CAR_Public/140908.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 178

                             Headlines


1-800 FLOWERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
A PLUS LAMINATION:  Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
ABICO INC: Food Preparers Sue in Virginia Over Unpaid Overtime
ABIOMED INC: First Circuit Appeal Process Ongoing
ACCURATE COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims Resolution Process Now Completed
AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australia Unit Faces Traffic Forecast Claims
AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Facing Class Actions Over URS Corp Merger
AVX CORPORATION: Parties Seek Modification of Class Definition
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves $32MM TCPA Class Action Settlement

BISTRO 320: Faces "Altorre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Expects to Fund Settlement Notice Publication
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 23,000+ Mesh Product Liability Claims
CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Loan Interest
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Appeal on Stock Sale Fully Briefed

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Oklahoma Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Provides Updates on Okla. and Pa. Class Suits
CHUALAR HARVESTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
CITI MORTGAGE: Homeowners Lose Bid to Revive Mortgage Fee Suit
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Couple Seeks Review of Class Action Dismissal

CRAVATH SWAINE: Discriminates Against Haitian Employee, Suit Says
CTOWN LLC: "Batista" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Securities Litigation Proceeding With Discovery
DESJARDINS BANK: Fails to Give Equal Access, Disabled Person Says
EASTERN ACCOUNT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over "Buyer Always Wins" Policy
GATSO USA: Class Action Challenges Automated Traffic Cameras
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Has Reached $1.1-Bil. Deal Over Oil Spill
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Faces Suit Over Motorcycle Design Defect
HEALTH NET: Washington Case Transferred to N.D. California

HEALTH NET: Court Granted Final OK of Settlement in 3 Actions
HOWARD LIPSTEIN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Decision Issued in XTO Dispute Arbitration
HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Roderick" Case Certification Reversed
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Royalty Certification Reversed

INTL FCSTONE: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Action
J.C. EHRLICH: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Hayes" Suit Claims
JTEKT CORPORATION: Accused of Manipulating Vehicle Bearing Prices
KEURIG GREEN: 2nd Cir. Set October Oral Argument in LAMPERS Suit
KEURIG GREEN: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Fifield" Case

KEURIG GREEN: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Held
KING SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Martin" Suit Says
LA CASA ANAHEIM: Faces Suit Arising From ADA Non-Compliance
LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LOGMEIN INC: Faces "Handy" Suit Over Ignition App Subscription

MADISON SQUARE: Court Denied Motions to Dismiss Antitrust Suits
MDC MANUFACTURING: "Pacual" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MIT TRUCKING: Removed "Fajardo" Suit to Florida District Court
NVIDIA CORP: Appeal in Securities Suit Still Under Submission
ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Reimbursement of Attorneys Fees

PARKCENTRAL GLOBAL: Class Cert. Denied in Suit Over Fund Collapse
PATRIOT PAWS: Faces "Fry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
POWERSECURE INT'L: Faces Securities Class Action in E.D.N.C.
REED ELSEVIER: Terminated Client Manager Due to Race, Suit Claims
SECURITY SERVICE: Sued for Not Having Handicap-Accessible Parking

SPECTRUM CLUB: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Suit Claims
STATE FARM: Accused of Fraud by Long-Term Care Insurance Holder
STATE FARM: Seeks Dismissal of Collision Repair Class Action
SW GROUP: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRINET GROUP: Facing Worksite Employees Class Actions

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removed "Salovitz" Suit to W.D. Texas
UNION BANKSHARES: Dist. Court Okayed MOU & Class Action Accord
WALTER ENERGY: "Moore" Case in N.D. Ala. Currently Stayed
WALTER ENERGY: Stay Relief Bid and Briefing Schedule Due
WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, Action Claims


                            *********


1-800 FLOWERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria S. Navarrete, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. 1-800 Flowers Team
Services, Inc., d/b/a The Popcorn Factory, Case No. 1:14-cv-06724
(N.D. Ill., August 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

1-800 Flowers Team Services, Inc. manufactures food and snack
food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 South State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


A PLUS LAMINATION:  Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos M. Arias v. A Plus Lamination & Finishing, Inc., Florida
corporation and Nubia Perez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23199
(S.D. Fla., August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A Plus Lamination & Finishing, Inc. is a Florida corporation that
specializes in film laminating, spot U.V coating, U.V coating, die
cutting, mounting, binding, gluing, and all types of finishing
services for the printing industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin Eric Leach, Esq.
      FEILER & LEACH
      901 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Penthouse
      Coral Gables, FL 33134-3009
      Telephone: (305) 441-8818
      Facsimile: 441-8081
      E-mail: mel@flmlegal.com


ABICO INC: Food Preparers Sue in Virginia Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Velarde, and Angel Deleon v. Abico, Inc., (d.b.a. Lebanese
Taverna Market) and David Abi-Najim, Case No. 1:14-cv-01124-LMB-
TCB (E.D. Va., September 2, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but the Defendants
did not pay the Plaintiffs at the premium rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for those hours worked.

The Plaintiffs work as food preparers in the Defendants'
restaurant -- the Lebanese Taverna Market, located in Arlington,
Virginia.

Abico is a Virginia corporation with its corporate headquarters
located in Arlington, Virginia.  Abi-Najim is the treasurer, a
manager, and part-owner of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip B. Leiser, Esq.
          THE LEISER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1749 Old Meadow Road, Suite 630
          Tysons Corner, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 734-5000
          Facsimile: (703) 734-6000
          E-mail: pbleiser@leiserlaw.com


ABIOMED INC: First Circuit Appeal Process Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Abiomed 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 November 16 and 19,
2012, two purported class action complaints were filed against the
Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts by alleged purchasers of its common
stock, on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that
purchased or acquired securities of the Company between August 5,
2011 and October 31, 2012. The complaints alleged that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to the FDA and the marketing and labeling of
the Company's Impella 2.5 product and seek damages in an
unspecified amount. The Court consolidated these complaints and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May
20, 2013.

On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action. Oral arguments on the Company's motion
to dismiss were conducted before the presiding district court
judge on September 18, 2013.

"On April 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court entered an order
granting our motion and dismissed the consolidated and amended
complaint. On May 9, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal, and subsequently filed their appellate brief with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on July 16, 2014. The
appeal process remains ongoing," the company said.

Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support
devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart
failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to
rest, heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing
the pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used
in the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional
cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for
patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically
or emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery
procedures.


ACCURATE COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Siegried, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Accurate Collection Services and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:14-cv-05471-FSH-JBC (D.N.J., September 2, 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


ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims Resolution Process Now Completed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, 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 U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
(Seattle Division) approved a class action settlement in January
2009 related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to
recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking
for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their
decks.  The settlement includes decking material purchased from
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking
material purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured
before October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced
into the manufacturing process.

In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for
resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company
increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims
under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised due
to events that occurred and information that became available
after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number
of claims received. The deadline for submitting new claims has now
passed. The claim resolution process had an annual net cost
limitation to the Company of $2.0 million. The claims resolution
process is now completed.

AERT, founded in 1988, recycles polyethylene plastic and develops,
manufactures, and markets composite building materials that are
used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior
applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain
other industrial or commercial building purposes. The Company's
products are made primarily from approximately equal amounts of
waste wood fiber, which have been cleaned, sized and reprocessed,
and recycled polyethylene plastics which have been cleaned,
processed, and reformulated utilizing our patented and proprietary
technologies. Its products have been extensively tested, and are
sold by leading national companies such as BlueLinx Corporation
(BlueLinx), Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Lowe's) and Therma-Tru
Corporation. The Company's products are primarily used in
renovation and remodeling by consumers, homebuilders, and
contractors as an exterior environmentally responsible building
alternative for decking, railing, and trim products.

BlueLinx Corporation is the Company's primary distributor for its
ChoiceDek(R) products, which are sold exclusively by Lowe's.


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australia Unit Faces Traffic Forecast Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005 and 2006, AECOM Technology Corporation's main Australian
subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a
traffic forecast assignment for a client consortium as part of
their project to design, build, finance and operate a tolled
motorway tunnel in Australia. To fund the motorway's design and
construction, the client formed certain special purpose vehicles
(SPV) that raised approximately $700 million Australian dollars
through an initial public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006
and approximately an additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in
long term bank loans. The SPV (and certain affiliated SPVs) went
into insolvency administrations in February 2011.

KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPV and certain affiliated SPVs
(the RCM Applicants), caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM
Australia by the RCM Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia
on May 14, 2012. Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the
lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of
Australia against AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a
class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include
approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM
Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.

AECOM Technology 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 all of the lawsuits
claim damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's
role in connection with the traffic forecast.  The RCM Applicants
have claimed damages of approximately $1.68 billion Australian
dollars (including interest, as of March 31, 2014).  The damages
claimed by Portigon as of June 17, 2014 were also recently
quantified at approximately $76 million Australian dollars
(including interest).  This claim is duplicative of damages
already included in the RCM Applicants' claim to the extent
Portigon receives a portion of the RCM Applicants' recovery.  The
class action applicants claim that they represent investors who
acquired approximately $155 million Australian dollars of
securities.

AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages
asserted by all applicants and is vigorously defending the claims
brought against it. The likely resolution of these matters cannot
be reasonably determined at this time.  However, if these matters
are not resolved in AECOM Australia's favor then, depending upon
the outcomes, it could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations.

AECOM Technology Corporation provides professional technical and
management support services for public and private clients around
the world.


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Facing Class Actions Over URS Corp Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
AECOM Technology 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 connection with
the definitive merger agreement entered on July 11, 2014, to
acquire URS Corporation, beginning on July 21, 2014, five putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware by purported URS Corporation stockholders:
Falato v. URS Corp., et al., Case No. 9921; City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Creel, et al., Case No. 9924;
Petroutson v. URS Corp., et al., Case No. 9938; Miller v. URS
Corp., et al., Case No. 9939; and Oklahoma Police Pension &
Retirement System v. Creel, et al., Case No. 9975. The actions
name as defendants URS Corporation, the members of the URS
Corporation board of directors, AECOM, and two merger subsidiaries
of AECOM formed for purposes of effecting the merger. Two of the
actions also names as a defendant JANA Partners LLC.

The complaints allege, among other things, that AECOM and its
merger subsidiaries aided and abetted alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by URS Corporation and its board of directors.
The complaints seek, among other relief, class certification,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and damages. AECOM
believe the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend
vigorously against them.

AECOM Technology Corporation provides professional technical and
management support services for public and private clients around
the world.


AVX CORPORATION: Parties Seek Modification of Class Definition
--------------------------------------------------------------
AVX 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 November 27, 2007, a
suit was filed in South Carolina State Court by individuals as a
class action with respect to property adjacent to the Company's
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming property values have
been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain
pollutants from the Company's property.

