CAR_Public/140909.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 179

                             Headlines


99 MILES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Okays Voluntary Case Dismissal
AMERICAN LEISURE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tarrizo" Suit Says
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Ranekouhi" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Provides Update on Shareholder Class Suit

ATLANTA INDEPENDENT: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AVENTURA'S FINEST: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Silver Price-Fixing
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Evidentiary Hearing Expected in Q3 2014
BLUCORA INC: Securities Class Action Filed in W.D. Washington

CAREER EDUCATION: Awaiting Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Ross" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Mediation Session Held in Student Litigation
CAREER EDUCATION: Order Striking Class Allegations Under Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: Oral Argument Heard on Appeal in "Surrett" Case
CAREER EDUCATION: 97 of Plaintiffs Not Part of Settlement

CAREER EDUCATION: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Nov. 30
CRACKER BARREL: Faces "Perzan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CTI INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DEMCO OF RIVERDALE: "Benitez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in O&R Construction Case

DUN & BRADSTREET: Investigating Allegations in Die-Mension Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Investigating Allegations in Vinotemp Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Filed Motion to Transfer Flow Sciences Action
DUN & BRADSTREET: Filed Motion to Transfer Altaflow Action
DUKE ENERGY: Attempt to Mediate Class Action Claims Unsuccessful

DUKE ENERGY: Trial in RSP Case Set to Begin in July 2015
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 3 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
FREDDIE MAC: Defenants Filed Motion to Dismiss OPERS Class Action
FREDDIE MAC: Court Ordered Dismissal of "Kreysar" Case
FREDDIE MAC: Treasury Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Actions

HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
HOLLISTER CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Buzzi" Action Claims
I.Q. DATA: Sued Over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
IOD INCORPORATION: Sued Over Excessive Medical Records' Fees
JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Manipulates Prices of Metal Sheets, Suit Says

KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Judgment
KNOWLES ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LA FE FOODS: Faces "Lorenzo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LAGGAN REST: Faces "Alonso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LIGHTENING ROADSIDE: "Ramotar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

MEDIVATION INC: District Court's Dismissal Order Now Final
MID-ATLANTIC WAREHOUSE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Action Claims
MRC EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Artola" Suit Claims
NEVSUN RESOURCES: October 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
NORDSTROM INC: Sued Over Deceptive Labeling of Nordstrom Products

NOVATION COMPANIES: Class Action Litigation in Early Stage
NOW COURIER: Faces "Bonet" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NRG ENERGY: Petition for Certiorari Granted in Nevada Case
NRG ENERGY: Petition for Certiorari Denied in Pennsylvania Case
OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Pennsylvania Over Misleading Loan Agreement

OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Wis. Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
PALERO MEAT: "Pareja" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RICHARD G. EHRLICH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of 2011 Power Outage Suit on Appeal
STERLING BANCORP: NY State Supreme Court Okays Final Settlement

SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: "Owens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Class Vehicles' Engine
TRITON SUPERMARKET: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
TROPICAL SAILING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Falsely Marketed Vitamin Products, Suit Claims

W.P. CAREY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action Over Merger
WALGREEN CO: December 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Dec. 2014 Final Hearing on Class Suit Settlement
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Consolidated
YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of Stockholder Class Actions on Appeal

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Completed in "Reyes" Case
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Meridian Funds Case


                            *********


99 MILES: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Lopez and Jose Ramos, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. 99 Miles to Philly, Inc. (d/b/a 99
Miles to Philly), John Doe Inc. (d/b/a 99 Miles to Philly) and
Neil Barshy, Case No. 1:14-cv-07001 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation.

The Defendants own and operate two Philly Cheese steak sandwich
takeout shops located at 94 3rd Ave, New York, NY 10003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Okays Voluntary Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 5, 2014, the
lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuit
originally filed in October 2013 against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut voluntarily dismissed all of
their claims without prejudice. The Court approved the voluntary
dismissal and closed the case on May 6, 2014. A dismissal without
prejudice does not prevent the litigation of the same claims in a
subsequent action.

Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated on August 17,
1998 in Delaware. The Company is seeking to discover, develop and
commercialize innovative drug therapies. The Company is devoting
substantially all of its efforts towards product research and
development.


AMERICAN LEISURE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tarrizo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Tarrizo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Leisure Group, LLC, Case No. 2:14-
cv-06850 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

American Leisure Group, LLC is a travel incentive marketing
company, doing business in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866)633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Ranekouhi" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gouya Ranekouhi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Medical Collection Agency a.k.a.
Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01404
(C.D. Cal., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

American Medical Collection Agency provides medical collection
services, medical billing services and commercial debt recovery to
healthcare and corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866)633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Provides Update on Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on February 3, 2012, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the
caption Thomas Lauria, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Stephen
M. Simes, naming BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and ANI's former
President and Chief Executive Officer, Stephen M. Simes, as
defendants. The complaint alleges that certain of ANI's
disclosures relating to the efficacy of LibiGel(R) and its
commercial potential were false and/or misleading and that such
false and/or misleading statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the price of ANI's securities resulting in violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Although a substantially similar complaint was filed in the same
court on February 21, 2012, such complaint was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in April 2012. The plaintiff sought to
represent a class of persons who purchased ANI's securities
between February 12, 2010 and December 15, 2011, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive
relief, and reasonable costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees on
behalf of such purchasers. On November 6, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint. On December 28, 2012, ANI
and Mr. Simes filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On September 11, 2013, the Illinois district court
judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice,
and gave plaintiffs 28 days to file an amended complaint. The
plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint and the matter has
been concluded.

On May 7, 2012, Jerome W. Weinstein, a purported stockholder of
BioSante, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
the caption Weinstein v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
naming ANI's directors as defendants and BioSante as a nominal
defendant. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same
court on May 22, 2012 and another substantially similar complaint
was filed in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, County
Department, Chancery Division, on June 27, 2012. The suits
generally related to the same events that are the subject of the
class action litigation. The complaints alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and unjust
enrichment as causes of action occurring from at least February
2010 through December 2011. The complaints sought unspecified
damages, punitive damages, costs and disbursements, and
unspecified reforms and improvements in ANI's corporate governance
and internal control procedures.

On September 24, 2012, the United States District Court
consolidated the two shareholder derivative cases before it and on
November 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint. On January 11, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. On September 11, 2013, the Illinois
district court judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss,
without prejudice, and gave plaintiffs 28 days to file an amended
complaint. The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint and
the district court matter has been concluded.

On November 27, 2012, the plaintiff in the shareholder derivative
action pending in Illinois state court filed an amended complaint.
On January 18, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On July 1, 2013, the Illinois state court judge
granted defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, and
gave plaintiffs until July 31, 2013 to file an amended complaint.
On September 9, 2013, the Illinois state court judge granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On October 9, 2013,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to Illinois state
appellate court.

The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the Company's insurance
carrier in June 2014, which consisted of a one-time payment of
$60,000. On July 2, 2014, the Illinois state appellate court
granted the plaintiffs motion for voluntary dismissal with
prejudice, which concluded the matter.

ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an integrated specialty
pharmaceutical company developing, manufacturing and marketing
branded and generic prescription pharmaceuticals.


ATLANTA INDEPENDENT: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daniels, and Janekia Barnes, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. Atlanta Independent School
System, a/k/a Atlanta Public Schools, Case No. 1:14-cv-02781 (N.D.
Ga., August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation for hours over 40 each week.

