunTrust filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was
dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely
granted.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.

Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification on February
26, 2014, SunTrust Banks 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.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of Stock Class Action Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks 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 in July 2008,
the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the
Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the
Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust
Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan").  The plaintiffs purport to
represent all current and former Plan participants who held the
Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present
and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December
9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for the District
Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for immediate
interlocutory appeal.  On January 3, 2011, the District Court
granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court"). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these
appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home
Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented.

On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of
The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an
order remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case.

On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs have filed an
appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid for Reconsideration Pending in 11th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks 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 11, 2011, the
Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the
Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain
STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The
plaintiff purports to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan
accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to
recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred
as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.
This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss.

The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of
the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the
Court dismissed all claims in this action.

Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company substituting two
new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a
motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal.

On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. This motion remains
pending.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Brown" Action in District of Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks 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 27, 2014, the
Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and
employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion
of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan.
This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: October 17 Final Approval Hearing
-------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks 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 SunTrust Mortgage Inc.
has been named in three putative class actions similar to those
that other financial institutions are facing which allege that the
Company acted improperly in connection with the practice of force
placing homeowners' insurance in certain instances. Generally, the
plaintiffs in these actions allege that STM violated various
duties by failing to properly negotiate pricing for force placed
insurance and by receiving kickbacks or other improper benefits
from the providers of such insurance.

The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. STM filed a motion to dismiss this case
and this motion was granted in part and denied in part.

The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et
al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. STM has filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to transfer the case. The Court granted the motion to
transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida.

STM has entered into an agreement to settle these cases in the
context of a nationwide settlement class. This proposed settlement
has been preliminarily approved by the Court and a hearing for the
final approval of the settlement has been scheduled for October
17, 2014.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Limited Discovery Allowed in "Thurmond" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks 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 SunTrust Mortgage Inc.
and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named
as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the
companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements
with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs
allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who
agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust with Twin
Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance
premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this
arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of
borrowers.

The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.

The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al.
v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the
Edwards case also.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of
certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases
were lifted. The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily dismissed this
case.

A motion to dismiss was filed in the Thurmond case.  In June 2014,
the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in part and denied in
part, allowing limited discovery surrounding the argument that the
statute of limitations for certain claims should be equitably
tolled.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Oct. 7 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus Financial Corp., and
certain of Synovus' current and former officers, in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action
File No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on
June 11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National
Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and
the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock
price in violation of the federal securities laws.

Lead Plaintiffs' allegations are based on purported exposure to
Synovus' lending relationship with the Sea Island Company and the
impact of such alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition.
Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an
unspecified amount.

On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended complaint failed
to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled that Lead
Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a further
amended complaint.

Lead Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27,
2011. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July
27, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part that Motion to Dismiss.

On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that
the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26,
2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration.

Defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on
May 21, 2012. On March 7, 2013, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On May 23, 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Defendants permission to appeal the District Court's certification
of the class. On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the
Defendants reached a settlement-in-principle to settle the
Securities Class Action.

Under the settlement-in-principle, the Defendants shall cause to
be paid $11.8 million to the Lead Plaintiffs (the "Securities
Class Action Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad releases,
dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class Action and other
material and customary terms and conditions.

On March 17, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion with the
District Court for preliminary approval of the Securities Class
Action Settlement Payment.

The District Court granted preliminary approval of the Securities
Class Action Settlement Payment on June 4, 2014, and the hearing
date for the final approval is scheduled for October 7, 2014,
Synovus 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.

Synovus expects that, subject to execution of an appropriate
release of the Defendants' insurance carriers and other customary
acknowledgments by the Defendants, the Securities Class Action
Settlement Payment will be fully covered by insurance. There can
be no assurance that the settlement-in-principle will be finally
approved by the District Court. In the event the settlement-in-
principle of the Securities Class Action is not approved by the
District Court and finally settled, Synovus and the individually
named defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend
themselves against the Securities Class Action.

Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services
company and a registered financial holding company headquartered
in Columbus, Georgia. Synovus provides integrated financial
services including commercial and retail banking, financial
management, insurance, and mortgage services to its customers
through locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned
subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia,
Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Preliminary Hearing on Class Cert. Held
----------------------------------------------------------
On September 21, 2010, Synovus Financial Corp., Synovus Bank and
CB&T were named as defendants in a putative multi-state class
action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges
overdraft fees to customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus
Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for
alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus
Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its
POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting
from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs'
accounts.

On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-
district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re:
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011.

The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on November 22, 2011.

On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion as to Synovus and
Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as to CB&T.

Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the amended
complaint on September 24, 2012.

The case is currently in discovery. A preliminary hearing
regarding class certification was scheduled for August 13, 2014,
Synovus 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.

Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services
company and a registered financial holding company headquartered
in Columbus, Georgia. Synovus provides integrated financial
services including commercial and retail banking, financial
management, insurance, and mortgage services to its customers
through locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned
subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia,
Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Griner" Settlement Approved by Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial 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 Synovus Bank was named
as a defendant in a putative state-wide class action in which the
plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees charged to customers
constitute interest and, as such, are usurious under Georgia law.

The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et. al. was filed in
Gwinnett County State Court (State of Georgia) on July 30, 2010,
and asserts claims for usury, conversion and money had and
received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a
result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in
connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards
used to access customer accounts ("the Griner Overdraft
Litigation"). Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges
constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury
laws. Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges constitute
non-interest fees and charges under both federal and Georgia law
and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits.

On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case
to state court. On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered an
order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the
Gwinnett County State Court.

Synovus Bank subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. On February
22, 2012, the state court entered an order denying the motion to
dismiss.

On March 1, 2012, the state court signed and entered a certificate
of immediate review thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition
the Georgia Court of Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the
denial of the motion to dismiss.

On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for
interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April
3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's
application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order
denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss.

On April 11, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral
arguments were heard in the case on September 19, 2012.

On March 28, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered an order
affirming the denial of Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss and
remanding the case back to the State Court of Gwinnett County for
further proceedings.

On April 8, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a motion requesting that the
Court of Appeals reconsider its March 28, 2013 order. On April 11,
2013, the Court of Appeals entered an order denying Synovus Bank's
motion for reconsideration.

On April 19, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a notice of its intent to
petition the Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ of certiorari. On
May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the Supreme Court of Georgia.

On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted
certiorari and vacated the March 28, 2013 order of the Georgia
Court of Appeals instanter with direction that the Court of
Appeals remand the case to the trial court for further
consideration in light of the effect, if any, of the July 3, 2013
Declaratory Order issued by the Georgia Department of Banking and
Finance, which declares that to provide parity with national
banks, overdraft fees imposed by state-chartered banks in
connection with deposit accounts are not subject to Georgia's
usury laws.

The trial court held a hearing for consideration of this issue on
November 21, 2013, and a decision is pending.

On February 3, 2014, the Gwinnett County State Court (State of
Georgia) issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement (the "Griner Settlement") by and among Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank (collectively referred to herein
as "Synovus"), and the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft
Litigation.

Under the terms of the Griner Settlement, Synovus has agreed to
(1) establish a fund to pay eligible class member claims and (2)
pay an agreed-upon amount of fees to counsel for the plaintiffs in
the Griner Overdraft Litigation. In exchange, each purported class
member in the Griner Overdraft Litigation will give Synovus a full
and final general release of all claims alleged or that could be
alleged in the Griner Overdraft Litigation.

The final fairness hearing on the Griner Settlement was held on
May 20, 2014, and the Griner Settlement was approved by the Court.

Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services
company and a registered financial holding company headquartered
in Columbus, Georgia. Synovus provides integrated financial
services including commercial and retail banking, financial
management, insurance, and mortgage services to its customers
through locally-branded banking divisions of its wholly-owned
subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and other offices in Georgia,
Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces Suits Over Wrongful Death & Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean 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 as of June 30, 2014,
the Company has been named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in nine complaints that were pending in state and
federal courts in Louisiana and Texas involving multiple
plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personal injuries
arising out of the Macondo well incident.  Nine complaints involve
fatalities and 63 complaints seek recovery for bodily injuries.  A
number of these lawsuits have been settled.  Per the order of the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel ("MDL"), all claims but one have
been centralized for discovery purposes in the MDL Court.

The complaints generally allege negligence and seek awards of
unspecified economic damages and punitive damages.  BP Plc, MI-
SWACO, Weatherford International Ltd. and Cameron International
Corporation ("Cameron") and certain of their affiliates, have,
based on contractual arrangements, also made indemnity demands
upon the Company with respect to personal injury and wrongful
death claims asserted by the Company's employees or
representatives of the Company's employees against these entities.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Facing 199 Putative Class-Action Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean 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 as of June 30, 2014,
the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named, along with
other unaffiliated defendants, in 962 pending individual
complaints as well as 199 putative class-action complaints that
were pending in the federal and state courts in Louisiana, Texas,
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Florida and possibly other courts.  The complaints
generally allege, among other things, potential economic losses as
a result of environmental pollution arising out of the Macondo
well incident and are based primarily on the OPA and state OPA
analogues.  The plaintiffs are generally seeking awards of
unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as well
as injunctive relief.  No classes have been certified at this
time.  Most of these actions have either been transferred to or
are the subject of motions to transfer to the MDL.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Stayed Plaintiff's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Transocean 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 a federal securities
proposed class action was filed on September 30, 2010, in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of
its acquired companies as defendants.

The Company said that, "In the action, a former shareholder of the
acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement related to
our shareholder meeting in connection with our merger with the
acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff
claimed that the acquired company's shareholders received
inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the
alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory damages
and attorneys' fees on behalf of itself and the proposed class
members."

"In connection with that action, we were obligated to pay the
defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be
covered by our directors' and officers' liability insurance,
subject to a deductible.

"On October 4, 2012, the court denied our motion to dismiss the
action.  On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") ruled in the unrelated
action on an issue that could be relevant to the disposition of
this case in a manner that supported our position that the
plaintiff's existing claims alleged in the action are time-barred.

"On August 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the claims are time-barred, citing the ruling of the Second
Circuit.  On September 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed an opposition to
our motion to dismiss and on September 24, 2013, we filed a reply
to that opposition.

On March 11, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion and
dismissed the claims as time-barred.  On March 13, 2014, judgment
was entered and the case was closed.  On March 19, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit.

On April 23, 2014, the Second Circuit granted plaintiff's motion
to stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Public
Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS Inc., in
which certiorari was granted at 134 S. Ct. 1515 (2014).


U.S. BANCORP: Has $19MM Liability Related to VISA Case at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the
conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa
U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for
the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.
The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in
other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa
Litigation contingent liability.

Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International
(collectively, the "Card Associations") are defendants in
antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card
Associations (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A. member banks
have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa
U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the
restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from
the Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member
banks has no specific maximum amount.

On October 19, 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve
class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange
litigation, the largest of the remaining Visa Litigation matters.
The settlement has been approved by the court, but has been
challenged by some class members and is being appealed.  In
addition, a number of class members opted out of the settlement
and have filed actions against the Card Associations.

U.S. Bancorp 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 at June 30, 2014, the
carrying amount of the Company's liability related to the Visa
Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow fundings, was
$19 million.  During the second quarter of 2014, the Company sold
3.0 million of its Class B shares. This sale does not impact the
Company's liability for the Visa Litigation matters or the
receivable related to the escrow account. The remaining 9.6
million Class B shares held by the Company will be eligible for
conversion to Class A shares of Visa Inc., and thereby become
marketable, upon final settlement of the Visa Litigation.


UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Immigration Practices Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union and Cooley LLP on Aug. 28
announced an historic settlement in a class action lawsuit,
Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson, that alleged deceptive and coercive
practices by immigration enforcement officers.  Significant
reforms to the process known as "voluntary departure" are in
effect immediately, including major revisions to the information
immigration officers must disclose to people choosing between
voluntary departure and a hearing before an immigration judge.
The settlement also includes class provisions that, if approved by
the court, would allow certain Mexican nationals who have been
expelled from Southern California pursuant to flawed voluntary
departure procedures over the last several years to seek to
reunite with their families here.

The settlement relates to a lawsuit filed in June 2013 in which
nine Mexican nationals and three organizations that work with
immigrants challenged deceptive tactics used by Border Patrol
agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to
convince the plaintiffs to sign their own expulsion orders.  All
of the plaintiffs would have had strong claims to remain in the
United States had they gone before an immigration judge instead of
being pressured to choose voluntary departure.

"This is a substantial reform of how Border Patrol and ICE do
business," said Sean Riordan, senior staff attorney for the ACLU
of San Diego & Imperial Counties.  "If the agencies implement the
agreement fully, never again should families be driven apart based
on immigration enforcement practices that rely upon
misinformation, deception, and coercion."

If ultimately approved by the court, the settlement will provide
potentially hundreds or thousands of people who meet the class
requirement the opportunity to reunite with family members that
they were torn apart from by voluntary departure.

The complaint in Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson alleged that as a matter
of regular practice, Border Patrol agents and ICE officers
pressure undocumented immigrants to sign what amounts to their own
summary expulsion documents.  The procedure is formally known as
"administrative voluntary departure," but is often referred to as
"voluntary return," and has been used to summarily expel hundreds
of thousands of non-citizens from Southern California in recent
years.  Because of the coercive and deceptive tactics immigration
officers employ, it regularly results in the involuntary waiver of
core due process rights.  An individual who signs for voluntary
departure forfeits his or her right to a hearing before an
immigration judge and is usually expelled to Mexico within a
matter of hours.  The class action portion of the lawsuit (and
settlement) addresses the limited number of persons who were given
voluntary departure but would have had strong claims to stay in
the United States if they had gone before an immigration judge.

"The United States derives its core strength from embracing the
notions of fairness and due process under our Constitution," said
Darcie Tilly, an associate in Cooley LLP's San Diego office who
worked on the project with the ACLU.  "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 ultimately approved by the court, the settlement will provide
potentially hundreds or thousands of people who meet the class
requirement the opportunity to reunite with family members that
they were torn apart from by voluntary departure.

The settlement will also impose key changes to how immigration
enforcement agencies handle AVD procedures, including:

Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to give detailed
information -- in writing and orally -- about what it really means
to take AVD to anyone forced to choose between AVD and a hearing
before an immigration judge.

Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to maintain a 1-800
hotline that gives information about an individual's rights
regarding AVD and the consequences of taking AVD.

Prohibiting immigration enforcement agencies from "pre-checking"
the box selecting AVD on the forms the agencies provide to
immigrants.

Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to allow people to use
a phone, provide them with a list of legal service providers, and
allow them two hours to reach someone before deciding whether or
not to take AVD.

Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to give lawyers
meaningful access to their clients who are detained by BP or ICE.

Preventing immigration enforcement agencies from relying on
pressure or other coercion to convince someone to accept voluntary
departure.

Requiring immigration enforcement agencies to allow ACLU attorneys
to monitor compliance and ensure transparency and accountability
for three years.

The class action lawsuit was filed by the ACLU Foundation of San
Diego & Imperial Counties, the ACLU Foundation of Southern
California, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, and Cooley LLP on
behalf of the aforementioned plaintiffs, none of whom has a
serious or violent criminal background and many of whom were
approached by immigration officers while doing routine daily
activities, such as waiting for a bus.  All of these individuals
have close family members in the United States and could have
obtained relief against removal from an immigration judge or under
Department of Homeland Security programs, but immigration officers
affirmatively misstated the consequences of voluntary departure
and pressured them to sign their own expulsion documents.