"During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the parties agreed to
seek Court modification of the definition of the plaintiff class.
In the event such modification is allowed by the Court, the
parties have also agreed to jointly recommend to the Court a
settlement the action.  Any settlement will be subject to Court
review and approval.  Although the final amount of such
settlement, if approved by the Court, depends on the number of
participating class members, the maximum amount, if all class
members participate, would be $1,200,000," the Company said.
"Based on our estimate of potential outcomes, we accrued
$1,000,000 and $1,200,000 with respect to this case as of March
31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, respectively.  We can give no
assurance, however, that this action will be resolved on the terms
indicated above.  If it is not so resolved, we intend to continue
to defend vigorously the claims asserted."

AVX is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of a broad line of
passive electronic components.  The Company also manufactures and
supplies high-quality electronic connectors and interconnect
systems for use in electronic products.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves $32MM TCPA Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel and Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge has approved a $32 million settlement
resolving a class action alleging Bank of America Corp. violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an amount the parties claim
is the largest recovery ever obtained in a finalized TCPA
settlement, according to an order filed on Aug. 29 approving the
deal.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila's approval of the settlement
resolves claims that Bank of America and FIA Card Services NA
violated the TCPA through the use of automatic telephone dialing
systems and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice without
obtaining prior express consent from the individuals contacted.
However Judge Davila awarded lower attorneys' fees than the $8
million class counsel initially asked for, finding the lodestar
multiplier used was unreasonable high.

The ruling certifies a class for settlement purposes including all
individuals who received allegedly unauthorized automated phone
calls from Bank of America regarding mortgage loan and credit card
accounts between 2007 and 2013.  The class also includes
recipients of allegedly unauthorized text messages from 2009 to
2010, for a total of roughly 7 million class members.

Judge Davila said that given the scope of the litigation, the
settlement agreement is the most reasonable and efficient way to
settle potentially millions of claims.  The defendants deny all
liability or wrongdoing of any kind, according to the settlement
agreement.

"Even if plaintiffs prevailed at trial, the sheer size of the
award against defendants, who could be liable for $500 or $1,500
per violation for potentially millions of violations, would likely
raise significant post-trial concerns," Judge Davila said.  "Such
an award would almost certainly be appealed, potentially reversed
and litigation would not be resolved for a significant amount of
time."

In addition to the monetary portion of the settlement, Bank of
America has developed significant enhancements to its servicing
systems which are designed to prevent the calling of a cellphone
unless a loan servicing record is systematically coded to reflect
the customer's prior express consent to receive calls via their
cell phone.

Jonathan D. Selbin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, who
represents the class plaintiffs, told Law360 that he welcomed the
court's approval of the $32 million settlement, calling it the
largest TCPA settlement to receive final approval of which he is
aware.  Earlier this year, Capital One Financial Corp. and three
collections agencies agreed to pay almost $75.5 million to settle
a consolidated TCPA class action, but that deal has yet to receive
final approval.

Mr. Selbin said the changes to Bank of America's calling practices
will ensure greater TCPA compliance with respect to millions of
its customers.

"It will no longer be robo-calling people on their cellphones
without their express consent," Mr. Selbin said.

However, despite approving the settlement agreement, Judge Davila
trimmed the class counsel's initial fee request of $8 million down
to $2.4 million, saying that a fee of 25 percent of the total
recovery amount was not warranted in this case, and that the class
counsel's suggested lodestar multiplier was unreasonably high.

Judge Davila noted that the plaintiffs' counsel had appeared to
use a litigation strategy of attempting to "overwhelm" the
defendants by filing multiple similar actions, thus forcing them
to negotiate from a weaker position.  As a result, Judge Davila
said class members were inappropriately asked to pay the costs of
litigating six separate actions with a total of 18 attorneys and
eight paralegals working on similar cases.

Judge Davila also said the coding changes Bank of America is
implementing will classify a number of class members as having
already provided express consent, so they will likely continue to
receive phone calls and text messages.

Combined with the fact class counsel provided an estimate that
most class members will receive an average recovery of between $20
to $40 and not the maximum amount of $500 or $1,500, Judge Davila
said the use of a high multiplier is unwarranted.

Mr. Selbin told Law360 that he was disappointed in Judge Davila's
fee ruling, saying it doesn't account for the significance of the
changes to Bank of America's calling practices.

"We are disappointed in the fee ruling, which, respectfully, we
think is based upon a misunderstanding of the record and a
misapplication of controlling Ninth Circuit law," Mr. Selbin said.
"But we are pleased that he approved the settlement."

Stephanie Rose is represented by Jonathan D. Selbin of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and the Law Office of Douglas J.
Campion.

Bank of America and FIA are represented by Felicia Yu --
fyu@reedsmith.com -- Marc Lackner -- mlackner@reedsmith.com -- and
Abraham Colman -- acolman@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Rose v. Bank of America Corp. et al., case number
5:11-cv-02390, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


BISTRO 320: Faces "Altorre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Alatorre, Rodolfo Castillo, and Wenceslao Adorno Otero
individually and on behalf of others similarly under 29 U.S.C. v.
Bistro 320 Inc. (d/b/a "Bistro Cafe"), Min Kim Cheol, In S Kim, In
S Rim and Qwang Seok Song, Case No. 1:14-cv-07050 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate a deli and salad bar located at 320
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022 known as Bistro Cafe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, New York 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Expects to Fund Settlement Notice Publication
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific 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 fewer than ten
individual lawsuits remain pending in various state and federal
jurisdictions against Guidant Corporation (Guidant) alleging
personal injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers
involved in certain 2005 and 2006 product communications.

"Further, we are aware of approximately 30 Guidant product
liability lawsuits pending in international jurisdictions
associated with defibrillators or pacemakers, including devices
involved in the 2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of these
suits are pending in Canada and were filed as class actions, four
of which are stayed pending the outcome of two lead class
actions," the Company said.

On April 10, 2008, the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class
of persons in whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a
class of family members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009,
the Justice of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom
pacemakers were implanted in Canada and a class of family members
with derivative claims.

The Company said, "In each case, these matters generally seek
monetary damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class
action have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter
for approximately $3 million. The presiding judge approved the
settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014. We paid the initial
required payments during the second quarter of 2014 and expect to
fund the publication of the settlement notice during the third
quarter of 2014."

Boston Scientific Corporation is a worldwide developer,
manufacturer and marketer of medical devices that are used in a
broad range of interventional medical specialties.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 23,000+ Mesh Product Liability Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific 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 as of August 5,
2014, there were over 23,000 product liability cases or claims
related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat
stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending
against the Company. The cases are pending in various federal and
state courts in the United States and include eight putative class
actions. There were also less than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive
of three putative class actions, and less than 10 claims in the
United Kingdom.

The Company said, "Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal
injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 1,700
of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state
court in Massachusetts."

"On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of
2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state
attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. We have responded to those requests. We have established
a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases
and claims asserted against us as well as costs of defense thereof
associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products.

"While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is
adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available. We intend to vigorously
contest the cases and claims asserted against us; however, the
final resolution is uncertain and could have a material impact on
our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity."

Boston Scientific Corporation is a worldwide developer,
manufacturer and marketer of medical devices that are used in a
broad range of interventional medical specialties.


CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Loan Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamelle Wells, writing for ABC News, reports that a Federal Court
ruling has paved the way for a class action by 40,000 people
against Australia's largest pawn broking service Cash Converters.

Two class actions have been filed in the Federal Court on behalf
of Cash Converters customers in NSW.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn says the customers were charged illegal
levels of interest of up to 633 per cent on personal loans.

Cash Converters denies the allegation and has applied to have the
case struck out.  The company argued that its fees were legal and
that western Sydney pensioner and grandmother Julie Gray -- who is
leading the class action -- is only entitled to act on behalf of
some customers, not all NSW customers, as she is doing.

The full bench of the Federal Court, comprised of Justices
Jacobson, Middleton and Gordon, allowed the Cash Converters
application for leave to appeal an earlier decision but dismissed
it with costs.

The customers are seeking about $40 million compensation and their
case is expected to be heard next year.

Between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2013, the interest rate cap on
loans in NSW was 48 per cent.

Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the ruling was a
victory for all class actions in Australia where one person lodges
a case on behalf of others, including those who may not have a
claim against each defendant.

"[The] judgment is an important result in the Cash Converters
process because it makes it clear that the class action can cover
all Cash Converters customers that were subjected to these
exorbitant interest rates statewide, rather than limiting it to
customers of the one outlet in Penrith," Mr. Slade said.

"It's a sensible decision, and it reinforces the role of class
actions working as an efficient legal remedy for large numbers of
people affected by the same mass wrong.

"This ruling, and this case more broadly, are further examples of
how a mature and effectively functioning class actions regime such
as ours here in Australia is able to provide people with access to
real remedies and real justice in circumstances where they
wouldn't otherwise stand a chance."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Appeal on Stock Sale Fully Briefed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed on February 25, 2009, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors along with certain
underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock offering. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009
alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009.

Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants moved for
summary judgment on grounds of loss causation and materiality on
December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted as to all claims as
a matter of law on March 29, 2013. Final judgment in favor of
Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants was entered on
June 21, 2013, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July
19, 2013 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The
appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument was held on May
14, 2014.

"We are currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of potential loss associated with this matter,"
the Company said.

A derivative action relating to the July 2008 offering filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
September 6, 2011 is pending. Following the denial on September
28, 2012 of its motion to dismiss and pursuant to court order,
nominal defendant Chesapeake filed an answer in the case on
October 12, 2012. By stipulation between the parties, the case is
stayed pending resolution of the Tenth Circuit appeal of the 2009
securities class action.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Oklahoma Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on July 8, 2014,
affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and the
time for further appeal has expired, Chesapeake Energy 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.

A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012 against the
Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Aubrey K.
McClendon.  On July 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, which filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2012
against the Company, Mr. McClendon and certain other officers. The
amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the
Company's asset monetization strategy, including liabilities
associated with its volumetric production payment (VPP)
transactions, as well as Mr. McClendon's personal loans and the
Company's internal controls.

On December 6, 2012, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the action. On April 10, 2013, the Court granted
the motion, and on April 16, 2013, entered judgment against the
plaintiff and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on
July 8, 2014, and the time for further appeal has expired.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Provides Updates on Okla. and Pa. Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 regarding royalty
claims, Chesapeake and other natural gas producers have been named
in various lawsuits alleging royalty underpayment.

The Company said, "The suits against us allege, among other
things, that we used below-market prices, made improper
deductions, used improper measurement techniques and/or entered
into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of
royalties in connection with the production and sale of natural
gas and NGL. The Company has resolved a number of these claims
through negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and
has prevailed in various other lawsuits. We are currently
defending lawsuits seeking damages for royalty underpayment in
various states, including cases filed by individual royalty owners
and putative class actions, some of which seek to certify a
statewide class."

"We believe losses are reasonably possible in certain of the
pending royalty cases for which we have not made a loss accrual,
but we are currently unable to estimate an amount or range of loss
or the impact the actions could have on our future results of
operations or cash flows. Plaintiffs have varying royalty
provisions in their respective leases and oil and gas law varies
from state to state.