Atlanta Independent School System is controlled and managed by the
Atlanta Board of Education.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Chichester IV, Esq.
      Steven Eric Wolfe, Esq.
      BUCKLEY LAW FIRM, LLC
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 781-1100
      E-mail: pchichester@buckleylawatl.com
              sewolfe@buckleylawatl.com


AVENTURA'S FINEST: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Enrique Cabrera Garcia and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Aventura's Finest Hand Car Wash at
Brickell.LLC and Guillermo Freile, Case No. 1:14-cv-23223 (S.D.
Fla., September 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. David Kelly, Esq.
      Jamie H. Zidell
      J.H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Ste. 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      E-mail: david.kelly38@rocketmail.com
              ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Silver Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Tran, on behalf of himself and all others v. Bank of Nova
Scotia, Deutsche Bank, AG, HSBC Bank U.S.A. N.A.; HSBC Bank PLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07004 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014) alleges that
the Defendants conspired and agreed with one another to
intentionally manipulate the price of silver and of silver
derivative in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.

The Defendants are the three of the world's largest silver bullion
banks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
       LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
       61 Broadway, Suite 501
       New York, NY 10006
       Telephone: (212) 608-1900
       Facsimile: (212) 719-4775
       E-mail: fisquith@lshllp.com

          - and -

       Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
       WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
       270 Madison Avenue
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (212) 545-4669
       Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
       E-mail: burt@whafh.com


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Evidentiary Hearing Expected in Q3 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------
An evidentiary hearing has not been scheduled in trial court, but
one is expected to be conducted in the third quarter of 2014, in a
purported class action pending against Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043.

The complaint in each case alleges that the Company and/or Bank
have harmed the plaintiffs, current or former customers of the
Bank, by improper, unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of excessive overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.
According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank
employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system,
and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and
alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize
overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting
of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in
which such items are presented for payment. Plaintiffs claim that
the Bank's deposit agreements with customers do not adequately
disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are
ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and misleading. The complaint in each
case alleges that these actions and omissions constitute breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The
complaint in the Walker case also includes a count for conversion.

Each of the complaints seeks to have the cases certified by the
court as a class action for all Bank account holders similarly
situated, and seeks a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful
nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies, restitution of
overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class
(defined as all Bank customers residing in Arkansas) as a result
of the actions cited in the complaints, disgorgement of profits as
a result of the alleged wrongful actions, and unspecified
compensatory and statutory or punitive damages, together with pre-
judgment interest, costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed
the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis.

On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case
to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order compelling
arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions
for reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of
Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On October 30,
2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for reconsideration.

In January 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the
plaintiff's petition for review. Oral arguments were presented to
the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the
Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals'
decision, reversing and remanding the case to the trial court to
determine, in the first instance, whether there is a valid
agreement to arbitrate disputes between the named plaintiffs and
the Bank.

At this stage, the trial court must determine (i) whether there is
a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate between the named
plaintiffs and the Bank, (ii) whether the dispute at issue in the
Walker case falls within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate,
and, then, (iii) whether the named plaintiffs have a defense, such
as unconscionability, to invalidate the agreement to arbitrate.
The parties are in the process of conducting discovery related to
the issue of arbitration in preparation for an evidentiary hearing
to be conducted by the trial court on this issue. To date, an
evidentiary hearing has not been scheduled, but one is expected to
be conducted in the third quarter of 2014.

The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the
proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the hearing in the
Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs'
claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.


BLUCORA INC: Securities Class Action Filed in W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blucora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 12, 2014, a
putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company
and certain of its officers.  The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court on
May 14, 2014.  These cases purport to be brought on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period between November 5, 2013, and February 20, 2014.

The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws during this period of time by, among other things,
issuing false and misleading statements and failing to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.  The Plaintiffs claim that, as a result of these
alleged wrongs, the price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated during the purported class period.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Blucora, Inc. operates three primary businesses: an internet
search and content business, an online tax preparation business,
and an e-commerce business. The Search and Content business,
InfoSpace, provides search, content, and other services to users
of its owned and operated and distribution partners properties.
The Tax Preparation business consists of the operations of TaxACT,
Inc. ("TaxACT") and provides online tax preparation service for
individuals, tax preparation software for individuals and
professional tax preparers, and ancillary services. The E-Commerce
business consists of the operations of Monoprice, Inc.
("Monoprice"), which the Company acquired on August 22, 2013, and
provides self-branded electronics and accessories to both
consumers and businesses primarily through its website,
http://www.monoprice.com/


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaiting Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Ross" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Axis Insurance Company
filed on December 11, 2013, a declaratory judgment action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, naming the
Company and various individuals as defendants in connection with
coverage for the recently settled Ross, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, et al. securities class action and shareholder
derivative actions that were previously disclosed. Axis seeks a
declaration of no coverage. On March 11, 2014, the Company and the
individual defendants responded to Axis's complaint and asserted
counterclaims pursuant to which the Company claims approximately
$10.0 million in coverage. On April 22, 2014, Axis responded to
the Company's counterclaims and moved to dismiss the Company's
count alleging that Axis has acted in bad faith. That motion to
dismiss is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling
from the Court.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: Mediation Session Held in Student Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that these four actions are
pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court: Abarca v.
California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2011; 115
plaintiffs); Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc.,
et al (filed June 15, 2011; 31 plaintiffs); Aprieto, et al. v.
California Culinary Academy (filed August 12, 2011; five
plaintiffs); Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed
January 18, 2013; two plaintiffs).

The actions generally allege fraud, constructive fraud, violation
of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract and
violation of the repealed California Education Code. Plaintiffs
contend that California Culinary Academy ("CCA") made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions
process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the
school's reputation, the value of the education, the
competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students'
employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of
statistics published by CCA. The plaintiffs in these actions seek
damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

All of the plaintiffs in these four actions either opted out of or
did not fit the class definition in a previously settled class
action captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and
Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy and Career Education Corporation. None of these four
actions are being prosecuted as a class action. All of these cases
have been deemed related and have been transferred to the same
judge who handled the Amador case.

The parties participated in a mediation session on April 2, 2014.

At that time, there were 79 individual plaintiffs remaining who
had not previously settled or dismissed their claims. At the
mediation, the Company agreed to settle with 77 of the remaining
plaintiffs. Since the mediation, three additional plaintiffs have
dropped out of the settlement, and one of those claims has been
settled for an immaterial amount. The Company has agreed to pay
approximately $2.2 million plus an as yet undetermined amount of
attorneys' fees to settle the claims of 74 plaintiffs.

Accordingly, for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the Company is
maintaining a reserve of $3.0 million which is the current
estimate of the total amount of the settlement and based on its
assessment that the settlement is probable.

The parties have agreed to arbitrate one of the remaining cases,
and the other three cases, if they cannot also be settled, will be
set for trial at a later date.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in
the future with respect to the two remaining cases, the outcome in
those cases is uncertain. Accordingly, we have not recognized any
future liability associated with these actions," the Company said.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: Order Striking Class Allegations Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court has stayed a purported class action
lawsuit pending a ruling on the plaintiffs' appeal, Career
Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed the putative class action, Enea, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM
Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc., in the Superior Court State of
California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013.
Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement
rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the
culinary school was competitive and that the school had an
excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service
providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-
regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers
eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school
provided graduates with career placement services for life. The
plaintiffs or putative class members co-signed the loans for
students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members.
Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was
conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two
separate orders granting the motion to strike the class
allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May
9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its
order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave
to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of
plaintiffs' claims.