The lawsuit is also filed on behalf of three organizational
plaintiffs: the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los
Angeles (CHIRLA), the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, and the
San Bernardino Community Service Center, which have been forced to
divert their scarce resources in response to these unlawful
practices.

The class action portions of the settlement must now go through an
approval process before the court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion
for preliminary approval of the class claims on August 18, 2014.
A preliminary approval hearing is set in federal court in Los
Angeles on September 8, 2014.  If the court grants preliminary
approval, there will likely be a final approval hearing in early
2015.

If the court grants final approval of the settlement, class
members who meet the settlement's criteria -- Mexican nationals
who signed administrative voluntary departure forms between
June 1, 2009 and August 18, 2014 in the San Diego Border Patrol
sector and the San Diego and Los Angeles ICE field office areas,
and would have qualified for certain forms of relief from removal
-- will be able to apply to be a class member and seek to return
to their families.


VOICESHOT LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Text Message TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge refused to throw out a proposed class action on Aug. 26
claiming a realty company and telecommunications services company
Voiceshot LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
finding the fact that Voiceshot's computer servers were located
outside the state is not grounds to dismiss the case.

In an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction filed by Voiceshot, U.S. District Judge Joan H.
Lefkow ruled that despite being a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Michigan,
Voiceshot's contracting with Illinois-based Kale Realty LLC was
sufficient for it to remain a defendant in the case.

Plaintiff Rusty Payton, an Illinois resident, filed the proposed
class action in 2013 claiming Kale Realty violated the TCPA by
sending him and possibly hundreds of other individuals unsolicited
text message advertisements.  Mr. Payton amended his complaint in
April to include Voiceshot, alleging that Kale used Voiceshot's
services to send unsolicited advertisements to prospective
customers' cellular phones, including Mr. Payton's.

"By contracting with an Illinois corporation and then performing
its business within Illinois, Voiceshot purposely availed itself
of the benefits of doing business within this state," Judge Lefkow
wrote.  "In addition, Payton's alleged injury arises directly out
of these contacts with Illinois."

Judge Lefkow found that under the Illinois long-arm statute,
personal jurisdiction may be general or specific and noted that
Payton had not argued for general jurisdiction.  Judge Lefkow
added it would not be appropriate to exercise general jurisdiction
over Voiceshot based on the allegations in the complaint.

In determining that specific jurisdiction applied in this case,
Judge Lefkow cited the fact that courts have repeatedly held that
sending a message into a state in violation of the TCPA is
sufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction over the
defendant in that state.

"After Kale, an Illinois corporation, purchased Voiceshot's
services, Voiceshot sent text messages into Illinois that
allegedly violate the TCPA," Judge Lefkow wrote.

Judge Lefkow said the fact that Voiceshot's servers were located
outside of Illinois was irrelevant, as Voiceshot had reached
inside the state to contact Payton -- and potentially other
Illinois residents -- by performing the marketing services
purchased by Kale.

Judge Lefkow also ruled that the court exercising personal
specific jurisdiction over Voiceshot in this case would not
"offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,"
because while Voiceshot may be burdened by having to defend an
action in the state, out-of-state defendants always face such a
burden.

"Moreover, Illinois -- like all states -- has an interest in
providing a forum for its residents to seek redress for injuries
inflicted by out-of-state actors and injuries suffered within the
state," Judge Lefkow added.

Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. of Zimmerman Law Offices PC, who
represents Payton, told Law360 he and his client are pleased with
the court's ruling.

"Judge Lefkow's ruling was well-reasoned and consistent with other
judicial decisions around the country," Zimmerman said. "We are
now engaged in discovery and are pursuing certification of the
class."

Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to a
request for comment from Law360.

Mr. Payton is represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Adam M.
Tamburelli and Frank J. Stretz of Zimmerman Law Offices PC.

Kale Realty is represented by Peter C. Morse --
pmorse@morseandbolduc.com -- and Joseph D. Ackerman --
jackerman@morseandbolduc.com -- of Morse Bolduc & Dinos and
Jeffrey H. Bunn -- jbunn@llflegal.com -- of Latimer LeVay Fyock.