"Royalty owners and producers differ in their interpretation of
the legal effect of lease provisions governing royalty
calculations, an issue in a class action filed in 2010 on behalf
of Oklahoma royalty owners asserting claims dating back to 2004.
In July 2014, this case was remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings following the reversal on appeal of
certification of a statewide class.

"In Pennsylvania, two putative statewide class actions and one
purported class arbitration were filed in 2014 on behalf of
royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to
alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company's
divestiture of substantially all of its midstream business and
most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These Pennsylvania
cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Uncertainties in pending royalty cases generally include the
complex nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of
the class in class actions, the scope and types of the properties
and agreements involved, and the applicable production years.

"Based on management's current assessment, we are of the opinion
that no pending or threatened lawsuit or dispute relating to the
Company's business operations is likely to have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows. The final resolution of such matters
could exceed amounts accrued, however, and actual results could
differ materially from management's estimates."


CHUALAR HARVESTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chualar Harvesting stiffed
workers for overtime and violated other labor laws, a class action
claims in Monterey County Court.


CITI MORTGAGE: Homeowners Lose Bid to Revive Mortgage Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, David McAfee and Jeff Overley, writing for Law360,
report that a Pennsylvania federal judge on Aug. 29 nixed a bid by
a pair of homeowners to revive a putative class action against
Citi Mortgage Inc. over allegedly improperly foreclosure fees and
costs after finding that the claims did not pass muster under the
state's consumer protection law.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Hornak on Aug. 28 shot down the
proposed second amended complaint after finding that bills for
allegedly improper foreclosure-related fees and costs, which
plaintiffs in the case said had acted as a lien that diminished
the value of their home, did not trigger a claim under
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
for a loss of money or property due to a defendant's deceptive
conduct.

"As the law now stands in Pennsylvania, there is no controlling
legal authority to support plaintiffs' theory that sending a
payment demand automatically put a 'lien' on their property,
thereby diminishing their property's value and triggering a UTPCPL
claim, nor do plaintiffs cite to any Pennsylvania law saying so,"
the opinion said.  "Simply put, plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege that they suffered any loss of 'money or
property' through the mere issuance of payment demands on Citi's
behalf."

The amended complaint would have revived class claims against
Citi, which Judge Hornack rejected in March after agreeing that
the complaint was based on unique allegations concerning each of
the plaintiffs' particular interactions with Citi.

The case stems from a loan that plaintiffs Alexandra Trunzo and
Anthony Hlista took out in 2007, and ultimately defaulted on in
2010, for a home in the Pittsburgh suburb of Bethel Park.

According to court records, the couple talked to Citi about a new
arrangement that would let them keep their home and within days
submitted payment, only to receive a foreclosure notice declaring
"all reasonable efforts afforded you to cure this default have
failed."

Soon after, Citi turned over its servicing rights to Seterus Inc.,
and questions about the foreclosure process were directed to law
firm and debt collector Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg LLP.  Both
Seterus and Phelan Hallinan are likewise named as defendants in
the case.

According to court documents, the borrowers were subsequently
deluged with "multiple conflicting reinstatement letters" and a
"hodgepodge of conflicting numbers," many of which the couple
disputes, about how to return their loan to good standing.

The opinion cited the fact that another federal judge in the
Western District of Pennsylvania in March rejected a similar
argument leveled by the plaintiff's counsel in a separate case
against Bank of America Corp. involving a separate pair of
homeowners.  As part of his opinion, Judge Hornak also granted a
motion for reconsideration filed by Phelan Halinan asking that
claims brought against both the firm and Seterus for alleged
violations of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law,
also known as Act 6, over allegedly excessive fees and costs.

Judge Hornak pointed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court's April
decision in Glover v. Udren Law Offices PC, finding that Act 6
only allowed for plaintiffs to recoup unauthorized fees from
residential mortgage lenders.   While Hornack's decision affirmed
that class claims against Citi could not move forward, several
claims against Seterus and Phelan Hallinan under the Pennsylvania
consumer protection law and the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment, remain
alive.

Michael Malakoff, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told
Law360 that he was pleased to have a chance to litigate the
remaining claims against the three defendants.

"We were happy that the district court retained virtually all of
his favorable prior rulings against the three defendants," he
said. "We look forward to establishing of record the facts
necessary to obtain a judgment on the many claims we asserted in
our complaint, including class claims, that the district court
deemed viable."

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael P. Malakoff of Michael P.
Malakoff PC.

Citi is represented by Thomas R. Johnson of K&L Gates LLP and
Debra Bogo-Ernst -- dernst@mayerbrown.com -- and Lucia Nale --
lnale@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP.

The case is Alexandra R. Trunzo et al. v. Citi Mortgage et al.,
case number 2:11-cv-01124, in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Couple Seeks Review of Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney and Kaitlin Ugolik, writing for Law360, report that
a Missouri couple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
Eighth Circuit's dismissal of their proposed class action against
Countrywide Home Loans Inc. over allegedly unauthorized mortgage
fees, claiming the decision permits defendants to dodge state law
claims by removing cases to federal court.

Attorneys for Jerry and Golda Washington claimed the circuit court
created an unconstitutionally conflicting system of laws by
rejecting a Missouri Court of Appeals decision applying a six-year
statute of limitations under state law to civil claims, arguing
that the decision promotes forum-shopping by defendants looking to
escape such claims via a three-year federal court limit.

The Eighth Circuit should have deferred to the Court of Appeals'
decision, but wrongly relied on an earlier circuit court opinion
that found Missouri's six-year limit applied only to criminal
claims and predicted that the Supreme Court of Missouri would
overturn the lower court judgment, according to the petition.

"The Eighth Circuit has created and is now impermissibly and
unjustly perpetuating a double system of conflicting laws within
the same state, apparently without concern for the fact that its
decision to cut a state statute of limitations in half has created
a situation where state law claims timely filed in state court
become barred by limitations upon removal to federal court," the
petition states.

The Washingtons filed a complaint in Missouri state court in May
2008, alleging that Countrywide had charged extra, unauthorized
fees in connection with their April 2005 loan that were used to
determine prepaid interest before eventually being returned, in
violation of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act.  The suit was
filed within the six-year statute of limitations for state civil
law claims under the Missouri Court of Appeals' 2006 decision in
Schwartz v. Bann-Cor Mortgage, according to the petition.

In June 2008, Countrywide removed the suit to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, which possessed
diversity jurisdiction in the case, the petition states.  The
trial court dismissed the Washingtons' claims as barred by a
three-year statute of limitations, based on the Eighth Circuit's
July 2012 decision in Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union that
Missouri's six-year limit applied to criminal claims but not civil
claims, according to the petition.

In March, the Eighth Circuit upheld the district court decision
and its reliance on Rashaw, which held that the Court of Appeals
had misinterpreted Missouri law and predicted that the Missouri
Supreme Court would overturn its decision in Schwartz, the
petition states. The Eighth Circuit declined to rehear the case en
banc in May, the petition states.

The Washingtons argue that the Eighth Circuit was constitutionally
required to follow the Court of Appeals decision, as it provided
binding precedent after the Supreme Court of Missouri declined to
hear the case.  A federal court should treat an intermediate
appellate ruling as presumptively dispositive when a state's
highest court hasn't decided the controlling issue of state law,
the petition states.

State intermediate appellate courts like the Missouri Court of
Appeals are increasingly taking on the function of deciding state
law rules that state supreme courts have historically performed,
due to the high courts' workload, according to the petition.

The Washingtons asked that the Supreme Court establish a
definitive rule on the deference due to intermediate appellate
courts, and on whether circuit courts have to follow their earlier
predictions as precedent in the absence of an intervening state
court opinion or legislation.

Countrywide waived its right to respond to the petition on
Aug. 28.

The Washingtons are represented by Kip D. Richards --
krichards@wbsvlaw.com -- R. Frederick Walters --
fwalters@wbsvlaw.com -- J. Michael Vaughan and David M. Skeens --
dskeens@wbsvlaw.com -- of Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan PC.

Countrywide is represented by Thomas M. Hefferon --
thefferon@goodwinprocter.com -- William M. Jay and Joseph
Yenouskas -- jyenouskas@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin Procter
LLP and Mark A. Olthoff -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- of
Polsinelli PC.

The case is Jerry W. Washington et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans
Inc., case number 14-219 on petition for a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court.


CRAVATH SWAINE: Discriminates Against Haitian Employee, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mireille Mesias v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07070-KBF (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff
has been subjected to adverse employment actions, a hostile work
environment, or an atmosphere of adverse employment actions due to
her gender and national origin in violation of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the New York State Executive Law, the Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Administrative Code.

Ms. Mireille is a Haitian female.  She is 59 years old, and her
birthday is January 29, 1955.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP is a corporate entity with a
principal place of business located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Ricotta, Esq.
          WHITE, RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C.
          86-12 37th Avenue, Second Floor
          Jackson Heights, NY 11372
          Telephone: (347) 464-8694
          Facsimile: (516) 483-4508
          E-mail: tricotta@NewYorkStateEmploymentAttorney.com


CTOWN LLC: "Batista" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Batista and all others non-exempt employees similarly
situated v. Ctown, LLC a/k/a Ctown, Pedro Diaz and Jesus Diaz at
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-05128 (E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket, which maintains a
principal place of business at 85-08 37th Avenue, Corona, New York
11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harley S. Fastman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HARLEY FASTMAN
      2001 Marcus Avenue Suite S90
      Lake Success, NY 11042
      Telephone: (516) 437-7300
      Facsimile: (516) 706-7774
      E-mail: harley@harleyfastman.com


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Securities Litigation Proceeding With Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delcath Systems 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 8, 2013, a
purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Bryan Green, individually and on
behalf of all others similar situated, v. Delcath Systems, Inc.,
et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-03116-LGS.  On June 14, 2013, a
substantially similar complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Joseph Connico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No.
1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green
and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff,
Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants
(the "Defendants").  The consolidated amended complaint asserts
that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New
Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for
Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for
the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular
melanoma in the liver.  The putative class period alleged in the
amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including
September 13, 2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs.

On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss,
which was subsequently denied on June 27, 2014.  On July 25, 2014,
Defendants filed their respective answers to Lead Plaintiff's
consolidated amended complaint.  On July 29, 2014, the Court held
a scheduling conference setting forth a case management plan.  The
parties are proceeding with discovery.

The Company believes that the In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation action lacks merit and intends to defend the
case vigorously.

Delcath Systems, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company focused on oncology. Our proprietary product --
Melphalan Hydrochloride for Injection for use with the Delcath
Hepatic Delivery System (Melphalan HDS) -- is designed to
administer high dose chemotherapy to the liver, while controlling
the systemic exposure to those agents. The Company's principal
focus is on the treatment of primary and metastatic liver cancers.


DESJARDINS BANK: Fails to Give Equal Access, Disabled Person Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tal Hilson v. Desjardins Bank N.A., Case No. 0:14-cv-61975-WJZ
(S.D. Fla., August 28, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged
failure and refusal to provide disabled persons with full and
equal access to its facilities.