On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling with
respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. The Court
has stayed the case pending a ruling on the appeal.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in
the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point. Based on information available to us at present, we
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for
this action because, among other things, our potential liability
depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the
composition and size of any such class, as well as on an
assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be
found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability
associated with this action," the Company said.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: Oral Argument Heard on Appeal in "Surrett" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on appeal in the Surrett class action was heard on
May 9, 2014 and Career Education Company is awaiting the Court's
decision, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The complaint, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.
and Career Education Corporation, was filed on March 5, 2008, in
Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in
and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.
and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint
individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims
for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which
added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract.
Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI")
made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally
to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon
graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI,
and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared
to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation.

WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims
under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12,
2008.

On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting
class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and
the Company is awaiting the Court's decision.  All proceedings
with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the
appeal.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent
difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the
number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages,
if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized
any liability associated with this action," the Company said.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: 97 of Plaintiffs Not Part of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action
lawsuit was filed on June 23, 2008, in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v.
California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education
Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud,
constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the
admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged
class is defined as including "all persons who purchased
educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc.
("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods
applicable to the alleged causes of action (including, without
limitation, the period following the filing of the action)."

Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim
and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully
demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of
California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational
Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the Reform Act"). Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was denied by the Court on March 6,
2012.

Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related
"multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of
approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of
Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary
Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et
al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al. v. California
School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School of
Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are
essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action
case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory
and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition
monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All
of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class
action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is
presiding over the Vasquez case.

On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez
action consolidating all eight of the separate actions referenced
above. The complaint was thereafter amended to add additional
plaintiffs. As a result of these amendments, there were at one
time approximately 1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled
between 2003 and 2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009
and 2010).

On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the
motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine
arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration
Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of
which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs' claims were settled
prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for
all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the
resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary
dismissal of certain claims, there are approximately 1,047
remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

The Company and plaintiffs' counsel have executed an agreement
regarding the framework for individual settlements with
approximately 950 of the remaining individual plaintiffs. Pursuant
to this settlement arrangement, defendants paid $17.5 million to
fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys' fees and
administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain
excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible
for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff have
been determined by a third party. If any plaintiff decides not to
accept the settlement, then the amount allocated to that plaintiff
will be returned to defendants. Defendants have the right not to
proceed with the settlement if a specified number of plaintiffs do
not accept the settlement. Defendants' ultimate liability pursuant
to the settlement is estimated to be $15.5 million to $17.5
million; however, defendants do not have a reasonable basis to
estimate where in that range the liability is likely to be.

Approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs are not within the
purview of the settlement arrangement.  Because these plaintiffs
have not cooperated with their counsel, their claims have been or
will be dismissed by the Court, without prejudice. Any liability
to these plaintiffs is expected to be an immaterial amount.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Nov. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the Wilson lawsuit, which is on remand, are to complete
fact discovery as to the issue of liability by November 30, 2014,
Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in
Minnesota, filed on August 11, 2011, a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The Company
said, "The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of
contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision to
terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation
("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also
seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated
admissions representatives who also were affected by termination
of the plan."

"On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its
entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14,
2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the
final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on
October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012.

"On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed
and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of
contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for
rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of
contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois
Supreme Court, but the petition was denied.

"The case now is on remand to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have
exchanged initial disclosures. On February 19, 2014, the Court
ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to the issue of
liability by November 30, 2014.

"Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have
not recognized any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CRACKER BARREL: Faces "Perzan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lukasz Perzan, David Koch, Nathaniel Garrett, Lenore Landry, and
Ronald Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 4:14-
cv-40125 (D. Mass., September 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. owns and operates a
nationwide chain of more than 600 Cracker Barrel Old Country
Store, which is a restaurant that serves breakfast, lunch and
dinner, as well as a gift shop.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      29th Floor, 3 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 248-7906
      Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
      E-mail: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com


CTI INDUSTRIES: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Amada Gonzalez and Leticia Ocampo, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated persons v. CTI Industries Corp., Ron's
Temporary Help Services, Inc., Prime Staffing, Inc. and Extreme
Staffing Solution Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-06752 (N.D. Ill.,
September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate staffing agencies in Barrington,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
      E-mail: aayala@wagetheftlaw.com
              jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com
              cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com


DEMCO OF RIVERDALE: "Benitez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eder David Benitez a/k/a David Benitez and Gerson Venites, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Demco of
Riverdale, LLC d/b/a Planet Wings, and Demco of Ossining, LLC
d/b/a Planet Wings, and Demco of Wappingers Falls, LLC d/b/a
Planet Wings, and Planet Wings Enterprises, INC., and Planet Wings
Inc., and Planet Wings Management, Inc., and Demetrio Petrizzo,
and Franco Fidanza, and Paula Fidanza, each in their individual
and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-07074 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are New York limited liability companies that
provide library supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, New York 11021
      Telephone: (516)248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in O&R Construction Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on
December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against D&B and an unaffiliated entity. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated
the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly
misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The
plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and
equitable relief.

On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the class action and deceptive
practices allegations. The Company filed a new motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on May 3, 2013.

On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motion and granted it.
Specifically, the Court dismissed a contract claim with prejudice,
and dismissed all the remaining claims without prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.
The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the Company's
motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory brought against the Company.
The Court denied the motion with respect to the negligence,
defamation and unfair practices claims.

On January 23, 2014, the Company answered the SAC.

On May 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a Notice Regarding Scope of Class
Definition, noting its intention to revise its class definition to
exclude small businesses from the states of Ohio and California
from its motion for class certification. The parties exchanged
initial disclosures and completed the initial case management
process in March 2013. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the
Company is continuing to investigate the allegations.

The case is, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.)

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of
commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Investigating Allegations in Die-Mension Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is in the initial stages of
investigating the allegations in a putative class action filed by
Die-Mension Corporation, Dun & Bradstreet said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Die-Mension filed on February 20, 2014, a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
against the Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity, purporting
to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a
CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such state(s) as
the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used
deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint alleged
a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation,
and negligence. The complaint alleged deceptive trade practices,
negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the court, Die-
Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product.

On March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
amended complaint. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a
Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of
Washington.

On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court granted the Defendants' Joint
Motion to Transfer.

On June 30, 2014, the parties filed a stipulated motion in the
Western District of Washington extending the Company and DBCC's
time to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise answer the amended
complaint until 30 days after the Flow Sciences case is
transferred to the Western District of Washington.  The Company is
in the initial stages of investigating the allegations.

The case is, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D.
Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.))

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of
commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Investigating Allegations in Vinotemp Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that
plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation ("Vinotemp") and
CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed on March 24, 2014, a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC, an
unaffiliated entity. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf
of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of
California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive
marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring
products, in violation of Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also
alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.
As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company
entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in
violation of Sec. 17200 of the California Business and Professions
Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of
Washington.

On June 30, 2014, the parties filed a stipulated motion in the
Western District of Washington extending the Company and DBCC's
time to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise answer the complaint
until 30 days after the Flow Sciences case is transferred to the
Western District of Washington.

On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer.

The Company is in the initial stages of investigating the
allegations.

The case is, Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R),
Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No.
2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D.
Cal.))

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of
commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Filed Motion to Transfer Flow Sciences Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiff
Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences") filed on June 13, 2014, a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corporation ("DBCC"), an unaffiliated
entity. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers
of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina.
The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in
deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of North
Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1
et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges
negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges
negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint.