Voiceshot is represented by Kellie L. Mitchell --
kmitchell@cckc-law.com -- of Copilevitz & Canter LLC.

The case is Rusty Payton v. Kale Realty LLC and Voiceshot LLC,
case number 1:2013-cv-08002, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.


WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Conran v. Walsh Construction Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01251 (D. Conn., August 28, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act to recover,
along with other damages, wages owed, but never paid, to the
Plaintiff.

Chicago, Illinois-based Walsh is a construction company organized
and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen B. Kravetz, Esq.
          Philip G. Kent, Esq.
          SUSMAN, DUFFY & SEGALOFF, PC
          59 Elm Street, 5th Floor
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 624-9830
          Facsimile: (203) 562-8430
          E-mail: kkravetz@susmanduffy.com
                  pkent@susmanduffy.com


WASHINGTON: Trial Court to Decide on Class Action Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the Washington Supreme Court has rejected the state's
contention that the correct measure of damages for part-time
public employees wrongfully denied health benefits is the
immediate medical expenses the workers had to pay out-of-pocket.

The justices left it up to the trial court to decide on remand
what the appropriate measure of damages should be in the class
action.

The reason that the workers' out-of-pocket expenses are not the
appropriate measure of their damages, Justice Susan Owens wrote
for the court, is that "evidence shows that people denied health
care benefits suffer additional damage.  They avoid going to the
doctor for preventive care, and they defer care for medical
problems.  This results in increased long-term medical costs and a
lower quality of life."

An expert for the plaintiffs said that "the economic value of the
healthier and longer life that an uninsured child or adult forgoes
because he or she lacks health insurance ranges between $1,645 and
$3,280 for each additional year spent without coverage," according
to the court.

The justices also said the immediate medical expenses people have
to pay out-of-pocket when wrongfully denied health insurance could
be the best damages measure in other cases.

The trial court refused to grant summary judgment to either side,
including because more information needs to be developed on
whether any class members would have opted out of coverage and
what level of coverage class members likely would have chosen.

The employees suggest that their damages should be measured by the
amount the state should have paid to provide health benefits, the
amount that the state unlawfully retained by failing to provide
health benefits, or the amount that the state would have paid in
health care costs for the class if they have been covered.


WATTS WATER: Final Approval of "Trabakoolas" Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other
companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors.  The complaint
sought among other items, damages in an unspecified amount,
replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  Trabakoolas et al., v, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et
al.

On December 12, 2013, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims. The total settlement amount is
$23.0 million, of which the Company would be responsible for $14.0
million after insurance proceeds of $9.0 million. The settlement
was subject to review by the Court at a preliminary approval
hearing held on February 12, 2014. The Court granted preliminary
approval on February 14, 2014.

On July 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the class
settlement at a fairness hearing, and issued a subsequent written
order formalizing the approval on August 5, 2014, Watts Water
Technologies, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014.

"The order will become final unless an appeal is taken within
thirty days. The Company will vigorously contest any appeal that
is taken. If the order becomes final without an appeal, the
litigation will be terminated," the Company said.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company recorded a
liability of $22.6 million related to the Trabakoolas matter, of
which $12.7 million was included in current liabilities and $9.9
million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.0
million receivable was recorded in current assets related to
insurance proceeds due under a separate settlement agreement if
the class action settlement is approved and becomes final.  The
liability was reduced by $1.3 million for notice and claims
administrator payments made during the first half of 2014 and as
of June 29, 2014, the remaining total liability was $21.3 million.


WELLS FARGO: Court of Appeals Affirmed Judgment in July
-------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 on July 8, 2008, a
class action complaint captioned Stacey and Bradley Petry, et al.,
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed.  The complaint
alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated the Maryland Finder's
Fee Act in the closing of mortgage loans in Maryland.  On March
13, 2013, the Court held the plaintiff class did not have
sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, which was previously set
for March 18, 2013.  On June 20, 2013, the Court entered judgment
in favor of the defendants.  The plaintiffs appealed.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in
favor of the defendants on July 10, 2014.