The Plaintiff has a disability known as cerebral palsy resulting
in an impairment in motor and sensory function of the lower half
of his body, and requires use of a wheelchair for mobility.  In
August 2014, he visited the Defendant's facility located in
Hallandale Beach, Florida.

Desjardins Bank N.A. is the lessee, operator, owner and lessor of
the real property where the facility is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Cohen, Esq.
          MARK D. COHEN, P.A.
          Presidential Circle, Suite #435 So.
          4000 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962-1166
          Facsimile: (954) 962-1779
          E-mail: mdcohenpa@yahoo.com


EASTERN ACCOUNT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of Theresa Torsiello by Vincent Torsiello Executor, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. Eastern Account
System of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05460-JAP-DEA
(D.N.J., August 29, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN
          75 Raritan Avenue, Suite 220
          New Brunswick, NJ 08904
          Telephone: (732) 937-9400
          Facsimile: (800) 931-2408
          E-mail: mcginn.chris@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net


EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over "Buyer Always Wins" Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that an eBay
seller filed a class action lawsuit against eBay and PayPal for,
among other things, Breach of Contract and Unfair Business
Practices, alleging that eBay has created a "buyer always wins"
policy to the detriment of sellers, and touching upon several eBay
and PayPal practices that are commonly criticized by sellers.

The lawsuit alleges eBay fails to refund 100 percent of sellers'
fees when a transaction is not completed, and alleges that PayPal
deprives sellers access to their money by placing 21-day holds and
reserves on sellers funds.  The lawsuit also alleges that eBay
forces buyers to bring their disputes with sellers into the eBay
Resolution Center rather than allowing the buyer to settle his or
her dispute directly with the seller, and it alleges that this
practice adversely affects sellers' Detailed Seller Ratings.

Buyer Always Wins in Disputes?

Maggie Campbell sells bicycles and bicycle parts on eBay,
according to her lawsuit, and has entered into approximately 4,500
legally binding contracts with buyers since 2007.  Ms. Campbell
alleges that under eBay's Buyer Protection Policy, the company is
required to consider documentation provided by seller that show
when a buyer's claim has no merit.  "However, in these Buyer
Protection Policy claims that are filed by buyers, Defendant eBay,
Inc. has breached its User Agreement with the Plaintiff (and
class) by refusing to consider documentation provided by the
Plaintiff showing that buyers' claims are without merit."

The lawsuit alleges that eBay has established a policy in deciding
these buyers' claims that the buyer is always right.  "The
decisions made by eBay in the resolution center always favor the
buyer.  eBay does not and will not review the facts of the case to
arrive at a fair resolution of the dispute between the buyer and
the seller," the lawsuit alleges, which continues:

"During the past 4 years, there have been in excess of 130
occasions wherein Plaintiff was damaged as a result of eBay
enforcing its "Buyer Always Wins" policy."

Ms. Campbell alleges eBay forces buyers to bring disputes with the
seller into eBay's Resolution Center rather than allowing the
buyer to settle his or her dispute directly with the seller.

"Defendant eBay Inc. does not want buyers talking to sellers, and
vice versa," according to the complaint.

eBay Fails to Refund All Commission Fees for Rescinded Sales?

The lawsuit also alleges that eBay fails to credit back to sellers
Final Value Fees when sales are rescinded.  "In the past 3 years,
there have been many rescinded sales transactions in which
Defendant eBay, Inc. has failed and refused to credit back to the
Plaintiff (and class) the Final Value Fees that were associated
with the rescinded sales."

In addition, Ms. Campbell alleges that eBay has "nixed"
international sales by refusing to allow international buyers to
pay for her items through PayPal, and claimed that on at least 45
occasions over the last 2 years, eBay failed to reimburse her for
Final Value Fees where it caused her sales agreements with her
buyers to be rescinded.

Ms. Campbell filed her fourth amended complaint on August 20,
2014.


GATSO USA: Class Action Challenges Automated Traffic Cameras
------------------------------------------------------------
B.A. Morelli, writing for The Gazette, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed on Sept. 2 is challenging automated traffic cameras
that Cedar Rapids officials say save lives and reduce crashes.

The cameras came under fire after the Iowa Department of
Transportation said two Interstate 380 speed cameras -- two of the
most productive in the traffic enforcement program -- don't comply
with state rules requiring at least 1,000 feet between a camera
and speed limit change.

The lawsuit claims the speed cameras fail to provide adequate
notice to motorists, and that the cameras target certain motorists
while thousands more are exempt from the rules.

"I hope they have the traffic cameras banned entirely because I
think they are unconstitutional," said plaintiff Gary Hughes of
Marion.

The lawsuit was filed in Linn County District Court against the
City of Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA, a Delaware-based company that
provides equipment and services for the camera program.  The other
plaintiff, Arash Yarpezeshkan of Cedar Rapids, did not have a
listed phone number.

Attorney James C. Larew, who is representing the plaintiffs,
declined to comment.  Officials from Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA
did not return phone and email messages seeking comment.

The speed cameras photograph motorists who violate the speed
limit; from there, a civil penalty of at least $75 is issued.
These violations are different from traditional speeding tickets,
which go on a motorist's driving record.

The lawsuit claims thousands of vehicles don't face enforcement by
the cameras, creating unequal classes of citizens, some of whom
are subject to the ordinance and others who are not.

"That violates fundamental notions of fairness and equality under
the law," the lawsuit states.

According to the lawsuit:

* At least 3,200 government vehicles are not listed in the
database used by Cedar Rapids and Gatso to enforce the camera
program.

* The license plate database was purchased from the Iowa DOT,
"thereby allowing, de facto, many thousands of vehicles owned and
licensed by out-of-state residents to escape the imposition of
civil penalties."

* The technology allows only the photographing of rear-facing
license plates, thus exempting more than 100,000 Iowa-based
vehicles that aren't required to use rear-facing plates.

The second argument claims the traffic enforcement program is
"independently flawed" because Cedar Rapids has failed to provide
drivers with minimally-required notice of speed limit changes,
meaning drivers are denied "a reasonable and safe opportunity to
reduce speeds without incurring civil penalties."

The Iowa DOT notified Cedar Rapids that cameras on I-380 didn't
appear to comply with the 1,000 foot rule that took effect on Feb.
12.

Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett and Police Chief Wayne Jerman
acknowledged the discrepancy -- 895 feet at J Avenue southbound
and 860 feet at Diagonal Drive northbound -- but said the cameras
will stay up and operating and ticket recipients will not be
getting a refund.

Mr. Corbett said he believed the cameras were "grandfathered" in.

The lawsuit requests a temporary ban on enforcing the speed
cameras until the conclusion of the proceeding; a permanent
restriction on the automatic traffic enforcement program; and a
refund for anyone fined under the program in the last two years.

Cedar Rapids automated traffic cameras issued nearly 100,000
tickets worth $5.3 million in 2013, according to a report to the
DOT.  The city received $3.1 million of the revenue, while Gatso
collected $2.1 million, according to Cedar Rapids.

Since February, when the new rule took effect, the two cameras not
in compliance with the DOT rules issued approximately 40,000
tickets.

Mike Lahammer, a Cedar Rapids attorney, said a class action was
the logical approach because of the vast amount of people affected
combined with relatively small penalty amount.

"I'm not sure it would pay to do it on an individual basis," he
said.  "Individually, how much is each person out? As a class,
everybody has got a ticket and you are talking into the millions."


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Has Reached $1.1-Bil. Deal Over Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) spearheading the
litigation emanating from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
announced on Sept. 2, 2014, that it has reached an approximately
$1.1 billion settlement with Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
(HESI) stemming from its role in the incident.

The settlement, which will be overseen by Judge Carl A. Barbier of
the Eastern District of Louisiana, includes two classes of
eligible claimants.   The first class is comprised of individuals
and businesses that are class members in the existing BP Deepwater
Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement.

As part of the PSC's settlement with BP, these class members were
assigned certain of BP's claims and causes of action against HESI.
The settlement with HESI resolves these "assigned" claims and
provides additional benefits to members of the BP Economic and
Property Damages Settlement Class.

The second class is a new HESI Punitive Damages Settlement Class
that includes any individual, business (including fishermen and
charter boat operators), property owner, or governmental entity
(excluding both state and federal government) that is deemed to
have Robins Dry Dock standing under General Maritime Law.  For the
purposes of this settlement, this applies to commercial fishermen
and charter boat operators that were in business at any time
between April 20, 2009, and April 18, 2012; property owners,
businesses and local governments that had oil touch their real
estate or personal property any time between April 20, 2010 and
April 18, 2012; and individuals that fished or hunted in specified
areas and depended on their catch for subsistence, barter or
trade.

A claimant does not have to be a member of the BP Economic and
Property Damages Settlement Class to receive benefits if they
qualify as a Punitive Damages Settlement Class member.  In
addition, class eligibility is not mutually exclusive; certain
claimants may be members of both the BP Economic and Property
Damages Class and the new HESI Punitive Damages Class.

"Halliburton stepped up to the plate and agreed to provide a fair
measure of compensation to people and businesses harmed in the
wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy," said Co-lead plaintiffs'
attorneys, Stephen J. Herman and James P. Roy.

Through the payment of this approximately $1.1 billion settlement,
Halliburton has effectively resolved its liability to private
plaintiffs and local governments for most of its exposure under
both the OPA and General Maritime Law.  Both Transocean and BP
continue to have significant liabilities to private plaintiffs and
state/local governmental entities.

As part of the settlement process, the Court will appoint an
"Allocation Special Master" who will determine what portion of the
aggregate amount will be distributed to each of the two classes.
Further, the Court will also appoint a claims administrator to
develop a Distribution Model to determine how the funds will be
distributed to individual class members.

Courthouse News Service reports that Halliburton will pay $1.1
billion to settle claims related to the Deepwater Horizon
disaster, the company said September 2, 2014.

The Houston-based oilfield services firm was named as a defendant
along with BP in hundreds of lawsuits after the April 20, 2010
explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11
workers and unleashed the nation's worst offshore oil spill, from
the Macondo well.

Halliburton made the cement used to seal the well.

The deal is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Carl
Barbier of New Orleans, who is set to issue a ruling on the amount
of culpability that BP, Halliburton and Transocean, the rig owner,
have for the disaster.

Halliburton said in a statement that the settlement will take care
of "a substantial majority of the plaintiffs' class claims"
against the company, including punitive damage claims by property
owners and commercial fishermen affected by the spill.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Faces Suit Over Motorcycle Design Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
what was billed as a long-anticipated upgrade to Harley-Davidson
Inc.'s elite custom motorcycles has become the subject of a
proposed class action alleging the addition of liquid engine
cooling has led to chronic leaks.

Bloomingdale, Ill., plaintiff Robert Okon, owner of a 2014 FLHTKSE
CVO Limited motorcycle, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 28 alleging that his
$46,000 motorcycle and others in the same series have a design
defect that causes coolant to constantly leak.