Pursuant to a June 30, 2014 stipulation between the parties filed
in the Die-Mension matter, the Company's time to file a motion to
dismiss or otherwise answer the complaint in this case has been
extended until 30 days after the transfer of this case to the
Western District of Washington.

On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to
Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. The
Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations.

The case is, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corporation, et al., No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D. North Carolina)

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of
commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Filed Motion to Transfer Altaflow Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiff
Altaflow, LLC ("Altaflow") filed on June 20, 2014, a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey against the Company and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corporation ("DBCC"), an unaffiliated entity. Altaflow purports to
sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in
the state of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company
and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's
sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et
seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges
negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges
negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint.

Pursuant to a June 30, 2014 stipulation between the parties filed
in the Die-Mension matter, the Company's time to file a motion to
dismiss or otherwise answer the complaint in this case has been
extended until 30 days after the transfer of the Flow Sciences
case (discussed above) to the Western District of Washington.

On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to
Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.

On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey Court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer.

The Company is in the initial stages of investigating the
allegations.

The case is, Altaflow, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corporation, et al., (W.D. Wash.) (case number pending) (filed as
No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.))

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is the world's leading source of
commercial data, analytics and insight on businesses.


DUKE ENERGY: Attempt to Mediate Class Action Claims Unsuccessful
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attempt on May 14, 2014, to mediate claims in a securities
class action lawsuit was unsuccessful, Duke Energy Corporation
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Duke Energy Board of Directors
who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy Board of
Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy
officers are defendants in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit
consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012, and is
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.  The plaintiffs allege federal
Securities Act and Exchange Act claims based on allegations of
materially false and misleading representations and omissions in
the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly
incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the
post-merger change in CEO. The claims are purportedly brought on
behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Duke Energy securities between June 11, 2012 and July 9,
2012.

On July 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended the District
Court Judge deny the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 2,
2013, the District Judge heard defendants' objections to this
recommendation. A decision is pending on the motion to dismiss.
An attempt on May 14, 2014, to mediate the claims was
unsuccessful.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Duke Energy operates in the
United States (U.S.) and Latin America primarily through its
direct and indirect subsidiaries.


DUKE ENERGY: Trial in RSP Case Set to Begin in July 2015
--------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in January 2008, four
plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit
customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal
court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged Duke
Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price
advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into
non-public option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of
challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP)
implemented in early 2005.

In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class
action. Trial has been set to begin on July 27, 2015.

It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur
any liability or to estimate the damages which may be incurred in
connection with this lawsuit.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Duke Energy operates in the
United States (U.S.) and Latin America primarily through its
direct and indirect subsidiaries.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 3 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the first
of two substantially similar securities class action complaints
was filed on June 18, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its former executive officers. The second was filed on June 26,
2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all related
actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the
District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re
Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On September 27, 2013,
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On November 12, 2013, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"); Dynavax moved to dismiss the
Complaint on January 10, 2014. On April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint adds a new
plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleges that, between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain
of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder in connection with statements related to our product
candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges
that the Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions
regarding the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders
unlawfully profited from such misrepresentations or omissions. The
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
June 6, 2014, and Lead Plaintiff had until August 8, 2014 to file
an opposition. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for
October 3, 2014.

Dynavax Technologies, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops products to prevent and treat infectious and inflammatory
diseases and cancer based on Toll-like Receptor ("TLR") biology
and its ability to modulate the innate immune system.  Its lead
product candidate is HEPLISAV-BTM (also known as "HEPLISAV"), an
investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine in Phase 3 clinical
development.


FREDDIE MAC: Defenants Filed Motion to Dismiss OPERS Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Ohio
Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac,
Syron, et al., a putative securities class action lawsuit, was
filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January
18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac
stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later
intervened as Conservator.

The Company said, "The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning our business, risk management, and the
procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems
in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees. The plaintiff amended its complaint on
several occasions. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
and third amended complaints, which the Court denied.

"On April 13, 2013, the judge who had presided over the case since
2008 recused himself, and the case was reassigned to a new judge.
On August 23, 2013, the new judge granted defendants' motion to
vacate the previous judge's orders denying defendants' motions to
dismiss. Defendants filed new motions to dismiss the complaint on
October 8, 2013.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; the fact that
the Court has not yet ruled upon defendants' new motion to dismiss
the complaint; and the fact that the Court has not yet ruled upon
motions for class certification or summary judgment. In
particular, absent the certification of a class, the
identification of a class period, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of
possible loss."

Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970 with a public
mission to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to the
U.S. housing market.


FREDDIE MAC: Court Ordered Dismissal of "Kreysar" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a
plaintiff filed on September 23, 2008, a putative class action
securities lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York styled Mark vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. On January
29, 2009, another plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the same Court styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al. The cases,
which were subsequently consolidated by the Court, concern the
company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of
8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock.

In the consolidated complaint, plaintiffs alleged that three
former Freddie Mac officers (including Syron and former Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Anthony S. Piszel),
certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's auditor violated federal
securities laws by making material false and misleading statements
in connection with the company's November 2007 public offering.
The complaint further alleged that certain defendants and others
made additional false statements following the offering. After a
series of motions and amendments to the complaint, only Syron and
Piszel remained as defendants.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification, which motion was
ultimately denied by the Court. On May 31, 2012, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for leave
to appeal on an interlocutory basis the denial of class
certification. In August 2012, plaintiffs sought leave to file
another motion for class certification, which request the Court
denied on September 25, 2012. On June 19, 2014, the Court ordered
dismissal of the Kreysar case after Syron, Piszel and the named
plaintiff entered into a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with
prejudice disposing of all of plaintiff's individual claims.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the underwriting agreement in the Kreysar case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.

"We do not expect that the consolidated lawsuit or the
indemnification and contribution request will have a material
effect on our results of operations or financial condition," the
Company said.

Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970 with a public
mission to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to the
U.S. housing market.


FREDDIE MAC: Treasury Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in
July and September 2013, four lawsuits were filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
concerning the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
with Treasury.  It is possible that similar lawsuits will be filed
in the future.

The lawsuits are as follows:

     * A putative class action lawsuit filed on July 29, 2013
styled Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA;

     * A putative class action lawsuit filed on July 30, 2013
styled American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
FHFA;

     * A putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit
filed on September 18, 2013 styled Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA,
Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation; and

     * A lawsuit filed on September 20, 2013 styled Arrowood
Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA and Treasury.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by
Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.
Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit allege that they are holders of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. (For
purposes of this discussion, junior preferred stock refers to the
various series of preferred stock of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
other than the senior preferred stock issued to Treasury.)

In the lawsuits, plaintiffs allege that the amendment to the
Purchase Agreement in August 2012 (which implemented the net worth
sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock) breached
Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with the
holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such
contracts. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and
expert fees. Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit also request that,
if injunctive relief is not granted, the Arrowood plaintiffs be
awarded damages against the defendants in an amount to be
determined including, but not limited to, the aggregate par value
of their junior preferred stock, the total of which they state is
$42,297,500.

Plaintiffs in the Marneu and Arrowood lawsuits also make certain
claims against, and seek certain remedies from, Treasury and FHFA.
The Court consolidated three of the cases (Cacciapelle, American
European Insurance Company and Marneu) together in a new case
styled In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2013.
The consolidated amended complaint makes essentially the same
allegations against Freddie Mac as the original complaints
described above. FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint and the other related cases
(including Arrowood) on January 17, 2014.  Treasury filed a motion
to dismiss the same day, which plaintiffs have opposed.