WELLS FARGO: Final Approval Hearing of Accord Held in August
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
is involved in five separate pending actions brought by securities
lending customers of Wells Fargo and Wachovia Bank in various
courts. In general, each of the cases alleges that Wells Fargo
violated fiduciary and contractual duties by investing collateral
for loaned securities in investments that suffered losses. One of
the cases, filed on March 27, 2012, is composed of a class of
Wells Fargo securities lending customers in a case captioned City
of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.

On April 12, 2014, the parties reached a settlement in principle
of the class action case. The settlement was preliminarily
approved by the Court on June 5, 2014. A hearing on final approval
was set for August 14, 2014.


WINDAMIR DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Lawson" Class Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Lawson, Anthony D. Ciorciari and Rodney Blitch, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Windamir
Development, Inc., and Hamlin Air Conditioning & Sheet Metal,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02790-RWS (N.D. Ga., August 28, 2014)
alleges violations of the Miller Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WORLD WRESTLING: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky on Aug. 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of investors who purchased World
Wrestling Entertainment Inc. common stock between October 31, 2013
and May 16, 2014.

For more information, visit:

      http://zlk.9nl.com/world-wrestling-entertainment-wwe

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

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

If you suffered a loss in WWE you have until September 23, 2014 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/world-wrestling-entertainment-wwe

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The firm's 26
attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities
litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors
throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Files a Class Action on
Behalf of Consumers Who Purchased or Leased Certain Model Year
2013-2014 Nissan and Infiniti Vehicles


WPX ENERGY: Conducts Accounting in Royalty Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging WPX Energy, Inc. improperly calculated
oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds
received from the sale of natural gas and extracted products,
improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts
withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs
sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners, recover
underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments related to
calculation errors.

"We entered into a final partial settlement agreement. The partial
settlement agreement defined the class for certification, resolved
claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding
royalty payments, established certain rules to govern future
royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related
to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a
procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the
future, and reserved two claims for court resolution," WPX Energy,
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.

"We have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on
the first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to
deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain
lease agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of
whether we are required to have proportionately increased the
value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline
transmission lines and, if required, whether we did so and are
entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs
in calculating royalty payments.

"Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus
interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court
issued pretrial orders finding that we do bear the burden of
demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct
transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied
on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of
post-production transportation costs.

"Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether we have
met that burden. Following that trial, the court issued its order
rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position
as to the methodology to use in determining the standard by which
our activity should be judged.

"We are in the process of conducting an accounting under that
standard. However, we continue to believe our royalty calculations
have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate
contractual arrangements and Colorado law."


WPX ENERGY: Facing 2 Class Actions by Interest Owners
-----------------------------------------------------
In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against WPX Energy, Inc.
in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently
alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip
condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of
gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in
Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment
Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating
to production, payments and future reporting. This matter has been
removed to the United States District Court for New Mexico.

In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
WPX Energy in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico, violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act and seek declaratory judgment, accounting
and injunction.

"At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient
information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to
these claims," WPX Energy 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.


ZOCDOC INC: "Geismann" Suit Transferred From Missouri to New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Geismann v. ZocDoc, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-00472, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The New York
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07009-LLS to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff Radha Geismann alleges that she received two unsolicited
faxes that advertised ZocDoc's services and failed to contain
legally proper opt-out notices, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bryan K. Clark, Esq.
          Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq.
          VEDDER AND PRICE
          222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 609-7810
          E-mail: bclark@vedderprice.com
                  bkimrey@vedderprice.com

               - and -

          Matthew Allen Jacober, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE LLP
          7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 500
          Clayton, MI 63105
          Telephone: (314) 613-2800
          Facsimile: (314) 613-2801
          E-mail: mjacober@lathropgage.com


                              *********

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  * * *