Mr. Okon alleges that, shortly after he bought the motorcycle -- a
product of Harley-Davidson's internal factory custom shop, Custom
Vehicle Operations -- in September 2013, it began to leak from the
area of the engine and its cooling system.  He said he sought
repairs six times at four authorized dealerships, but the service
performed amounted to little more than refilling the coolant tank.
The leak continued.  Online motorcycle owner discussion boards,
such as HDForums.com, indicate Mr. Okon is far from alone; there,
some have given the motorcycle the sarcastic nickname "Shower
Head."

Until the introduction of the 2014 CVO Limited motorcycles,
Harley-Davidson engines had remained air cooled even as other
motorcycle brands switched to liquid cooling.  Called by reviewers
one of the most dramatic changes the famously conservative company
has made in decades, the 2014 CVO Limited came with a Twin-Cooled
High Output Twin Cam 103 engine, which is both air-and liquid-
cooled.  It is coolant from the new system that is leaking, which
indicates a flaw in the design, owners contend.

Mr. Okon alleges Harley-Davidson has violated the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty by breaching its written, 24-month,
unlimited mileage warranty by not remedying the leak.  He asks for
actual economic damages and damages for aggravation and
inconvenience.

The plaintiffs are represented by Vincent DiTommaso, Peter Lubin
and John Auchter of DiTommaso and Lubin P.C.


HEALTH NET: Washington Case Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Health Net Inc. is a defendant in three related litigation matters
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "Northern District of California")
relating to the independent contractor classification of
counselors ("MFLCs") who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN
Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non-
medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the
country under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly
Military and Family Life Consultants) program, the 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.

On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County
against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN
Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have
performed services as independent contractors in the state of
Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim
that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under
Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that
they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt
employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.

"We moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied
the motion on September 30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The
Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on
August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act," the
Company said.

On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington
action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed
collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors
nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege
misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek
penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has
since transferred the case to the Northern District of California
to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2,
2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also
a subsidiary).

The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the
FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state
laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico,
Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October
24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations
for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The Company said, "On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel
arbitration in the Northern District of California, and the court
denied the motion on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court
granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective action
certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective
action members. The court stayed all other proceedings pending an
outcome in the Ninth Circuit appeal, which has not yet been
scheduled for hearing."

"On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred
to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two
FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the
suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two
alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to
arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California
Labor Code section 226.8 claims.  On June 3, 2014, the court
granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative
motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted.
We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims;
however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties."

Health Net is a publicly traded managed care organization that
delivers managed health care services through health plans and
government-sponsored managed care plans.


HEALTH NET: Court Granted Final OK of Settlement in 3 Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net Inc. is a defendant in three related litigation matters
pending in California state and federal courts relating to
information security issues, the 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.

The Company said, "On January 21, 2011, International Business
Machines Corp. ("IBM"), which handles our data center operations,
notified us that it could not locate several hard disk drives that
had been used in our data center located in Rancho Cordova,
California. We have since determined that personal information of
approximately two million former and current Health Net members,
employees and health care providers is on the drives. Commencing
on March 14, 2011, we provided written notification to the
individuals whose information is on the drives. To help protect
the personal information of affected individuals, we offered them
two years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to
identity theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of
credit files services, if needed.

"On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this
incident was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (the "Central District of
California"), and similar actions were later filed against us in
other federal and state courts in California. A number of those
actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (the "Eastern
District of California"), and the two remaining actions are
currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco ("San Francisco County Superior Court") and the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Sacramento
County Superior Court"). The consolidated amended complaint in the
federal action pending in the Eastern District of California was
filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000 of our current
or former members who received the written notification, and also
named IBM as a defendant. It sought to state claims for violation
of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and
the California Customer Records Act, and sought statutory damages
of up to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and other relief.

"On August 29, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On January 20, 2012, the district court issued an order
dismissing the consolidated complaint on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their action in federal court.
On April 20, 2012, an amended complaint with a new plaintiff was
filed against us, but no longer asserted claims against IBM. The
amended complaint asserted the same causes of action and sought
the same relief as the earlier complaint. On June 18, 2012, we
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

"The San Francisco County Superior Court proceeding was instituted
on March 28, 2011, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California residents who received the written notification, and
seeks to state similar claims against us, as well as claims for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeks
similar relief. We moved to compel arbitration of the two named
plaintiffs' claims. The court granted our motion as to one of the
named plaintiffs and denied it as to the other. We have appealed
the latter ruling, but subsequently dismissed the appeal.
Thereafter, the plaintiff as to whom our motion to compel
arbitration was granted filed a petition for a writ of mandate
with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of that ruling.
On July 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of
mandate directing the Superior Court to vacate its order granting
the motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order denying the
motion to compel.

"The Sacramento County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on
April 3, 2012, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California members whose information was contained on the
unaccounted for drives. The action contains the same claims and
seeks the same relief as the case pending in the Eastern District
of California. On June 18, 2012, we filed a demurrer seeking
dismissal of this complaint.

"In July 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement (the
"Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs in the three putative
class actions. . . . On October 23, 2013, counsel for the named
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement with the Sacramento County Superior Court.
The Court granted that motion on November 21, 2013. On June 23,
2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement.

"As a result of the settlement, each of the three putative class
actions described above will be dismissed with prejudice, and all
class members who did not opt out will release all claims they may
have related to or arising from the unaccounted-for server drives.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which covers all
individuals whose personal information was identified as being on
the unaccounted-for server drives, class members who did not
previously accept our offer of the credit monitoring and related
services described above are eligible to receive such credit
monitoring and related services for a period of two years at no
cost to them. Class members who previously accepted our original
offer are eligible to receive one additional year of such
services. In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, class
members are eligible to receive reimbursement for certain
unreimbursed losses arising from identity theft during a specified
time period, up to a cap of $50,000 per class member, and $2
million in the aggregate.

"The Settlement Agreement also provides that we will continue our
ongoing activities to enhance our information security measures,
including the encryption of data at rest on our servers and
storage area networks. We are also responsible for the payment of
the court's award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in
the amount of approximately $2.3 million. Finally, we will be
responsible for the costs of administering the Settlement
Agreement. We do not expect that the terms of the Settlement
Agreement will have a material impact on our consolidated
financial statements.

"We also have been informed that the incident involving the
unaccounted-for server drives is under investigation by the
California Department of Managed Health Care ("DMHC")."


HOWARD LIPSTEIN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donotto D. Prendergast, an individual; on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Howard D. Lipstein, individually
and in his official capacity; Taj Financial Services, LLC, a New
Jersey Limited Liability Company; Jerome H. Zimmerman,
individually and in his official capacity on behalf of TAJ
Financial Services, LLC; Toby R. Zimmerman, individually and in
his official capacity on behalf of Taj Financial Services, LLC;
and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 2:14-cv-
05461-FSH-JBC (D.N.J., August 31, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THOMASSON LAW LLC
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          101 Hudson Street, 21st Floor
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 479-9969
          Facsimile: (855) 479-9969
          E-mail: andrew@thomassonllc.com


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Decision Issued in XTO Dispute Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust 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 an amended petition for
a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., was filed
in January 2006 in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma by
certain royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma and
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly
accounted to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are
entitled and seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and
other products produced from their wells and the prices paid for
the natural gas and other products produced, and for payment of
the monies allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited
number of plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time.

XTO Energy removed the case to federal district court in Oklahoma
City. In April 2010, new counsel and representative parties,
Fankhouser and Goddard, filed a motion to intervene and prosecute
the Beer class, now styled Fankhouser v. XTO Energy Inc. This
motion was granted on July 13, 2010. The new plaintiffs and
counsel filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of action
for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment.

On December 16, 2010, the court certified the class. Cross motions
for summary judgment were filed by the parties and ruled on by the
court.

XTO Energy has informed Southwest Bank, as trustee, that after
consideration of the rulings by the court in March and April of
2012, some benefiting XTO Energy and some benefiting the
plaintiffs, and with due regard to the vagaries of litigation and
their uncertain outcomes, XTO Energy and the plaintiffs entered
into settlement negotiations prior to trial and reached a
tentative settlement of $37 million on April 23, 2012. XTO advised
the trustee that $1.4 million of the settlement was attributable
to Kansas claims which predated the Trust. The settlement also
included a new royalty calculation for future royalty payments. A
fairness hearing was conducted on October 10, 2012 and the
settlement was given final approval by the court.

XTO Energy and the trustee disagreed as to whether the settlement
should be charged to the trust net proceeds ($28.5 million; $23.4
million and $5.1 million affecting the net proceeds from Oklahoma
and Kansas, respectively, in addition to a reduction in the net
profits going forward).  The matter was arbitrated by a three
person tribunal and a decision was issued on April 21, 2014.

As a result of the arbitration ruling, the May 2014 distribution
included $4,386,396 which represents amounts withheld from the
September and October 2012 distributions and $1,985,438 which
represents attorney fees, arbitration expenses and interest. The
amounts represent all of the required reimbursements per the
arbitration ruling. The arbitration ruling also prohibits XTO
Energy from charging any portion of the Fankhouser settlement
(including the new royalty calculation for future royalty
payments) to the trust, now or in the future.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: "Roderick" Case Certification Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court reversed the certification of the class in the
"Roderick" case and remanded the case back to the trial court for
further proceedings, Hugoton Royalty Trust 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.

In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al.
v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.
XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells
located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. The plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify the class, including only Kansas and Oklahoma
wells not part of the Fankhouser matter.

After filing the motion to certify, but prior to the class
certification hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion to sever the
Oklahoma portion of the case so it could be transferred and
consolidated with a newly filed class action in Oklahoma styled
Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. This motion was
granted.

The Roderick case now comprises only Kansas wells not previously
included in the Fankhouser matter. The case was certified as a
class action in March 2012.

XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012 which was granted on
June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class
and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Royalty Certification Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court reversed the certification of the class in the
Chieftain Royalty Company case, and remanded the case back to the
trial court for further proceedings, Hugoton Royalty Trust 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.

In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal
County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to
federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs
allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty
payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to
secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its
constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they
have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests.

The case expressly excludes those claims and wells prosecuted in
the Fankhouser case.  The severed Roderick case claims related to
the Oklahoma portion of the case were consolidated into Chieftain.

The case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy
filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012 which was granted on June 26,
2012.  The court reversed the certification of the class and
remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

XTO Energy has informed Southwest Bank, as the trustee, that it
believes that XTO Energy has strong defenses to these lawsuits and
intends to vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy has
informed the Trustee that it is cognizant of other, similar
litigation, such as Fankhouser, and other, unrelated entities.

As these cases develop, XTO Energy will assess its legal position
accordingly. If XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement
payments or receives a judgment against it in Chieftain or
Roderick, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it believes that
the terms of the conveyances covering the trust's net profits
interests require the trust to bear its 80% share of such
settlement or judgment related to production from the underlying
properties.

Additionally, if the judgment or settlement increases the amount
of future payments to royalty owners, XTO Energy has informed the
trustee that the trust would bear its proportionate share of the
increased payments through reduced net proceeds.