Freddie Mac is a GSE chartered by Congress in 1970 with a public
mission to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to the
U.S. housing market.


HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Southerland and Gwendolyn Dozier, as Individuals and as
Representatives on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hillshire Brands Company, and Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00165 (E.D.N.C., September 2, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, interest, penalties and attorney fees,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Hillshire Brands Company is engaged in the production and
national distribution of perishable consumer products from its
operation in the State of North Carolina, County of Edgecombe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvin L. Pittman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALVIN L. PITTMAN
      5933 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 230
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Telephone: (310) 337-3077
      Facsimile: (310) 337-3080
      E-mail: office@apittman-law.com


HOLLISTER CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Buzzi" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anamaria Chimeno-Buzzi, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Hollister Co., and Abercrombie & Fitch Co.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23120 (S.D. Fla., August 25, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone without prior
express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants own and operates a global clothing and lifestyle
company, which maintain their headquarters at 6301 Fitch Path, New
Albany, Ohio 43054.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Philip Milian, Esq.
      Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
      CAREY RODRIGUEZ GREENBERG O'KEEFE, LLP
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-7474
      Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
      E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
              fhedin@careyrodriguez.com


I.Q. DATA: Sued Over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Cruz, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-03982
(N.D. Cal., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

I.Q. Data International, Inc. is a California corporation that
owns and operates multi-residential apartment complexes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IOD INCORPORATION: Sued Over Excessive Medical Records' Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Alisia Morris v. Iod Incorporated and South Nassau Communities
Hospital, Case No. 1:14-cv-07073 (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Public Health
Law, specifically for charging copies of medical records in excess
of the statutory maximum allowable fee.

Iod Incorporated and South Nassau Communities Hospital is a
hospital located in the County of Nassau, State ofNew York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward S. Goodman, Esq.
      SIMONSON GOODMAN PLATZER PC
      111 John Street, Suite 1400
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212)233-5001
      E-mail: esg@simonsonlegal.com


JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Manipulates Prices of Metal Sheets, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC,
individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Jui Li Enterprise Company, Ltd., Tong Yang Industry
Co. Ltd., TYG Products, L.P., Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd.,
Auto Parts Industrial, Ltd., and Cornerstone Auto Parts, LLC, Case
No. 2:14-cv-01061 (E.D. Wis., August 29, 2014), arises from the
anticompetitive conspiracy among the Defendants to illegally
inflate the prices of AM Sheet Metal Parts throughout the United
States.

The Defendants are manufacturers, distributors, and importers of
metal sheets throughout the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM PA
      20 Rahling Cir, PO Box 241790
      Little Rock, AR 72223
      Telephone: (501) 821-5575
      Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
      E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a consolidated shareholder class action did
not appeal judgment for the defendants, and this matter is now
concluded, Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The lawsuit was filed on February 1, 2013, against the Company and
its chief executive officer on behalf of a putative class of all
of the Company's shareholders (other than the defendants) who
acquired the Company's shares between June 1, 2009 and April 1,
2012. Smith v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:13-CV-0755-TPG (S.D.N.Y.).

On February 26, 2013, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the chief executive officer as well as the
Company's chief financial officer. Park v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-1307-TPG
(S.D.N.Y.).

On June 10, 2013, the Court entered an Order consolidating the two
lawsuits and appointing a lead plaintiff. The case was styled In
re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:13-CV-0755-KBF (S.D.N.Y.).

On July 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint that, in substance, repeated the claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuits.

The Company said, "The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserted
claims against (i) us for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) our chief executive officer for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5. The claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint
were premised on general allegations that we and the individual
defendant participated directly or indirectly in the preparation
and/or issuance of purportedly false and misleading earnings
reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements,
which allegedly caused our stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices."

"On August 26, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint. On February 14, 2014, the Court entered an
Opinion and Order granting the motion to dismiss. The Court
entered Judgment for the Defendants on February 24, 2014. The lead
plaintiff did not appeal the Judgment and this matter is now
concluded."

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
bringing innovative therapies to market for patients suffering
from renal disease.


KNOWLES ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Ann Kilburn, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Knowles Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01119 (E.D. Va., August 29, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Knowles Enterprises, LLC owns and operates Mom's Kitchen
restaurant in Front Royal, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      836 Bonifant Street
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 581-9373
      Facsimile: (310) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


LA FE FOODS: Faces "Lorenzo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raimundo Lorenzo and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. La Fe Foods, Inc. and Juan C. Pena, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23231 (S.D. Fla., September 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

La Fe Foods, Inc. owns and operates a food processing and
distribution company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAGGAN REST: Faces "Alonso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Baeza Alonso, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Laggan Rest., Inc. (d/b/a Murphy's Pub &
Restaurant), Laggan Restaurant LLC (d/b/a Murphy's Pub &
Restaurant) and Anthony Meegan, Case No. 1:14-cv-06998 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation.

Laggan Rest., Inc. and Laggan Restaurant LLC own and operate a bar
and restaurant owned by Anthony Meegan, located at 977 Second
Avenue, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


LIGHTENING ROADSIDE: "Ramotar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ramotar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Lightening Roadside Assistant, Corp., d/b/a Lightening
Roadside, and Stuart Hornik, in his individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-07011 (S.D.N.Y., August 27, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.


Roadside Assistant, Corp. is an automotive roadside assistance
service located in Levittown, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Arthur Biggs, Esq.
      BORAH, GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER, NAHINS, & GOIDEL, P.C.
      377 Broadway, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      E-mail: aab@employmentlawyernewyork.com

         - and -

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


MEDIVATION INC: District Court's Dismissal Order Now Final
----------------------------------------------------------
Medivation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in March 2010, the
first of several putative securities class action lawsuits was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its
officers. The lawsuits were largely identical and alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The
actions were consolidated in September 2010 and, in April 2011 the
court entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund, L.P. and its
attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. In March 2012, after
the court dismissed the lead plaintiff's first and second amended
complaints with prejudice, the court entered judgment in favor of
defendants. Lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2012. The
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision on March 7, 2014. As of the date of Form
10-Q filing, the district court's order dismissing this matter
with prejudice is final, and the matter has been formally
concluded.

"We believe we are entitled to coverage under our relevant
insurance policies with respect to the putative securities class
action lawsuits, subject to a $350,000 retention, but coverage
could be denied or prove to be insufficient," the Company said.

The Company is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the rapid
development and commercialization of novel therapies to treat
serious diseases for which there are limited treatment options.


MID-ATLANTIC WAREHOUSE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Lasso Estrada, Gonzalo Garcia Paulino, Eleuterio Mendoza
Ramirez, Ana Campos, Blanca Campos Rivera, Nelson Munoz, Enrique
Garcia Paulin, Alejandro Mendoza, and Ulmi Pozo, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mid-Atlantic
Warehouse Services, Inc., Regency Furniture of Brandywine Inc.,
Regency Furniture Inc. and Abdelrahman Ayyad, Case No. 8:14-cv-
02795 (D. Md., September 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to properly pay overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 per work week.

The Defendants own and operate a home furnishing company, with
their principal place of business in Prince George's County,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deyka Williams Spencer, Esq.
      THE SPENCER FIRM LLC
      200A Monroe St. Suite 305
      Rockville, MD 20850
      Telephone: (301) 637-2866
      Facsimile: (866) 686-2126
      E-mail: dspencer@spencer-firm.com


MRC EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Artola" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando A. Artola and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. MRC Express, Inc., Alpha Logistics Service, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23219 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

MRC Express, Inc. and Alpha Logistics Service own and operate a
courier company that regularly transacts business within Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEVSUN RESOURCES: October 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE NEVSUN RESOURCES LTD.
SECURITIES CLASS ACTION

Read this notice carefully as it may affect your rights.

PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE

This notice is directed to all persons, other than certain persons
associated with the defendants, who acquired securities of Nevsun
Resources Ltd. ("Nevsun") during the period from March 31, 2011 to
and including February 6, 2012 ("Class Period") and held some or
all of those shares at the close of trading on February 6,
2012 ("Class Members").

In 2012, a proposed class action was commenced against Nevsun and
certain others in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the
"Court").  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or
ought to have known, that the stated gold reserves at the Bisha
mine were materially overstated.

A proposed settlement has been reached, without admission of
liability, which is subject to the approval by the Court.  The
settlement is a compromise of disputed claims.  The defendants
have denied and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
fault, liability or damage in respect of the claims alleged in the
class action.  This notice provides a summary of the proposed
settlement.

THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The defendants will pay US $5,350,000 in full and final settlement
of all claims against them and the other defendants.  The
settlement funds, less the lawyers' fees approved by the Court and
administration costs, will be distributed to or on behalf of the
Class Members. The Settlement Agreement may be reviewed at
www.nevsun.com/fricke-settlementagreement.pdf

LAWYERS' FEES, DISBURSEMENTS AND TAXES

The lawyers for the Class Members will ask the Court to approve
legal fees in the amount of 25 percent of US $5,350,000, plus
disbursements, plus taxes.

THE COURT HEARINGS

The Court will be asked to certify the action as a class action
and approve the proposed settlement and the lawyers' fees,
disbursements and taxes at hearings to be held on October 6, 2014
at 10:30 a.m. E.T., at the Court House, 245 Windsor Avenue,
Windsor, Ontario for the Ontario action.

Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement need not
appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time to
indicate their desire to participate in the proposed settlement.
Class Members who consider it desirable or necessary to seek the
advice and guidance of their own lawyers may do so at their own
expense.

OBJECTIONS

At the hearing, the Court will consider any objections to the
proposed settlement by the Class Members if the objections are
submitted in writing, by prepaid mail or e-mail to: Gregory D.
Wrigglesworth, Kirwin Partners LLP, 423 Pelissier Street, Windsor,
Ontario, N9A 4L2, fax: 519.790.0106, email:
nevsun@kirwinpartners.com

Attention: Nevsun Class Action, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on
October 2, 2014.

A written objection should include the following information:

(a) the Class Member's name, current mailing address, telephone
number, fax number and email address;
(b) the number of shares purchased during and held at the close of
the Class Period;
(c) a brief statement of the nature of and reasons for the
objection; and
(d) whether the Class Member intends to appear at the hearing in
person or by counsel, and, if by counsel, the
name, address, telephone number, fax number and email address of
counsel.

IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED

If the proposed settlement is approved, there will be another
notice published that will advise Class Members how to make a
claim for settlement monies and how to decline to participate in
the class action (i.e. opt-out).

QUESTIONS

Questions for the Class Members' lawyers may be directed to:

Jay Strosberg
Sutts, Strosberg LLP
600-251 Goyeau Street
Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
Telephone: 800.229.5323 ext 8296
Fax: 866.316.5308
E-mail: nevsun@strosbergco.com

This notice has been approved by the Court.  Questions about
matters in this notice should NOT be directed to the Court.


NORDSTROM INC: Sued Over Deceptive Labeling of Nordstrom Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Branca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02062 (S.D. Cal.,
September 2, 2014), arises from the deceptive and misleading
labeling and marketing of Nordstrom Rack Products sold at the
company-owned Nordstrom Rack stores.

Nordstrom, Inc. owns and operates retail outlet stores, with its
principal place of business at 1617 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA,
98101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE S. KREGER, P.A.
      100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 940
      Santa Monica, California 90401
      Telephone (310) 917-1083
      Facsimile (310) 917-1001
      E-mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com

          - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
      200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com


NOVATION COMPANIES: Class Action Litigation in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class
action case was filed on May 21, 2008, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters'
Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage
Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company, and its individual directors, several securitization
trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated defendants") and
several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies.
The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011,
with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to
dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to
sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had
not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to
the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested.

Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company cannot
provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes
that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the
case and expects them to defend the case vigorously.

Novation Companies acquires and operates technology-enabled
service businesses, with a focus on building and developing these
businesses to create long-term value.


NOW COURIER: Faces "Bonet" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Edgardo G. Bonet and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Now Courier Inc., Alexander Mola, Case No.
1:14-cv-23217 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Now Courier Inc. owns and operates a courier company that
regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NRG ENERGY: Petition for Certiorari Granted in Nevada Case
----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that GenOn Energy Inc. is
party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class action
lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada
and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the
California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC
investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural
gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. The
lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or
expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy
companies unaffiliated with NRG.

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which is handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the District Court.

On August 26, 2013, GenOn along with the other defendants in the
lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeal's decision. On July
1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of
certiorari.

In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which is
handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all
plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs
in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court
denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one
of the five lawsuits. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint
against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.

NRG Energy produces, sells and delivers energy and energy services
in major competitive power markets in the United States.  NRG owns
and operates power generation facilities; engages in the trading
of energy, capacity and related products; transacts in and trades
fuel and transportation services and directly sells energy,
services, and innovative, sustainable products to retail
customers.  The Company sells retail electricity products and
services under the name "NRG" and various brands owned by NRG.
Finally, NRG is a leader in the deployment and commercialization
of potentially transformative technologies, like electric
vehicles, Distributed Solar and smart meter/home automation
technology that collectively have the potential to fundamentally
change the nature of the power industry and the role of the
national electric transmission grid and distribution system.


NRG ENERGY: Petition for Certiorari Denied in Pennsylvania Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in April 2012, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against GenOn Energy Inc.
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating facility have
damaged the property of neighboring residents. The Company
disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs have brought nuisance,
negligence, trespass and strict liability claims seeking both
damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class
that consists of people who own property or live within one mile
of the Company's plant.

In July 2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In October 2012,
the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, which
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

On August 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of
the District Court. On September 3, 2013, the Company filed a
petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals which was
subsequently denied.

In February 2014, the Company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review and reversal
of the Court of Appeals decision. On June 2, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

NRG Energy produces, sells and delivers energy and energy services
in major competitive power markets in the United States.  NRG owns
and operates power generation facilities; engages in the trading
of energy, capacity and related products; transacts in and trades
fuel and transportation services and directly sells energy,
services, and innovative, sustainable products to retail
customers.  The Company sells retail electricity products and
services under the name "NRG" and various brands owned by NRG.
Finally, NRG is a leader in the deployment and commercialization
of potentially transformative technologies, like electric
vehicles, Distributed Solar and smart meter/home automation
technology that collectively have the potential to fundamentally
change the nature of the power industry and the role of the
national electric transmission grid and distribution system.


OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Pennsylvania Over Misleading Loan Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Abraham, Lisa Cave and Scott Cave, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
Case No. 5:14-cv-04977 (E.D. Pa., August 25, 2014), arises from
the Defendant's in-house modification agreements containing the
Balloon Disclosure are unfair, deceptive, and misleading because
the agreements do not advise the homeowner as to the amount of the
balloon payment that they will owe at the end of the term of their
loan, or even the method by which such a balloon payment will be
calculated.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage bank and home mortgage
loan servicer, servicing mortgages on behalf of lenders and
investors, including pooled mortgage-backed securities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Todd S. Collins, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: 215-875-4613
      E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net
              tcollins@bm.net

         - and -

      Ann Miller, Esq.
      ANN MILLER, LLC
      261 Old York Road, Suite 524
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: 215-238-0468
      Facsimile: 215-405-2653
      E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com


OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Wis. Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iris Orta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01070
(E.D. Wis., September 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, owns and operates a debt collection
agency, with its principal place of business located at 1661
Worthington Rd., Suite 100, West Palm Beach, FL 33409.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
      3620 E Layton Ave
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
              sademi@ademilaw.com


PALERO MEAT: "Pareja" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Pareja, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Palero Meat Corp. (d/b/a Associated), and Miguel
Quezada, Case No. 1:14-cv-07076 (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Palero Meat Corp owns and operates a supermarket owned by Miguel
Quezada, located at 4141 Laconia Avenue, Bronx, New York 10466.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RICHARD G. EHRLICH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marta Albronda, Alexandria Albronda, Curran Brierley, Alishia
Christine Longfellow, Sara Morici and Madison Riege, Individually,
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and As Class
Representative v. Richard G. Ehrlich, Inc. d/b/a The Clam Bar,
Betsy J. Flinn and Brian Mooney, Case No. 2:14-cv-05150 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, earned
and improperly misdirected gratuities, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.


Richard G. Ehrlich, Inc. owns and operates a seafood restaurant,
known as The Clam Bar at 2025 Montauk Highway, Amagansett, New
York 11937.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Lipman, Esq.
      LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP
      500 North Broadway, Suite 105
      Jericho, NY 11753-2131
      Telephone: (516) 931-0050
      Facsimile: (516) 931-0030
      E-mail: lipman@lipmanplesur.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of 2011 Power Outage Suit on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in September 2011, a
power outage lasting approximately 12 hours affected millions of
people from Mexico to southern Orange County, California. Within
several days of the outage, several San Diego Gas & Electric
Company customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District
Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service Company,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and SDG&E alleging that the
companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit seeks recovery
of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages. In
July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the
punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service
Company and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation from the lawsuit. In
September 2013, the court granted SDG&E's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. In October 2013, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal of their action.

The FERC and North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) Staff conducted a joint inquiry to determine the cause of
the power failure and issued a report in May 2012 regarding their
findings. Following that report, Staff from FERC's Office of
Enforcement (FERC Enforcement Staff) investigated potential
violations of FERC's Reliability Standards associated with the
outage. In January 2014, FERC Enforcement Staff issued a Staff
Notice of Alleged Violations, in which FERC Enforcement Staff
alleged violations of various Reliability Standards by several
entities. FERC Enforcement Staff did not allege or find any
violations by SDG&E.


STERLING BANCORP: NY State Supreme Court Okays Final Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the New York State
Supreme Court approved on June 25, 2014, the final settlement of
the previously disclosed shareholder class actions consolidated
under the caption In re Sterling Shareholders Litigation, Index
No. 651263/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, 2013), alleging,
among other things, that legacy Sterling's board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Legacy Sterling
Bancorp Merger Transaction, and by failing to disclose all
material information to shareholders. The 30-day appeal period has
passed and the settlement, which included payment of the
plaintiff's legal fees, is final.

Sterling Bancorp's principal subsidiary is Sterling National Bank.


SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: "Owens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Napoleon Owens, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Sun-Tec Installation, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a
Sun-Tec Solar Energy and Heng Phu, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-
81135 (S.D. Fla., September 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sun-Tec Installation provides home and commercial solar panel
installation and repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
      2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 853-2212
      Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
      E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Class Vehicles' Engine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lekha Keister, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., a California
corporation, and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-05459 (D.N.J., August 29, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose the design
and manufacturing defect of 2007-2011 Toyota Camry HV, 2007-2009
Camry, 2009 Corolla, 2009 Matrix, 2006-2008 RAV4, 2007-2008
Solara, 2007- 2009 Scion tC, and 2008- 2009 Scion xB, including,
without limitation, defects contained in the Class Vehicles'
engine that cause them to be unable to properly utilize engine oil
and to improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of
oil.

The Defendants manufacture and distributes Toyota cars throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley Keith King, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com


TRITON SUPERMARKET: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Otilio Apolinario and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b v. Triton Supermarket # II Corp., Domingo Coca,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23218 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Triton Supermarket # II Corp. owns and operates a grocery store
within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TROPICAL SAILING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Serle, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Tropical
Sailing, Inc. and Mark Lipkus, individually, a Florida profit
corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-10067 (S.D. Fla., August 29, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Tropical Sailing, Inc. is a Florida corporation that provides wide
selection of crewed boat charters and luxury yacht rentals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Falsely Marketed Vitamin Products, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Segovia and Junior Hermida, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., 7:14-cv-07061
(S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendant use
false  and misleading labeling and marketing claim to the Product
Primal Pro: Aminogen to help support amino acid absorption and
nitrogen retention from whey protein.

Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. is a retailer of nutritional products and
sports supplements as well as herbs, homeopathic remedies, and
beauty aids.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      1515 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19002
      Telephone: (215) 564-2300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

         - and -

      Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq.
      Peter James Cambs, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
      3301 Bonita Beach Road
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Telephone: (239) 390-1000
      Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
      E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com
              pcambs@yourlawyer.com


W.P. CAREY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P. Carey Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on December 31, 2013,
Mr. Ira Gaines and entities affiliated with him commenced a
purported class action (Ira Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property
Associates 16 - Global Incorporated, Index. No. 650001/2014, N.Y.
Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) against the Company, WPC REIT Merger Sub
Inc., CPA(R):16 - Global, and the directors of CPA(R):16 - Global.

On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue a
temporary restraining order enjoining the vote of the stockholders
of CPA(R):16 - Global pending the completion of expedited
discovery and a preliminary injunction hearing. On January 13,
2014, after a hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
a temporary restraining order enjoining the vote of CPA(R):16 -
Global's stockholders, and the CPA(R):16 Merger was completed on
January 31, 2014.

On March 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
added Carey Asset Management Corp. as a defendant and alleges (i)
breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants, all of
whom were members of the board of directors of CPA(R):16 - Global,
(ii) breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company, and (iii) that the
entity defendants other than the Company aided and abetted the
individual defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The
amended complaint demands that (i) a class be certified and
plaintiffs named as class representatives, (ii) the CPA(R):16
Merger be rescinded or rescissory damages be awarded, (iii)
damages be awarded, and (iv) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and other
costs be reimbursed.

"On April 11, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and are defending the case vigorously," the Company said.

W. P. Carey Inc., or W. P. Carey, is, together with its
consolidated subsidiaries and predecessors, a real estate
investment trust, or REIT, that provides long-term financing via
sale-leaseback and build-to-suit transactions for companies
worldwide and manages a global investment portfolio.

On January 31, 2014, CPA(R):16 - Global merged with and into the
Company based on a merger agreement, dated as of July 25, 2013.


WALGREEN CO: December 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED CERTAIN GLUCOSAMINE AND CHONDROITIN PRODUCTS YOU
COULD RECEIVE MONEY FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

A class action settlement has been preliminarily approved by the
Court in Quinn et al. v. Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Supervalu, Inc., and Perrigo Company of South Carolina, Inc., Case
No. 7:12-cv-8187 VB (U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Action").  Your rights may be affected by this proposed
settlement.