In the event of any such settlement or judgment, the trustee
intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the trust
based on the facts and circumstances of such settlement or
judgment. In light of the arbitration tribunal's decision on
treatment of the Fankhouser settlement, to the extent that the
claims in Chieftain or Roderick are similar to those in
Fankhouser, the trustee would likely object to such claimed
reductions. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the
amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently
determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not
currently expected to be material to the trust's financial
position or liquidity though it could be material to the trust's
annual distributable income. Additionally, XTO Energy has advised
the trustee that any reductions would result in costs exceeding
revenues on the properties underlying the net profit interests of
the cases named above, as applicable, for several monthly
distributions, depending on the size of the judgment or
settlement, if any, and the net proceeds being paid at that time,
which would result in the net profits interest being limited until
such time that the revenues exceed the costs for those net profit
interests.

If there is a settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the
trustee disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or
judgment to be charged, if any, against the trust's net profits
interests, the matter will be resolved by binding arbitration
through the American Arbitration Association under the terms of
the Indenture creating the trust.


INTL FCSTONE: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Action
-------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class
action was filed on January 13, 2014, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws, and claims that the
Company has issued false and misleading information concerning the
Company's business and prospects. The action seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's shares
between February 17, 2010 and December 16, 2013.

During March 2014, three motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
were filed; two were subsequently withdrawn, leaving a single
unopposed bid for lead plaintiff appointment, an appointment that
was approved by the court on April 29, 2014. The lead plaintiff's
amended complaint was filed on June 13, 2014. The Company's motion
to dismiss the complaint was filed on July 28, 2014.

The Company has not determined that losses related to this matter
are probable. Because the matter is in the early stages of
litigation and no discovery has been commenced, together with the
inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation
generally, the Company does not have sufficient information to
determine the amount or range of reasonably possible loss with
respect to these matters. The Company believes the case is without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

The Company's Directors' and Officers' insurance policy is
expected to cover any liability and litigation costs in excess of
the $0.5 million policy retention amount.

INTL FCStone Inc. is a diversified, global financial services
organization providing financial products and advisory and
execution services that help clients access market liquidity,
maximize profits and manage risk.


J.C. EHRLICH: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Hayes" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian K. Hayes and William Darnell Primm, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. J.C. Ehrlich Co., Inc. d/b/a
Gold Seal Termite & Pest Control Company and Elia Levin, Case No.
1:14-cv-01428 (S.D. Ind., August 29, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants refused to properly pay overtime wages for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

J.C. Ehrlich Co., Inc offers pest control services for residential
and commercial purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, PC
      3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-mail: rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com
              phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com


JTEKT CORPORATION: Accused of Manipulating Vehicle Bearing Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc., Rush Truck Centers of
California, Inc., Rush Truck Centers of Colorado, Inc. et al., v.
JTEKT Corporation, Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., Nachi-Fujikoshi
Corp.; Nachi America Inc., NSK Ltd., NSK Americas, Inc.,
Schaeffler Group USA Inc., SKF USA, Inc., NTN Corporation; and NTN
USA Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-13356 (E.D. Mich., August 29,
2014), arises from the lengthy conspiracy made by the Defendants
to suppress and eliminate competition in the bearings industry by
agreeing to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of vehicle
bearings sold to truck manufacturers throughout  the United
States.

The Defendants are foreign and US based manufacturers and sellers
of vehicle bearings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Manly Parks, Esq.
      Wayne A. Mack, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS, LLP
      30 S. 17th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-4001
      Telephone: (215) 979-1342
      E-mail: jmparks@duanemorris.com
              wamack@duanemorris.com


KEURIG GREEN: 2nd Cir. Set October Oral Argument in LAMPERS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, 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 28, 2014, that the putative
securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont
before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its
revenues and its inventory accounting practices.

The amended complaint sought class certification, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the
court should deem just and proper.  Plaintiffs sought to represent
all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2,
2011 and November 9, 2011.  The initial complaint filed in the
action on November 29, 2011 included counts for alleged violations
of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters in
connection with a May 2011 secondary common stock offering; and
(2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the
Company and the officer defendants, and for violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012
to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative
class.  Competing applications were filed and the Court appointed
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde
AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale
General Employees' Retirement System, Employees' Retirement System
of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on
April 27, 2012.

Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed
a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities
Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the
Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary
common stock offering.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 1, 2013 and on December 20, 2013, the court
issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.

On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal
the court's December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Pursuant to a schedule entered by
the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June
23, 2014.  The Second Circuit has tentatively scheduled oral
argument to occur during the week of October 27, 2014.

The underwriters previously named as defendants notified the
Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company
pursuant to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in
regard to the claims asserted in this action.

Keurig Green sells Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers and roast
high-quality Arabica bean coffees including single-origin, Fair
Trade Certified(TM), certified organic, flavored, limited edition
and proprietary blends offered in K-Cup(R), Vue(R), and Rivo(R),
and Bolt(TM) portion packs ("portion packs") for use with the
Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers.  The Company also offers
traditional whole bean and ground coffee in other package types
including bags, fractional packages and cans.  In addition, it
produces and sells other specialty beverages in portion packs
including hot apple cider, hot and iced teas, iced coffees, iced
fruit brews, hot cocoa and other dairy-based beverages.


KEURIG GREEN: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Fifield" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 8, 2014,
issued a mandate affirming dismissal of the "Fifield" action,
Keurig Green Mountain, 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 28, 2014.

The putative securities fraud class action, captioned Fifield v.
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-00091, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its forward guidance.  The amended complaint included
counts for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for alleged violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer
defendants.  The amended complaint sought class certification,
compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should
deem just and proper.  Plaintiffs sought to represent all
purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2012
and May 2, 2012.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until July 6, 2012 to
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class.
On July 31, 2012, the court appointed Kambiz Golesorkhi as lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of Kahn Swick & Foti LLC as
lead counsel.  On August 14, 2012, the court granted the parties'
stipulated motion for filing of an amended complaint and to set a
briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss.  Pursuant to
a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on October 23, 2012, adding William C. Daley as an
additional lead plaintiff.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 17,
2013 and the briefing of their motions was completed on May 17,
2013.  On September 26, 2013, the court issued an order granting
defendants' motions and dismissing the amended complaint without
prejudice and allowing plaintiffs a 30-day period within which to
amend their complaint.  On October 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
notice of intent to appeal the court's September 26, 2013 order to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
July 8, 2014, the Second Circuit issued a mandate affirming
dismissal of the action.

Keurig Green sells Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers and roast
high-quality Arabica bean coffees including single-origin, Fair
Trade Certified(TM), certified organic, flavored, limited edition
and proprietary blends offered in K-Cup(R), Vue(R), and Rivo(R),
and Bolt(TM) portion packs ("portion packs") for use with the
Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers.  The Company also offers
traditional whole bean and ground coffee in other package types
including bags, fractional packages and cans.  In addition, it
produces and sells other specialty beverages in portion packs
including hot apple cider, hot and iced teas, iced coffees, iced
fruit brews, hot cocoa and other dairy-based beverages.


KEURIG GREEN: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Held
-------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods,
Inc. filed on February 11, 2014, a suit against Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et
al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-
00905-VSB).  The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the
Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee
brewers and single serve coffee portion packs, including through
its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection
with the launch of its next generation coffee brewer.  The
TreeHouse complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD).  The claims
asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse
complaint.

Beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-six putative class actions
asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief have been
filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the
Company's products in various federal district courts.

Keurig Green Mountain, 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 28, 2014, that on March 20, 2014,
a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "Panel") to transfer these various actions,
including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial
district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
On June 3, 2014, the Panel granted the transfer motion,
transferring the actions to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pre-
trial proceedings.  The actions are now pending before Judge
Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New York (In re:
Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation,
No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB).

A conference was held on June 19, 2014 in the Southern District of
New York before Judge Broderick.  Plaintiffs in the TreeHouse and
JBR actions stated that they intended to seek expedited discovery
in aid of possible preliminary injunction motions.  On June 23,
2014, plaintiffs in the TreeHouse and JBR actions filed a joint
motion to expedite discovery, which the Court granted in part and
denied in part on July 23, 2014.  On July 30, 2014, the Court
directed that plaintiffs have until August 11, 2014 to move for a
preliminary injunction.  A preliminary injunction hearing is
provisionally scheduled for September 3, 2014.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014.
The Company's motions to dismiss these complaints and the
complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions are currently due
August 25, 2014 and will be fully briefed under the current
schedule on October 8, 2014.

The Company intends vigorously to defend all of the pending
lawsuits, including by moving to dismiss the actions and opposing
any motion for a preliminary injunction.

Keurig Green sells Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers and roast
high-quality Arabica bean coffees including single-origin, Fair
Trade Certified(TM), certified organic, flavored, limited edition
and proprietary blends offered in K-Cup(R), Vue(R), and Rivo(R),
and Bolt(TM) portion packs ("portion packs") for use with the
Keurig(R) hot beverage system brewers.  The Company also offers
traditional whole bean and ground coffee in other package types
including bags, fractional packages and cans.  In addition, it
produces and sells other specialty beverages in portion packs
including hot apple cider, hot and iced teas, iced coffees, iced
fruit brews, hot cocoa and other dairy-based beverages.


KING SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Martin" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Martin, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. King Supermarket Inc.,
Fifa Foods and Mohammad Hussein, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06708 (N.D. Ill., August 29, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages.

The Defendants own and operate a full service grocery store within
the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


LA CASA ANAHEIM: Faces Suit Arising From ADA Non-Compliance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Loskot v. La Casa Anaheim Resort, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, dba Hotel Menage, and Does One to Ten,
inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01362-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal., August 25,
2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
arising from the Defendants alleged failure to provide tow away
signs, failure to remove buildup ramp in the access aisle that
would interfere with a wheelchair lift, and failure to post any
handicap pole sign or handicap sign on the pillar in front of the
parking spaces.

The Plaintiff is a physically handicapped person and is severely
limited in the use of his legs.

La Casa Anaheim Resort, LLC, is a California Limited Liability
Company.  The Company and the Doe Defendants owned and operated
Hotel Menage, which is located in Anaheim, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Torres, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Lindsey Management Company, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
00515 (E.D. Ark., August 29, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Lindsey Management Company, Inc. operates apartment complexes
throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOGMEIN INC: Faces "Handy" Suit Over Ignition App Subscription
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that after
years of selling its remote access Ignition app for a one-time fee
of $29.99, LogMeIn began requiring users to pay $99 or more a year
to be able to keep using it, a class action claims in California
Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Darren Handy sued Massachusetts-based LogMeIn on
Aug. 28, alleging fraud and unfair competition.

LogMeIn's Ignition app allows users to control all of their
computers from their iPads or iPhones.  LogMeIn advertises
Ignition as "anywhere, anytime access to everything on your PC or
Mac -- all your files, applications and desktops -- right at your
fingertips," according to the lawsuit.