                    WHAT THE ACTION IS ABOUT

Plaintiffs claim retailers including Walgreens and Wal-Mart sold
Perrigo-manufactured products containing glucosamine and/or
chondroitin (the "Covered Products") using labels that
misleadingly stated that the products would help "rebuild
cartilage," "lubricate joints," and "improve joint comfort" when
they do not.  Defendants deny they violated the law and believe
that the products provide the benefits stated on the labels.
Perrigo has agreed to provide $2.8 million (the "Fund") to settle
the claims in order to avoid the cost, disruption and risk of
continued litigation.  The Fund will pay eligible claims, notice
and administration costs as well as attorneys' fees, expenses and
plaintiff incentive awards.  The Class includes U.S. residents who
purchased for personal use, and not resale or distribution, a
Covered Product between November 1, 2005 and August 1, 2014.  This
is only a summary. Visit the website below, or call (844) 322-8236
for a complete list of Covered Products and retailers.

                       WHAT YOU CAN DO

1. Receive A Cash Award - you must submit a Claim Form by Monday,
November 24, 2014. Claim Forms are available from the Settlement
Administrator and on the Settlement Website.  Class Members who
submit valid claims accompanied by cash register receipts can get
a cash award for the actual receipt price per bottle.  Class
Members who submit valid claims without cash register receipts can
get a cash award of $12.00 per bottle, up to maximum of eight (8)
bottles.  The actual amount each class member receives will depend
on the total number of claims received.

2. Exclude Yourself From The Settlement - submit a signed letter
to the Settlement Administrator stating your request for
exclusion, that you are a member of the class, and that you
purchased one or more of the Covered Products, post-marked no
later than November 24, 2014.  If you do not exclude yourself, you
will be bound by the decisions of the Court.

3. Object To The Settlement - if you wish to object to the
settlement, you must file an objection with the Court, Class
Counsel and Perrigo's Counsel no later than November 24, 2014.
Complete details are found on the website below.

A final hearing will be held on December 12, 2014 at 2:00 p.m., to
determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
proposed Settlement and to award attorneys' fees and costs.  The
motions for attorneys' fees and costs and plaintiff incentive
awards will be posted on www.PerrigoGlucosamineSettlement.com
after they are filed.  The final hearing will take place before
the Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti in Courtroom 620, of the U.S.
District Court, S.D.N.Y., 300 Quarropas St., White Plains, NY
10601.  You may ask to appear at the hearing, but are not required
to.

For detailed information about the Settlement and your rights,
including a complete description of theCovered Products, the full
Notice, a Claim Form, and the full Settlement Agreement, visit
www.PerrigoGlucosamineSettlement.com or write to the Settlement
Administrator at Perrigo Glucosamine Settlement, c/o GCG, PO Box
10111, Dublin, OH 43017-3111 or call (844) 322-8236.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

Representatives of the Settlement Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class  Contact: Todd S. Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP, (914) 298-3281; Stewart M. Weltman, Stewart
M. Weltman, LLC, (312) 588-5033; Elaine A. Ryan, Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., (602) 274-1100; Edwin J.
Kilpela, Jr., Carlson Lynch LTD, (412) 322-9243


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Dec. 2014 Final Hearing on Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in Jeri
Connolly et al. v. Weight Watchers North America, Inc., in August
2013, the Company was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel in the
previously filed and settled Sabatino v. Weight Watchers North
America, Inc. case ("Sabatino"), threatening to file a new class
action on behalf of the Company's current and former service
providers in California asserting various wage and hour claims,
including but not limited to claims for unpaid overtime and
minimum wage violations, which allegedly accrued after the
effective date of the Sabatino settlement.

On March 17, 2014, the parties came to an agreement in principle
to settle the matter on a class-wide basis for $1,688.

On April 29, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding to document the terms and conditions of settlement
and, the following day, plaintiffs filed a complaint regarding the
claims at issue in the Northern District of California.

On June 11, 2014, the parties filed a formal settlement agreement
and other required documents for the Court's preliminary approval.

On July 21, 2014, the parties received the Court's preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement. A hearing seeking the
Court's final approval of the settlement is scheduled for December
2014. The Company believes that its previously recorded reserve is
adequate with respect to this matter.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in March
2014, two substantially identical putative class action complaints
alleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed by
individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were
purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012
and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the "Class"). The complaints
allege that, during that period, the defendants disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed
material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified damages on behalf of the Class.

In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. The Company continues to believe that
the suits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.


YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of Stockholder Class Actions on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that since June 6, 2011, two purported
stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company and
certain officers and directors of the Company by plaintiffs Bonato
and the Twin Cities Pipe Trades Pension Trust.

In October 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions
under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation and
appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead
plaintiff.

In a consolidated amended complaint filed December 15, 2011, the
lead plaintiff purports to represent a class of investors who
purchased the Company's common stock between April 19, 2011 and
July 29, 2011, and alleges that during that class period,
defendants issued statements that were materially false or
misleading because they did not disclose information relating to
Alibaba Group's restructuring of Alipay.

The complaint purports to assert claims for relief for violation
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks
unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, fees, and
costs.

On August 10, 2012, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

Plaintiffs have appealed.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Completed in "Reyes" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that current putative class
actions and similar claims include a complaint relating to the
Company's banking relationships with customers that allegedly
engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff
seeks a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes
v. Zions First National Bank, et. al., brought in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. In
the first quarter of 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
approved the plaintiff's motion to appeal the District Court
decision.

Discovery has been completed in the Reyes case.

The Company provides a full range of banking and related services
through subsidiary banks in 11 Western and Southwestern states as
follows: Zions First National Bank ("Zions Bank"), in Utah, Idaho
and Wyoming; California Bank & Trust ("CB&T"); Amegy Corporation
("Amegy") and its subsidiary, Amegy Bank, in Texas; National Bank
of Arizona ("NBAZ"); Nevada State Bank ("NSB"); Vectra Bank
Colorado ("Vectra"), in Colorado and New Mexico; The Commerce Bank
of Washington ("TCBW"); and The Commerce Bank of Oregon ("TCBO").
The Parent and its subsidiary banks also own and operate certain
nonbank subsidiaries that engage in financial services.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Meridian Funds Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that current putative class
actions and similar claims include a complaint arising from the
Company's banking relationships with Frederick Berg and a number
of investment funds controlled by him using the "Meridian" brand
name, in which the liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an
award from Zions, on the basis of aiding and abetting and other
claims, for monetary damages suffered by victims of a fraud
allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds
a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating
Trustee, et. al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of
Washington, N.A., pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Washington.

Discovery is in process in the Meridian Funds case.

The Company provides a full range of banking and related services
through subsidiary banks in 11 Western and Southwestern states as
follows: Zions First National Bank ("Zions Bank"), in Utah, Idaho
and Wyoming; California Bank & Trust ("CB&T"); Amegy Corporation
("Amegy") and its subsidiary, Amegy Bank, in Texas; National Bank
of Arizona ("NBAZ"); Nevada State Bank ("NSB"); Vectra Bank
Colorado ("Vectra"), in Colorado and New Mexico; The Commerce Bank
of Washington ("TCBW"); and The Commerce Bank of Oregon ("TCBO").
The Parent and its subsidiary banks also own and operate certain
nonbank subsidiaries that engage in financial services.


                              *********

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  * * *