For years, the Ignition app was sold for $29.99.  But on Jan. 21
this year, LogMeIn "abruptly" informed users they would no longer
be able to use the functions on Ignition unless they bought an
account-level subscription of LogMeIn Pro, Handy says.

The costs for the subscriptions range from $99 per year for
individuals, up to $449 per year for small businesses.  Consumers
who do not pay for a subscription can no longer use the app,
according to the complaint.

"In inducing plaintiff to purchase defendant's app, defendant did
not inform plaintiff that additional fees beyond the $29.99
already paid to download the app would ever be required to
continue usage of Ignition," Handy says.

He says his Ignition stopped working on Aug. 19.

Handy seeks class certification, restitution and an injunction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MADISON SQUARE: Court Denied Motions to Dismiss Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied the motions for summary judgment filed by Madison
Square Garden Company and other defendants in two antitrust class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's August 20, 2014 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended June 30, 2014.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors.  The complaints,
which are substantially identical, primarily assert that certain
of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by
defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain
territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the television
and online distribution of live hockey games, violate Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The complaints seek
injunctive relief against the defendants' continued violation of
the antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest.  On July 27, 2012, the Company and the
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaints (which
have been consolidated for procedural purposes).  On December 5,
2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order largely denying the
motion to dismiss.

On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all
defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the complaints in their entirety.  On August 8, 2014, the Court
denied the motions for summary judgment.  The Company says it
intends to vigorously defend the claims against it.


MDC MANUFACTURING: "Pacual" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Demetrio Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MDC Manufacturing, Inc., and Nersi Nasseri, in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-05119
(E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MDC Manufacturing, Inc. provides machine building, manufacturing,
design and other support services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Robert Maguire, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


MIT TRUCKING: Removed "Fajardo" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Pedro Fajardo v. MIT Trucking,
Inc., and Alexander Lowrey, Case No. 14-14718-CC-05, was removed
from the County Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23232-CMA to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN, P.A.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael L. Elkins, Esq.
          BRYANT MILLER OLIVE P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-7349
          Facsimile: (305) 374-0895
          E-mail: melkins@bmolaw.com


NVIDIA CORP: Appeal in Securities Suit Still Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a consolidated
securities suit against NVIDIA Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California is
currently under submission, according to the Company's August 20,
2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2014.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California arising out of the Company's announcements
on July 2, 2008, that it would take a charge against cost of
revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a
weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the
Company's previous generation MCP and GPU products and that the
Company were revising financial guidance for its second quarter of
fiscal year 2009.  The actions purport to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages.  The Company
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October 19,
2010, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion with leave to
amend.  On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Company again moved to
dismiss and on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg again granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, this time denying Plaintiffs leave to
amend.  On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
to the Ninth Circuit.  Oral argument was held on January 14, 2014,
and the appeal is currently under submission.


ORCHARD ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Reimbursement of Attorneys Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP at
The National Law Review, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently
held that certain stockholders who launched appraisal proceedings
challenging a merger lacked standing to obtain reimbursement of
attorneys' fees from a $10.7 million settlement in a separate
class action challenging the same merger.  In 2010, a group of
stockholders (Appraisal Claimants) of Orchard Enterprises, Inc.
perfected their appraisal rights after Orchard effected a cash-out
merger with its controlling stockholder, Dimensional Associates,
LLC.  In 2012, while the appraisal proceeding was pending, a group
of minority stockholders filed a class action alleging that
Dimensional and members of Orchard's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duty when they negotiated the merger.  Although
the Appraisal Claimants did not seek to intervene in or take part
in the class action, after the settlement in the class action,
they sought an award of attorneys' fees for their counsel in the
initial appraisal proceeding.

Although the court held that the appraisal proceeding contributed
in some measure to the settlement in the class action, the court
nevertheless held that the Appraisal Claimants lacked standing to
obtain a fee award.  The court found that the Appraisal Claimants
pursued their own interests and chose not to join or take part in
the class action.  The court emphasized that the Appraisal
Claimants chose not to represent a class or extend the benefits of
their efforts to the other stockholders.  The court stated, "That
was a perfectly acceptable choice, but it carries a consequence:
Under the circumstances, the Appraisal Claimants and their counsel
lack standing to obtain a fee award."

In re Orchard Enterprises Inc. Stockholder Litig., No. 7840-VCL
(Del. Ch. Aug. 22, 2014).


PARKCENTRAL GLOBAL: Class Cert. Denied in Suit Over Fund Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused to certify a class of investors fighting
Ross Perot's company over its role in the $2.5 billion Parkcentral
Global hedge fund collapse, reports David Lee, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Founded in 2002, Parkcentral Global purportedly gave outside
investors access to the Perot family's money management team and
proprietary trading strategies.  The hedge fund was wiped out when
AAA-rated positions in the CMBS market were devalued by 10 percent
during the 2008 financial crisis.

Levine Capital Ltd. and Southern Avenue Partners LP claimed in a
2009 lawsuit that Plano-based Perot Investments and its employees,
Steven Blasnik and Peter Karmin, misled Parkcentral Global's
limited partners.  Instead of hedging its positions as
represented, Parkcentral Global pursued a highly leveraged, open-
long position in AAA-rated commercial mortgage-backed securities,
the complaint alleged.

U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn later dismissed the majority
of the investors' claims in July 2012, but allowed claims the
officers breached their fiduciary duties by misrepresentation
and/or non-disclosure.

In an Aug. 25 order unsealed on September 2, 2014, Lynn denied a
motion for class certification.

"The court concludes that this case raises pervasive individual
questions pertaining to the content of information received,
reliance, and damages, such that class treatment would be
inappropriate," the 26-page opinion states.

With evidence showing "significant differences in the amount and
substance" of information given to the limited partners, Lynn said
"individualized questions" over the receipt of false or misleading
information will "predominate over common questions."

"The differing views of limited partners, including on whether
they found AAA CMBS positions appealing, suggest that reliance
cannot be presumed for the putative class as a whole," Lynn added.
"Because of the different investor views as to the advisability of
Parkcentral's trading strategy, it is speculative to assume that
the investors would have taken a uniform course of action had they
had different information, and accordingly, the extent to which
they relied on defendants' communications in deciding not to
redeem is one that requires individual analysis.  Because there
are individualized issues as to what information different limited
partners received, and the extent to which they relied on such
information, common issues do not predominate."

Perot Investments did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on September 2 evening.

The case is In Re: Parkcentral Global Litigation, Case No. 3:09-
cv-765-M, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division.


PATRIOT PAWS: Faces "Fry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Fry, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Patriot Paws Service Dogs, Case No. 3:14-cv-
03104 (N.D. Tex., August 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, statutory liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Patriot Paws Service Dogs trains service dogs primarily for
veterans with mobility disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa M. Fletcher, Esq.
      MORALES FLETCHER LAW, P.C.
      115 E Travis, Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: melissa@themoralesfirm.com

         - and -

      Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM PC
      115 E Travis, Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com

         - and -

      Rodney Pat Ramsey, Esq.
      RAMSEY LAW OFFICE
      201 E Main St, Suite 203
      Waxahachie, TX 75165
      Telephone: (972) 935-9111
      Facsimile: (972) 935-0224
      E-mail: occides@hotmail.com


POWERSECURE INT'L: Faces Securities Class Action in E.D.N.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
PowerSecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative
securities class action lawsuit was filed on May 22, 2014, against
the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Subsequently, in May and in July 2014, two additional purported
securities class action lawsuits were filed against the same
defendants in the United States District Courts, one in the
Eastern District of North Carolina and the other in the Western
District of North Carolina.

The Company said, "We expect that all of these lawsuits will be
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. These actions were filed on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased our common stock during a
class period that was originally between March 10, 2014 and May 7,
2014, and was subsequently extended to a class period between
August 8, 2013 and May 7, 2014. The complaints, which are
substantially similar, allege that certain statements made during
the applicable class period violated federal securities laws. The
amount of damages has not been specified, and no determination has
been made on the status of the lawsuits proposed as class
actions."

"We believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against all such
allegations. We have various insurance policies related to the
risk associated with our business, including directors' and
officers' liability insurance policies. However, there is no
assurance that our insurance coverage will be sufficient or that
our insurance carriers will cover all claims. The ultimate outcome
of these proceedings cannot be accurately predicted due to the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and the litigation is at a very
early stage. Other than an immaterial amount for expected legal
expenses, we have not accrued any costs for the securities class
actions as we do not believe, based upon current information, that
a loss relating to these matters is probable, and an estimate of a
range of potential loss relating to these matters, cannot
reasonably be made."

PowerSecure International, Inc., headquartered in Wake Forest,
North Carolina, is a provider of products and services to electric
utilities, and their large commercial, institutional and
industrial customers.


REED ELSEVIER: Terminated Client Manager Due to Race, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Perry v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01422-LJM-DML
(S.D. Ind., August 28, 2014) alleges that the Defendant terminated
the Plaintiff -- a female African-American -- due to her race.

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as a client manager,
contends that less qualified, similarly situated, non-African
American employees were not terminated by the Defendant despite
having less qualification and less seniority as compared to her.

Reed Elsevier, Inc., is located within the Southern District of
Indiana, and is the Plaintiff's former employer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Haskin, Esq.
          Ryan C. Fox, Esq.
          Jason P. Cleveland, Esq.
          JOHN H. HASKIN & ASSOCIATES
          255 North Alabama Street, 2nd Floor
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 955-9500
          Facsimile: (317) 955-2570
          E-mail: jhaskin@jhaskinlaw.com
                  rfox@jhaskinlaw.com
                  jcleveland@jhaskinlaw.com


SECURITY SERVICE: Sued for Not Having Handicap-Accessible Parking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Tovar v. Security Service Federal Credit Union, Case No.
1:14-cv-00170 (S.D. Tex., September 1, 2014) alleges that the
Defendant refused to provide the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated with sufficient handicap accessible parking in the
parking lot that serves the Defendant's business at Harlingen,
Texas.

Juan Tovar is a Vietnam Veteran with a 100% Disability Rating.  He
has mobility impairments and uses a cane, walker, and wheelchair
for mobility.

Security Service Federal Credit Union owns and operates the store
located in Harlingen, Texas.  Security Service is a Texas State
Financial Institution headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar W. Rosales, Esq.
          THE ROSALES LAW FIRM, LLC
          Federal No. 69067
          402 South F St.
          Harlingen, TX 78550
          Telephone: (956) 423-1417
          Facsimile: (956) 524-5173
          E-mail: talon_eye@yahoo.com


SPECTRUM CLUB: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Spectrum Club Holding Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-06766
(C.D. Cal., August 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Spectrum Club Holding Company owns and operates a chain of
athletic clubs that offers consumers group classes, personal
training and corporate wellness through membership of their gym
facilities in Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gouya Askari Ranekouhi, Esq.
      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: gouya@kazlg.com
              ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


STATE FARM: Accused of Fraud by Long-Term Care Insurance Holder
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Silcox, as the successor-in-interest to the Estate of
Philip Silcox, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; and
Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 37-2014-00029253-CU-IC-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., August 29, 2014) challenges the
Defendants' alleged deceptive/unlawful business practices,
including the issuance of false and misleading advertisements.

Ms. Silcox is a resident of the County of San Diego, California.
He husband, Philip Silcox, passed away on August 28, 2014.  The
class she wants to represent is defined to include all
individuals, who have purchased a long-term care insurance policy
from State Farm intended to be a Qualified Long-Term Care
Insurance Contract as defined by the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.

State Farm is an Illinois corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois.  State Farm
engages in continuous and regular commercial activity in the state
of California, including the County of San Diego, consisting of
the marketing and sale of insurance contracts and services to
consumers by and through insurance agents located in San Diego
County.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian Fusselman, Esq.
          THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
          2550 Fifth A venue, 11th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 236-9363
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
          E-mail: fusselman@tbmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jacques J. Kirch, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACQUES J. KIRCH
          2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 525-1630
          Facsimile: (619) 525-1633
          E-mail: jkirch@kirchlaw.com


STATE FARM: Seeks Dismissal of Collision Repair Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Stacey, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that several
insurers have filed motions to dismiss a class action suit filed
by a Downington, Pa.-based collision repair shop.  Crawford's Auto
Center filed the suit in April under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (the RICO Act) and names several
insurers, including State Farm, Allstate, Geico, Progressive,
Farmers, Liberty Mutual and Nationwide.  The suit charges the
insurers with market control, price-setting, steering,
information-sharing and more.

State Farm, Geico, Progressive and several others have filed
motions for dismissal for a variety of reasons.

" . . . Plaintiff must allege facts showing that its alleged
injuries were caused by one or more of the alleged wire fraud
violations forming the purported pattern of RICO activity," writes
State Farm in its memo in support of the motion to dismiss.

Additionally, State Farm alleges that CAC "gives no specific
details of the alleged transactions" (particularly in regard to
payment issues).

"Plaintiff merely alleges that State Farm's payment amount differs
from the amount charged by plaintiff and conclusorily asserts that
its number is correct and State Farm's number is incorrect and
fraudulent," writes State Farm.  "Plaintiff does not give any
specifics as to what components of State Farm's estimates and
supplements it claims are incorrect or why they are incorrect."

The motion continues, "Furthermore, although plaintiff apparently
is alleging that State Farm's misrepresentations consist in
asserting that plaintiff's charges are not consistent with
prevailing rates, plaintiff does not allege what the prevailing
rates would or should have been or even that plaintiff's charges
were consistent with the prevailing rates."

State Farm also alleges that "the purported fraud boils down to no
more than plaintiff's frustration with competitive market forces
and its agreements with State Farm's and the other defendants'
methods of determining prevailing rates."

Geico also addresses the prevailing rate allegations in its motion
to dismiss -- but in a different way.

"If the amount Geico pays is, in some way, too low, then the
result would be that Geico's customer allegedly would not be
receiving the benefit of the bargain (i.e., auto insurance
coverage in exchange for premiums), and would have to pay more to
plaintiff for body work for a quality repair, and thus would have
a claim against Geico," writes the company.

Similarly, the insurance company claims that CAC "has failed to
allege that [it] acted in a manner that harms [the] plaintiff."

Other insurers, including Progressive, Farmers, 21st Century,
Allstate and Liberty Mutual also have filed a joint motion to
dismiss.

Crawford's is seeking certification of the class; judgments
against each of the defendants; actual and compensatory damages;
restitution; punitive damages; court costs; and prejudgment and
post-judgment interest.

At press time, the court had not yet ruled on the motions.  In
response to the motions, Crawford's had amended its complaint and
added another named plaintiff, K&M Collision LLC, based in
Hickory, N.C. Stay tuned to glassBYTEs.com(TM) for more
information as it becomes available.


SW GROUP: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Jackson on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SW Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02772 (D. Md., August
29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and statutory
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SW Group, LLC own and controls 37 stores under the trade name of
Shoppers World.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth Christopher Gauvey, Esq.
      THE LAW PRACTICE OF KEN C. GAUVEY, LLC
      111 South Calvert Street, Suite 2700
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Telephone: (410) 385-5264
      Facsimile: (866) 487-1154
      E-mail: kgauvey@gauveylaw.com


TRINET GROUP: Facing Worksite Employees Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in various class action lawsuits arising from
the nature of the Company's relationship with its worksite
employees.  At this stage of the lawsuits, management believes an
unfavorable outcome to the Company is not probable. There are
significant uncertainties involved in any class action litigation.
Management is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss
for these class action lawsuits.

TriNet Group, Inc. provides a comprehensive human resources
solution for small to medium-sized businesses. The Company's
solution includes payroll processing, human capital consulting,
employment law compliance and employee benefits, including health
insurance, retirement plans and workers compensation insurance.
The Company provides its services through co-employment
relationships with its customers, under which the Company and its
customers each take responsibility for certain portions of the
employer-employee relationship for worksite employees (WSEs). The
Company is the employer of record for most administrative and
regulatory purposes, including the following: (i) compensation
through wages and salaries; (ii) employer payroll-related taxes
payment; (iii) employee payroll-related taxes withholding and
payment; (iv) employee benefit programs including health and life
insurance, and others; and (v) workers compensation coverage.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removed "Salovitz" Suit to W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Heiwa Salovitz v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
Case No. D-1-GN-14-002501, was removed from the 53rd Judicial
District of Travis County Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas (Austin).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00823 to the proceeding.

Mr. Salovitz alleges that the Defendant denied him the ability to
use and enjoy its services, and failed to provide accessible cabs
or equivalent transportation service, in violation of his rights
under the Texas Human Resources Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph B. Berra, Esq.
          James C. Harrington, Esq.
          Wayne Krause Yang, Esq.
          TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT
          1405 Montopolis Drive
          Austin, TX 78741-3438
          Telephone: (512) 474-5073
          Facsimile: (512) 474-0726
          E-mail: joe.tcrp@gmail.com
                  jch@mail.utexas.edu
                  waynekrauseyang@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Vicki L. Gillette, Esq.
          Jonathan G. Rector, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1500
          Lock Box 116
          Dallas, TX 75201-2931
          Telephone: (214) 880-8100
          Facsimile: (214) 880-0181
          E-mail: vgillette@littler.com
                  jrector@littler.com


UNION BANKSHARES: Dist. Court Okayed MOU & Class Action Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court on May 19, 2014, approved a memorandum of
understanding and class action settlement in the lawsuit over
Union Bankshares Corporation's acquisition of StellarOne
Corporation, Union Bankshares 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.

In response to the initial announcement of the definitive merger
agreement for the acquisition of StellarOne Corporation, Jaclyn
Crescente, individually and on behalf of all other StellarOne
shareholders, filed on June 14, 2013, a class action complaint
against StellarOne, its current directors, StellarOne Bank, and
the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (the "District Court") (Case
No. 3:13-cv-00021-NKM). The complaint alleged that the StellarOne
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger
with the Company and that the Company aided and abetted in such
breaches of duty. The complaint sought, among other things, money
damages.

StellarOne and the Company believe that the claims were without
merit; however, in order to eliminate the expense and
uncertainties of further litigation, all the defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in order to
settle the litigation prior to the merger. Under the terms of the
memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the
lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims, subject to
approval by the District Court. On May 19, 2014, the District
Court approved the memorandum of understanding and the class
action settlement in the case.

Headquartered in Richmond, Union Bankshares Corporation is the
largest community banking organization headquartered in Virginia
and operates in all major banking markets of the Commonwealth.
Union Bankshares Corporation is the holding company for Union
First Market Bank, which provides banking, trust, and wealth
management services and has a statewide presence of 131 bank
branches and 200 ATMs. Non-bank affiliates of the holding company
include: Union Investment Services, Inc., which provides full
brokerage services; Union Mortgage Group, Inc., which provides a
full line of mortgage products; and Union Insurance Group, LLC,
which offers various lines of insurance products.


WALTER ENERGY: "Moore" Case in N.D. Ala. Currently Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter 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, that in 2011, the Company
and Walter Coke Inc. were named in a suit filed by Louise Moore
(Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case
No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.  This is a putative civil class action
alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged presence
on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and other
hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current and/or
historic operations in the area conducted by the defendants and/or
their predecessors. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and amending
the claims alleged against Walter Coke to relate to Walter Coke's
alleged conduct for the period commencing after March 2, 1995.
Thereafter, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint.

On September 28, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and
order granting in part and denying in part the motion. In
partially granting Walter Coke's motion, the Court held that the
plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not valid and that
class action-related claims must be dismissed (with leave to re-
plead) due to an improperly defined class. In partially ruling for
the plaintiff, the Court held that at the pleading stage the
plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed on rule of repose
grounds or due to insufficient pleading. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on October 29, 2012.

On November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and motion for
partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint.

The Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for partial
dismissal of the second amended complaint on January 10, 2013. On
September 30, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and
order denying the motion.

On November 1, 2013, a joint motion to stay the proceeding was
filed with the Court, which the Court granted on November 21,
2013. As a result of the Court's action, the case is currently
stayed.

The Company believes that there is no merit to the claims alleged
in this action and intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Walter Energy, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
producer and exporter of metallurgical coal for the global steel
industry from underground and surface mines with mineral reserves
located in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The
Company also extracts, processes, markets and/or possesses mineral
reserves of thermal coal and anthracite coal, as well as produces
metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas.


WALTER ENERGY: Stay Relief Bid and Briefing Schedule Due
--------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.
had until August 22, 2014 to file a motion with the court
requesting the stay be lifted and to submit a jointly proposed
briefing schedule on a second motion for class certification, if
such a motion is desired by Plaintiffs, Walter 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.

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President
of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the
"Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush
and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who
each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who
purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21,
2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934
Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
1934 Act.

On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re
Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also
appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public
Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C.
Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action.

On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended
complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a
current director and former interim CEO of Walter Energy, in
addition to the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012. On
January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without prejudice.

Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013. The
parties are now in the process of discovery.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 15,
2013.  On March 18, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing
and stayed this litigation pending a decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund,
Inc. ("Halliburton II").

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton II on
June 23, 2014, the parties had until August 22, 2014 to file a
motion with the Court requesting the stay be lifted and also to
submit a jointly proposed briefing schedule on a second motion for
class certification, if such a motion is desired by Plaintiffs.

Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is
no merit to the claims alleged and intend to vigorously defend
these actions.

Walter Energy, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
producer and exporter of metallurgical coal for the global steel
industry from underground and surface mines with mineral reserves
located in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The
Company also extracts, processes, markets and/or possesses mineral
reserves of thermal coal and anthracite coal, as well as produces
metallurgical coke and coal bed methane gas.


WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Grodnick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Whole Foods Market Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07035
(S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014), alleges that the amount of sugar on
the Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt label and
that the actual sugar content of the product was many times higher
than the 2 grams per serving falsely stated on the label.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. owns and operates a food supermarket
chain specializing in natural and organic food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      1200 Avenue of theAmericas, 3rd Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 354-0030
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.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  * * *